Archive for the ‘Context of Custody Switch’ Category
More on “Veni, Vidi, Vomiti” at BMCC [published Jan. 18, 2011]
(“Vomite” would be an imperative in Latin, if it were a real verb, so I adjusted the ending).
Read my most recent post for some background
This morning, I noticed visitors from three universities (New York, Princeton & Berkeley) had been on my site very recently. The Berkeley visitor was viewing a site featuring some work by Lundy Bancroft, a well-known author books such as “Why does he DO that?” or “The Batterer as Parent.”
I would like to comment upon “Why he (Bancroft, et al.) DOES that” and the concept of “The Batterer as Parent” in a wider perspective of this field of the family law system.
For the former perspective, the short answer is, a combination of from (I’ll still presume) residual good will towards suffering females and their children and, more to the point, for a living.
To recap that, the reasons appear to be:
- He’s probably basically a good guy, which probably put him outside the mainstream (meaning, funding flow) of the family law court professionals, and
- For a living.
See my post “Moms are Parents Too” and read the comment at the bottom, which is an update.
Now, as to the concept “The Batterer As Parent.”
Although assault and battery is a crime (or either one alone) as I understand it, either misdemeanor or felony level, in practice, the family law system acts as an opaque umbrella under which this terminology is really not taken seriously. Not really.
So mothers who take Bancroft & batterer language into a court hearing may be in for a real rude awakening — it’s not welcome overall. Hence, a living has to be made elsewhere, and a name, as I mentioned. Although Mr. Bancroft has in the past presented alongside what I’d call overt “fatherhood” presenters (yeah, I looked that up), I’d say he’s not on the same page, or in the forefront of THAT movement. He and this rhetoric is more like a gnat in its side — definitely not so much as a “thorn in the flesh.”
Obviously, it lands with something of a thud. to solve this, we are encouraged to watch our demeanor more carefully, strategize just so, and not step on too many toes. Don’t pick unnecessary battles, don’t rock the boat, etc.
I believe that anyone telling a mother who has been ass-whupped (or anything approaching it, including emotionally, financially, etc.) in front of her own kids, to advise, do it some more, and all will be well, or this is the ONLY way all will be better than it is now, has a lot of nerve.
Read the rest of this entry »
Alienation Ain’t Going Anywhere —
NOTE: This continues my last post. Curious about Lauren v. Ted, I went and fetched it.
The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement,” Ross wrote in Lauren R. v. Ted R., 203699-02.
To review, the reporter, reviewing the ruling:
Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.” (cite, below)
Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father
I SAID, INCREDULOUS:
Let’s look at ” willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating“:
Did the court order mention not alienating — or was the court order about visitation? One is clear-cut. The other is a psychological assessment, less clear-cut, and gives judges a free license to call in the obedience-training authorities. Whether or not it is “deliberate” or as a consequence of moving on in life, is a matter for a mind-reader. Excuse me, “mental health professional,” a field I no longer respect (and this is probably why).
What kind of world do we (as a culture) want? One of action crimes, or thought (intent-) crimes ?? Guess which one you have here?
Only if the court order specifically SAID “don’t alienate” (which is too broadly worded to be enforceable, anyhow) is “deliberately alienating” a violation of it. However, this appears to be referring to failing to comply with visitation/vacation schedule, but doing it in a mean way. I believe that a Law Journal, of all places, should keep those issues separate. So should stipulations and custody orders, but often they don’t, setting the parents up for repeat litigation.
I wanted to know, was “not alienating” built into the court order (incredible as it seems, the answer is YES, this time. I say, “Houston, we have a problem!”)
Seeing this ruling, I felt readers should see how this is done, and who the judge quoted, and in general pick up on the practice of (OPINION ALERT. The rest of this paragraph is my feelings. Of course, much of this blog is — excepting the data research, charts, dockets posted, and news articles, etc…. But especially this next “rant” is a sound-off)
making custodial mothers (physical custodial/joint-legal) — apparently because they are women — responsible for relationship, even if they’re in a new one. This means, that somehow, any new man in the life, can’t “father” a children if it would, say, jeopardize their previous father. Put this in the pot and see how this blends with the fatherhood crisis. The biological Dad (presumably) is out of the home, and a remarriage has taken place. The systems of laws clearly influential in this ruling, were originally (Or, as slid through Congress) aimed at low-income fathers (which the “access/Visitation” policy literature, not to mention the “fatherhood” literature, assures us is the real problem. If it’s not the REAL Dad in the home, (even if there’s another father figure), those kids are screwed for life. Also, it’s important to encourage LOW-income fathers to be persuaded to pay their child support; and the way to do this has been declared, in policy brief after policy brief, is to use the children as a carrot, removing the child support enforcement as a stick, but keeping it there just in case. Theoretically.
This example is “replete with” language and references exhibiting this policy. While Lauren R. may or may not be a nice person — for all we know, she’s a B _ _ _ ch — the practices stand, and she has been threatened with weekends in jail for her behavior.
My CMA:
LINKING, COPYRIGHTs, Etc. – — the link to this opinion is on yesterday’s post, and here is:
Lauren R. v. Ted R.
NASSAU COUNTY
Family LawNew York Law Journal
June 07, 2010
Copyright © 2010, ALM Properties, Inc.
ALM = “American Lawyer Media”
Let me COMPLETELY CMA (that’s CYA with a pronoun change) on posting so much of this opinion here:
Disclaimers: I believe that posting this is legal and within the copyright use (general, limited) as my link on this blog states. My purpose in posting here is to illustrate, for general purposes and information:
- HOW this judge reasoned,
- how the stipulation was written, and
- who this judge cited, in jailing [or threatening to] an alienating EX, which court personnel were called in — and for how much*** — to get their piece of the action BEFORE she was threatened with jail and/or custody switch (?) (the ultimate threat) and
- What “remedies” are considered available (in NY, here) for Bad Moms (and presumably Bad Dads) in violation of DIVORCE-RELATED CIVIL DECREES
- how GENDER-NEUTRAL, mostly, the “parental alienation” is in theory, but gender-specific, in practice, it seems (my challenge to readers yesterday stands — find me a man treated this way by any court for the same reasons) — and in short,
- HOW our country moved from the “rule of thumb” (diameter of switch with which one could beat one’s wife, hear tell) to the Judiciary rules and case precedents, etc. (remedies for, rather than beating, just emotionally terrorizing into compliance, or making it clear that the authority of the bench could indeed throw more weight around if compliance isn’t good enough for any woman/slut who remarries (or, doesn’t) with kids and doesn’t do it well, etc. . . . . to demonstrate, and set an example (per HIS attorney) of how very few inches forward we have moved in the past century, vis-a-vis mothers who don’t retain their men… . .
(pause to remember the originally intended VERB of this supremely compound subject sentence…..)(oh yeah, it’s coming…)
ARE RELEVANT TO OTHER PARENTS. IT IS VALUABLE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC… As such, I hope I don’t get put in jail for putting this information up.
***“defendant’s counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children’s fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees,”
To obtain the access so as to answer my initial questions (how could “not alienating” be in a court order?? and why wasn’t the custody interference sufficient?), I had to subscribe to this New York Law Journal. So will you, for pay, or as I did “Free Limited Access,” which means that in exchange for free, they collect data from me and can potential send me marketing material. Being in a good mood, I allowed this. “Free” anything, on-line,” is kind of like a FREE lunch, Food Stamps, Free Legal Services, or Free Restraining Order Clinics. Either you pay, or, you fork over some of your data for the privilege of accessing these things. So, I’m not linking the title today — see yesterday’s post — ,because who knows if my particular link leads to my particular self, which I don’t feel like putting on-line today, particularly after some commentary on the judge’s commentary that reading it inspires (like, “causes to well up”) within my soul.
My CMA, ct’d.
From what I can tell on the Permissions page, my purpose here is not any of those listed: I am not republishing it in a book/ebook for educational or promotional use. I am not republishing it in a print or electronic PUBLICATION for informational or promotional use. I am obviously not photocopying it (don’t you, either!) I am not sending it in an email. I am not republishing it in a marketing MATERIAL because I am not marketing anything. I am advised to click HERE for any other potential use, and that “HERE” says that about 3 different entitites (Rightslink(r), Incisive Media, and Copyright Clearance Center.com) are all in on the action of protecting Judicial opinions from being too widespread without someone being paid for this, and able to trace it.
Speaking of DIGITAL CLEARANCE ISSUES . . . Consider this an ALERT. I make it maroon, as it’s a “parenthetical” to this post.
While I am on this topic of DIGITAL CASE INFORMATION (although this is an ALM publication, and the New York Law Journal, something else — opinions are published in it, I gather — and case dockets, caes information totally another category, today, I ran across THIS concern, expressed by a man in Los Angeles. The fine print here is supplemented from some REAL detailed research, related, on the Justice System [All of it, including enforcement Sheriffs, etc.] in Los Angeles County, which he has called an “Extra Constitutional Zone,” while wryly commenting that the similar behavior is found in courts across the country. However, this article is about digital storage of case information, and compromises in the system as a human rights crisis. Read the fine print, he’s right, I bet:
THIS is a VERY brief, readable summary of the situation, which I am still mentally processing, of automated court systems, beginning in the 1980s, 1990s: “COMPUTERIZED or CON-PUTERIZED” (8/18/2010) — thank you, Janet Phelan, and Dr. Zernik. This is momentous — and a separate post…Here’s a clue to the extent of the problem:
Amidst the rumblings that “equal justice under the law” is being applied selectively and unequally, a new charge is now being levied against the courts, coming from an unlikely source. Joseph Zernik, 54, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and former college professor. Born in Israel, Zernik came over to the US in 1983, to attend the University of Connecticut where he subsequently received his Ph.D. in molecular biology He was later to work as a professor –first at the University of Connecticut and later at the University of Southern California. Along the way, he also studied computer systems and orthodontics.
By the way, this is the kind of background — more than social scientists and psychologists (or attorneys) that is likely — when attention is given to the legal processes — and systems — in the courts — that can help us. The analytic and systems expertise (logic, in other words) beats rhetoric and reframing every time. I feel… Marshall McLuhan {1911-1980…hover cursor for descr.}warned us that the MEDIUM was the MASSAGE {hover cursor for descr.}(long ago) — this talks about the impact of the MEDIUM (of digital case records) on our legal process.
Beginning in 2002, Zernik began to scrutinize government and corporate data base systems, first in schools and later in banks and in courts. In 2007, he began researching how court computer systems, such as “Sustain,” installed at the Los Angeles Superior Court and PACER/CM/ECF, installed at the federal courts, have circumvented some of the basic and fundamental processes which we have previously taken as sacrosanct.
Around 1985, the Los Angeles Superior court installed “Sustain” as its first civil case management system, to replace the previous paper-based operations. The federal courts began computerizing their systems around the early nineties, according to a spokesperson for PACER, which is the Public Access system of the federal courts, developed under the guidance of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Actually, the federal court installed TWO systems. One, called PACER, was for general public access. The other system, CM/ECF, is accessible only for the court itself and for court authorized attorneys. However, even on such attorneys restrictions of access were placed and authorization was granted only to view certain records.
In other words, alleges Zernik, there are now two separate systems in place –one for the public and one for the elite tier of lawyers and officers of the court. The courts therefore created two docketing systems, separate and unequal, and asserted the right to segregate persons into one system or the other. As a result, the public right to inspect public documents was severely mitigated. The spokesperson for PACER stated that there were indeed two systems in place, one for public access and one for filing.
Apart from the obvious issues raised by two separate systems which are apparently functioning for different tiers of individuals—the public on one hand and the lawyers and court officers on the other– Zernik uncovered further cause for alarm. When the court systems became computerized, the common law practices also altered, subtly and nearly undetectably. . .
BACK TO NASSAU COUNTY, NY a.k.a.,
How an ANTI-ALIENATION DIVORCE STIPULATION led to a Mom ordered to jail for violating it.
Justice Robert A. Ross
Decided: May 25; 203699-02
The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the “best interest of the child,” when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.
Roughly translated, these two courts’ authority to mess with (alter) either parent’s life continues until all children reach majority, or some other worse event intervenes, which we hope it doesn’t. Think about this when conceiving children. Er– guess that advice is not too practical, how about BEFORE conceiving children.
Parental access, commonly referred to as “visitation,” is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170.
Roughly translated — the word “parent” and “noncustodial parent” obscures the purpose of these rights (rights?) — as seen by why women like me have to write blogs like this. The switch from mother and father to “parent” is not straightforward — it’s obscuring gender bias. Even the Wikipedia definiton of “noncustodial parent” forwards reader to the US Dept. of HHS site, “Fatherhood.hhs.gov” where, after the TOP left square, which reads
2006 Initiative / TANF Reauthorization
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 {{See 1996 for where this originated}} provides funding of $150 million each year for healthy marriage promotion and fatherhood. Up to $50 million each year may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.
{{well, treating ex-wives like this may send a message to women not to, ever, become an ex-wife. Your life may not survive marriage, but it’s equally unlikely to survive leaving a marriage, at least emotionally intact. So in SOME sense, pushing this, nationwide, can — like threat therapy — warn married women not to mess up..This policy, essentially, is the welfare state mentality’s answer to the welfare state mentality, if you can follow the logic there.}}
one can scroll down to
Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support
About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father. The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but
Yeah, a BIG BUTT…
(Bighorn sheep charging) . . . The LAWS. . .. BUT . . . . (in contrast with the LAWS, we have a new concept, FEDERAL FUNDING to STATES to help them develop PROGRAMS….to “help.” They just want to “help”….
the Federal Government does provide states with fundingto assist in the development ofprograms that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.
{{note — though found on “fatherrhood.hhs.gov” this refers to funding to help noncustodial PARENTS. See Dombrowski. See “rightsformothers.com.”. . . I never did see why so many people (women, in particular) fail to acknowledge that these A/V programs are related to the child support system. The federal government says they are….
OK, one more grammar review before i move back to this ruling: This program, the ACCESS VISITATIOn NONCUSTODIAL PARENT and CHILD language, as cited (years ago) on FATHERHOOD.HHS. GOV says it this way. The STATES’ LAWS . . . . BUT the Federal Funding to STates to develop programs. Laws – – — BUT, . . . . Federal Funding. Laws — BUT — Federal Funding (to counteract the laws, to “help” the laws. Well, if the Feds are helping with existing Laws, why then is the word “BUT-T-T-T-T needed to describe the system?? . . . Also, (convenientlly for this end), motherhood.gov doesn’t mention to mothers going into the courts to look here for the 2nd half of the States Laws (which they focus on), BUT > T > T > T…
I’m driving this in, because what follows here is full of legal cites, and precedent, to justify the situation. But his language will soon reveal, alienation, alienation, alienation . . . .
In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:
1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;
2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law 750,753;
3. Tort action for custodial interference;
4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240
While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.
Note. I’m not checking the cites. Any attorney should. What the heck is “Judiciary law?” (above). And I’ve never heard of a TORT for custodial interference, I thought family law was out of the realm of torts. Maybe NY is different than the other coast, where I live. But, if it was the same, it would still take an indignant judge to sign an order.
I love the ‘While . . . . physical danger [See, “Girl, Interrupted” Kristin Stillman] [“phsyical danger might cause a child to die, or suffer injury, (by contrast, this language says, a far , far worse) ALIENATING A CHILD is NEFARIOUS!! and requires immediate, comprehensive remediation. {{see “DastardlyDads.blogspot.com” for what is NOT “nefarious conduct,” per judges}} I also have to “love” the judge’s dismissal of “most factually apparent ground” in favor of “punishing a recalcitrant parent.” So much for “best interests of the child” — the motived is to punish a recalcitrant parent…. I’ve never heard “recalcitrant” used of an adult before. It means, literally, to “kick back.” Merriam-Webster definition give an Antonym (opposite) as the desirable state of women in this culture, this world, and with the help of judges, precedents, Federal programs, and rulings like this, surely they will return to this Edenic state:
Good grief!!! Recalcitrant has been used (in this example) of an employee, and a youth. Well, welcome, parents, to that category! The problem with recalcitrance is, a parent becomes:
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….
Any sentence starting with “While” followed by data, or a statement of a situation, etc., is setting up the reader to consider that data LESS important than what follows, while declaring to the reader that this author at least weighed the pros and cons, but feels that the “while” side is less important than what’s upcoming. For a great example of this, look above, and the 2006 Access Visitation program blurb doing essentiall the same thing, only in a “This BUT that format.” “access/visitation is a matter of State & family law, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT funds programs. . . . . etc.” Here, since the part in the while section is going to be overcome, it is vaguely worded and only gets one cite, prob ably someone suing the City of NY over a disastrous custody situation result. Maybe I’ll look it up. If this was a death, and this judge referred to that death as “the consequential future effect of this determination,” what does that say about this judge’s decision-making process?
Check out this case — and how UNrelated it is , on the surface, to the divorce case here: My cites (I’m not an attorney) are not 95 NY2d 95,100 (which sounds like an opinion), but show which case was cited. The divorce here resulted from a NY Medical Examiner’s initial diagnosis as an infant death as homicide by blunt instrument head trauma. At the time, the couple was married, and put through hell, particularly the father, who was fingered for this. Later, a re-examination of the child’s brain showed a brain aneurysm. Lauer v. City of NY sued over this. At the very high risk of losing reader’s attention here, I’m going to cite the (UNpublished) opinion on-line, so we see what the 10 words preceding a Supreme Court judge’s proclamation that willful interference with a custody order raises a strong probablility of parental unfitness:
2 No. 59
Edward G. Lauer,
Respondent,
v.
City of New York, et al.,
Appellants.
2000 NY Int. 62
May 16, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
Julian L. Kalkstein, for appellants.
Peter James Johnson, Jr., for respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
On this appeal we revisit a familiar subject: whether a member of the public can recover damages against a municipality for its employee’s negligence. Here we answer that question in the negative.
The Facts
Three-year-old Andrew Lauer died on August 7, 1993. That same day, Dr. Eddy Lilavois, a New York City Medical Examiner, performed an autopsy and prepared a report stating that the child’s death was a homicide caused by “blunt injuries” to the neck and brain. Although the report indicated that the brain was being preserved for further examination, the following day a death certificate was issued stating that Andrew’s death was a homicide. Based on the Medical Examiner’s conclusion, the police began investigating what they thought was a homicide, focusing primarily on plaintiff, Andrew’s father. Weeks later, on August 31, 1993, the Medical Examiner and a neuropathologist conducted a more detailed study of Andrew’s brain. The report, prepared in October 1993, indicated that a ruptured brain aneurysm caused the child’s death, thus contradicting the earlier conclusion. The Medical Examiner, however, failed to correct the autopsy report or death certificate, and failed to notify law enforcement authorities.
Meanwhile, the police department’s investigation into Andrew’s death continued. Some 17 months later, in March 1995, after a newspaper exposé, the autopsy findings were revised, the police investigation ceased and an amended death certificate was prepared. As a result of this incident, the City Medical Examiner who had conducted the examination resigned.
Plaintiff and his estranged wife subsequently commenced separate actions. Lisa Lauer’s action against the City of New York and Dr. Lilavois, seeking damages for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, was dismissed. In affirming the dismissal, the Appellate Division held that her allegations failed to establish “that she fell within any recognized orbit of duty upon which liability may be based” (see, Lauer v City of New York, 240 AD2d 543, 544, lv denied , 91 NY2d 807). {{ALWAYS RECOGNIZE THAT “ORBIT OF DUTY ON WHICH LIBABILITY MAY BE BASED.”}}
In the present action seeking $10 million in damages against the City of New York, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lilavois and the Police Department, plaintiff alleges defamation, violation of his civil rights, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claims that defendants’ conduct–including the Medical Examiner’s negligent performance of the autopsy, failure to correct the erroneous report and death certificate, and failure to disclose that Andrew’s death was not a homicide–“precipitated the destruction of [his] marriage * * * forced him to sell his home and leave his neighborhood, and caused him to become the object of public scorn, humiliation, ridicule, embarrassment, harassment and contempt throughout the City of New York.” He further alleges that he “sustained severe and debilitating emotional distress, emotional anguish, anxiety and mental suffering.”
On defendants’ motion, Supreme Court dismissed the defamation and civil rights causes of action, but allowed plaintiff to pursue his emotional distress claims. A divided Appellate Division modified Supreme Court’s order (see, 258 AD2d 92). All of the Justices agreed that the defamation and civil rights claims were properly dismissed. They also unanimously concluded that plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim warranted dismissal; that any causes of action based on performance of the initial autopsy were immunized as a governmental exercise of discretion; and that the Medical Examiner’s failure to correct the reports and accurately inform the authorities were “ministerial” acts. The Appellate Division divided, however, as to whether plaintiff could maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on those ministerial acts, a majority concluding that he could.
I don’t know if this was a custodial-father case, but the judge citing it here is TWO parents suing the city for damages on the basis of a Medical Examiner’s mistake, and failure to inform them of it. Wife was estranged at the time her appeal was she in 1993? Certainly there are more relevant cases in NY since then, however this judge cites one referring to an infant’s death, bad enough, being deemed a homicide, and tearing up the family’s subsequent decade as “consequential effect” before getting down to business, which is going to be ordering a recalcitrant, alienating ex-wife to jail. Here’s the sentence, again:
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….
inasmuch as a Court’s finding of willful interference “per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit” (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), whena pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conductmust [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.
Apparently 4 cites re: alienation are given. 4 to 1, weighing in on the nefariousness of alienation, and it as a basis for action in subsequent custody/parent access proceedings. Wonder if any of those involved a woman as the injured party..
I too think that parents unable to comply with custody orders EXCEPT for good cause (like, death threats — google “Judge Lemkau,” in California, or similar cases in almost any of the 50 states). However, in my case, it meant nothing, even though I’d been repeatedly bringing this up, and myself as a custodial parent (sole physical only) was fit, and never deemed unfit, til — when complying with a court order, my kids disappeared — overnight. And no court or law enforcement (or anyone else) did anything about it. That principle haveing been now thoroughly established, no subsequent court orders were obeyed more than coincidentally, including custody/visitation. At this time, I knew nothing of these programs to help with “Access/visitation” although I specifically (a year before kids were taken) asked a judge for a safer exchange alternative. . . .. However LAUREN & TED’s court order/Stip. is so vague and overbroad as to be ridiculous. At least the part cited here.
The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O’ bdoherty@chat.nyc.amlaw.corp Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. {{HOWEVER}} Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be “an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding – – the “strong likelihood of unfitness” becomes a “factor” that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.
Parental alienation is tied with UNFITNESS as a factor, although res judicata on alienation cannot be an issue in this custody change (as I get it). I tried to llok up “Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d (etc.) but so far, it’s mostly this case, a slap in the face that lists the wife as the “Ex-Wife from hell” and is featured on “Parental Alienation Canada.” Father’s Rights groups are rejoicing, and someone even took out a “laurenlippe.com” website where you can see the collateral press damage. Maybe I jumped on the wrong bandwagon here, but I am reading that divorce stipulation, and it just doesn’t look fair.
Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006;
{{At least this is honest, and says “Father” and not just “parent”}}
Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769. Under the circumstances of this case, this Court’s finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children’s best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.
J.R. Johnston is probably Janet Johnston. I have a post (older) of Lundy Bancroft debating some of her assessments as failing to identify potential abuse — on this blog.
So much to say, so little time. Well, I told you, “Alienation” ain’t going anywhere!
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties’ children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. {{Parts A 7 Parts B}} The Court granted defendant’s motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.
If she dished out hell, surely this scheduled was some of it back. How could a single hearing occupy so many days? Because someone can pay an attorney to be there, constantly? or two attorneys? And they put the rest of us through hell/mediation because the courts are clogged? 12 hearings in 4 months, summer 2008, then a year break (no summer vacation for THIS custodial mother with her kids), a ruling Sept. 2008 ordering a hearing and a year break. A hearing Sept. 2009, a season off court and 10 hearings in TWO months…Poor people don’t get this, but this is affecting poor people.
The parties’ Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from “alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant,” or to “hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so.” Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children’s education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to “exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact,” “to foster a feeling of affection,” and not to “do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children’s opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children’s love and affection for the [Defendant].”
I think most cases are set up for failure from the start. Mine was. Domestic violence precipitated the separation (no divorce action even involved. Despite this, frequent visitation (more than frequent), and so vaguely written a visitation order as to guarantee difficulties around exchanges. Joint legal custody — one cannot do “joint legal custody” with an abuser; there is no “we” anywhere in there. Case in point, the DV. Even before divorce was ever initiated we were handled as though it was just a family squabble, even though a restraining order AND kickout was granted.
Here, Ted apparently was fore-armed to protect any “emotional abuse” by how it was worded. Her own divorce stipulation had a strict prohibition on it, worded in very similar terms to a restraining order; in fact, it in effect was one. The phrase “or cause otehrs to do so,” is in protective orders. If we were a fly on the wall, and read the whole stipulation, would there be ANY prohibitions on the father? The admonition to “both” parents not to estrange the children’s opinion of the Father” is a contradiction. Why would the Father estrange his own children? That makes no sense. The stipulation “not to do ANYTHING which MAY estrange the children from (Dad) or injure their opinion of the Fatehr” — good grief. A woman is to predict their possible response to anything she does or says, at all? How can a court order a party to “foster a feeling of affection.” Define, please !!!
To sustain the defendant’s application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party’s rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both.
In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties’ stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.
. . . .
THE COURT’S ROLE IN ADDRESSING ALIENATION
Differing “alienation” theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent’s relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a “parent’s ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child,” a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the “interference with the non-custodial parent and child’s relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent.” See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793.
Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent’s right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009].
. . .
“In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007”
This is approximately one month and some weeks. It is NOTHING compared to what mothers have suffered, often for years, and often without remedy. While it’s wrong, I note that the father filed an OSC by December 14th, and got action on it quickly. I wonder, in those many, many hearings, whether Mom got to testify at all.
Here’s a paragraph of the judge judging her by her emotional affect in the courtroom, and interpreting it:
Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant’s role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant – – notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance – – hesitating and defensive – – with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. ***The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant’s joint custodial arrangement into farce.<+> The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible.<*>
She is wrong for being off-balance, hesitating, defensive (this is a hearing of a contempt, and protesting it is her proper stance as a litigant! Being “defensive” isn’t wrong in this situation! And anyone might hesitate in giving an answer in court! Particularly a mother being grilled…
However, a judge throwing around psychological interpretations and language, as if they were FACT (“answers that dovetailed to narcissism or a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct.”) — this is testimony outside his expertise. (Unless he switched “effects” to “affects”). He’s trying to sound psychological, and misused the words: “Affects” characterize people, not conduct. He’s over-reaching, and over-interpreting. Here’s yet another evidence of “interpretation” of effect (results) as per se being evidence of a single cause, when most effects of any sort can have more than one, or multiple contributing causes:
The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet “their” demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother’s therapist
Is it possible that they were angry because they could not attend F.A. or wanted to participate in therapy? While as minors, they do not get to “demand” anything of their father as a condition of visitation, this judge states that their anger is evidence per se of efforts to alienate.
I’d be sullen too, in any such hearing. But this judge holds it against her. The sentence between *** and <+> makes no sense. The litany was from the father. So, if the “litany” turned (repression of joint custody) into something, then the “litany” was the agent of making a farce. A litany is a religious term, and involves recitation.
“The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein was daunting” — i.e., Poor, brave, Dad, enduring severe emotional pain by having to recount how many times his rights were disregarded.
Poor brave Dad brought the custody action; someone helped this hearing on — and on, but recounting facts is innate to bringing any action. Also, I wonder why these facts weren’t simply written out in a Declaration supporting the OSC. Why the courtroom drama? No kudos to him for having to recount his own emotional pain. The grammar goes like this, of that sentence: “The endurance . . . . . was indefensible.” Endurance is good. The situation requiring this endurance is what the judge considers indefensible. ENDURANCE — good. INDEFENSIBLE — bad. Basically, the judge is offended.
In this paragraph “reading” the mother, the judge has mis-used “affects” and “litany,” diagnosed “narcissism” (without quoting the counselors in the case, assuming one was actually qualified to diagnose, and had done so, but based on HIS reading of it) and is starting to get his words mixed up. Maybe that’s one of his “affects.” Selfishness is a character trait. “Narcissism” is a different, more extreme term so over-used, it’s almost become meaningless except to reveal a speaker who thinks him- or herself a psychiatrist. DSM has become mainstreamed in MSM (mainstream media) and shows up in legal opinions. to lend an air of expertise or authority.
These kids will probably do OK, relative to others in similar predicaments. I bet they are fed, and they are well-educated. Consider (evidence of a contempt):
Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that “it was not her responsibility to make plans for T.”
Daughter “D.” is in a youth orchestra which performed in Alice Tulley Hall/Lincoln Center. Whatever else goes on between her parents (and stepdad) she has exposure to some other youth musicians, concertizing, and probably is able to talk with these kids as well. She will likely go to college and have a good shot at life as an adult. The “parental alienation” promotion was (ostensibly!) not aimed at families of this income level, though clearly emotional abuse affects everyone. I have seen worse behavior among rich people than poor, it seems, and the specialty can be forms of emotional abuse. . . . . In this particular incident, it seems to me that as a joint legal custodial parent, the father, being aware of this concert, might have texted the Mom — I’d like to see her afterwards, rather than just assumed he would, although certainly that was a reasonable assumption, that kids would stay. However, as these are elementary aged kids (or were, at some point in time, there may have been any number of reasons for leaving before it was out, even despite staff instructions.).
I omitted the central narrative, including accusations of breast-fondling and CPS involvement, which was met with retaliation for reporting by CPS.
From “Parental Alienation Canada” – the ex-wife from hell
Lippe [ALLEGEDLY] often went nuclear,
launching foul-mouthed tirades at Ted Rubin in front of the girls
— calling him a “deadbeat,” “loser,” “scumbag” and “f – – – ing asshole.”
Just wanted to note: what was the standard of proof in these hearings? Because when facts are quoted minus the attribution, by a judge (i.e., who said them) they become facts, in effect. Interpreting the word “deadbeat” was brought up — who paid for music lessons? Was this a stay-at-home Mom, or a working one?
In the relationships between people to psychologize without reference to what actually happened, in its larger context, is definitely tricky ground. In a custody switch to this Dad, is he working FT and remarried? Who would care for them during the week if not? Would they then lose any child support he was paying, or is she capable of putting in for it? Did any of this make the hearing (I’d bet not).
AGAIN, my blogging here is not to say this was a nice Mom or he was a bad Dad. She has plenty of hate mail, all over the internet, and I haven’t actually found a single positive word anywhere. So, I took the opposing side, and wanted to know how the jail thing happened to this women, but men who do worse, and go on to murder, are sprung from jail. Let’s get real about this system. The reality of their initial stipulation is, it was outrageous. that’s where the damage occurred.
Well, this is a 7,000 word post, and that’s enough for one post. Again — plenty of mothers are no longer seeing their kids, court order or no court order. What are our bankrupt options?
“Rethinking Domestic Violence” ~ “Understanding Women’s Responses to it” — the Dueling Dr. Duttons
Another half-baked (but also likely half-entertaining/informative) post from 08-21-2010.
These situations are so ridiculous, anything other than (a) mocking or (b) exposing the court dockets makes me feel like a collaborator. To be honest, part of my motivation is to simply not lose the time I put into this one, looking up data. Another part is to cover up the prior half-baked (Wacko in Wisconsin Part 2) post I just published.
One thing that’s NOT half-baked is the systems in place to justify trafficking in children, one way or another, at public expense, and then when this is brought to the public’s attention (or the public tries to bring it to the government’s attention) the same personnel (probably laughing and rejoicing among themselves) simply pick a “boilerplate” demonstration grant from one of the many already in place, change a few nouns and verbs, and apply for some more grants to study the problem they’ve created — one of which is, poverty.
This is NOT a half-baked system, but a fully-cooked business plan. More on that later…
Another which is, language is becoming meaningless, at some point. ….
HERE WE GO, AGAIN:
Which would you rather understand (or Rethink) —
- Domestic Violence? Or
- Women’s Responses to it? (1992-93, but quoted plenty, along with other publications) Or,
- Thinking Errors that Cause System Failure, * Or,
(*from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence recent conference in Anaheim, CA)?
- This Woman’s (my!) Response to the Thinking Error that Assumes the System actually IS Failing (I believe it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. The “failure” depends on one’s POV (point of view). For example, if I sell you some land under the Brooklyn Bridge, I profited and you didn’t. Long ago some people sold the Island of Manhattan. That was not profitable for them. Another flavor of what I think is on the link above advertising for the NCADV conference where this occurred. Scroll down to LetsGetHonest comment on the whole deal.
The two Doctor Duttons are not, in fact dueling, and may or may not even be dealing with each other. But their Research — and by now we should know our 3 Rs: Research comes with Rhetoric, Right?
One thing both of them are doing, as well as researching, is publishing (this IS what Ph.D.s do, right?), and unlike women and men stuck in the court system, or violent relationships (or poverty), not perishing. Even though, if YOUR life depended on knowing which was more correct thinking, they would stil probably continue to research, publish, and not perish. IN fact, both are prominent, and what they write is worth reading, probably. Anyone who has got to Ph.D. had better publish.
One thing EVERY woman in a battering relationship, especially with children, and about to go for help, ro to the courts, or a child support order, or to a nonprofit agency on one side or the other of rhetoric, is the difference of viewpoint. Women have been so socialized to go for help (particularly in certain religions), they just MISS this. Others are also socialized to be punished if they stand up and just demand it, i.e., Claudine Dombrowski et al.
Take, for example, Claudine Dombrowski.
If experts were selling books that comprised almost SOLELY of the case dockets of women’s lives after they reported abuse and actually had a child, probably the abuse would just dang STOP.
Here’s the court docket in Shawnee Kansas — it is fourteen and a half years long. The next hearing is set for october. The last hearing (yesterda [@Aug. 2010]y), she STOOD UP and reported 67 contempts of a recent court order (allowing her to see her daughter). While that contempt is not severe emotional cruelty bordering on the torture (beatings) that started the case (batter, parental alienation, interference with a custody order, or in short a pattern of simply bad behavior), Claudine’s actually going to court with the paperwork must be smacked down SOMEHOW. I”m not quite sure what bad behavior Claudine showed this time, but it seems they grabbed her cell phone. Being that she’s also been noncustodial most of the time (i gather) I’m sure her finances are being grabbed to pay child support for this circus.
It is possible to be punished for a sort of gag order that prohibits one from exercising one from exercising First Amendment Rights, to protest in justice. The place this is SO o o o . . . . easy is when a psychologist, or mental health professional, particularly anyone relating to a CHILD, is involved:
08/20/2010 – MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter proceeds on review of Court’s order of January 28, 2010, establishing unsupervised parenting time for Respondent. Dr. Rodeheffer offers testimony – matter continued to a date to be agreed upon for additional testimony. Court finds that Dr. Rodeheffer’s report of May 18, 2010, has been published on the website of Respondent. Court suspends Respondent’s parenting time pending final hearing in this matter. Respondent’s counsel is to review Respondent’s cell phone to determine if there are images of report on Respondent’s cell phone – Respondent’s phone time with minor child to continue but to Petitioner’s home phone. Due to publication of report on the Internet, which deals with minor child, Court finds that there is a privacy interest of the minor child that is central to these proceedings and outweighs the public interest and orders that the files, records, and transcripts of the case be sealed until further order of the Court. J. Dykes to do order. DBD
Here’s one from April, 2009:
03/20/2009 – #86 Demand Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE BIAS AND PREJUDICE TOWARDS RESPONDENT 03/20/2009 – Journal Entry filed. DBD 03/24/2009 – ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FILED – DBD. 04/06/2009 – MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, for minor child who is not present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Respondent withdraws motion for recusal of Judge. Court considers evidence offered through affidavit and stipulations of the parties and after listening to arguments of counsel, finds that Judge Johnson on September 27, 2006, ordered “Respondent to withdraw any and all likenesses of the minor child over which she had control that may be appearing on the internet or other public places or public access and further that Respondent was ordered not to present child at public rallies, demonstrations, newscast or otherwise publicize the child’s name or likeness in furtherance of Respondent’s efforts in the instant case”. Court found 1) based on incidents detailed in the affidavit and the stipulations of the parties that Respondent had violated the Court’s order by intentionally placing photographs of the minor child on Respondent’s website and to links accessible through the Respondent’s website and to websites that the Respondent was either maintaining or contributing to; 2) that as of April 4, 2009, the photographs of the minor child were still accessible; 3) that as of April 6, 2009, the photographs were not accessible. Court finds Respondent to be in Indirect Contempt. In mitogation, Respondent offers that photos were part of a family tribute to her deceased grandmother. Court fines Respondent $1,500 and orders her to serve 30 days in jail. Court allows Respondent to purge herself of the contempt by removing all photos, likenesses and name of minor child from the internet or any other public place or public access on which she has control by April 15, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney fees of $600 for prosecuting the motion to show cause, Respondent is ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation by a Psychiatrist. Respondent is prohibited from filing any motions on her own unless the motion is signed by her attorney or she obtains permission of the Court prior to filing. Parenting time as previously ordered – 2 hours supervised visitation per week through Odyssey Group. Respondent currently has a P.O. Box and does not wish to disclose her address. Court ordered, and Respondent agrees, that any filing mailed to her P.O. Box shall be deemed personal service. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD 04/24/2009 – REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
The Publishing and Not Perishing Perspective is very different from the others.
The Profiting or nonprofiting from being expert on these matters is very different from the others.
The topic of adjusting Thinking Errors (or understanding them) is very definitely swampland — and where the solid ground is very probably depends on IRrational belief systems. Do you want to correct thinking errors based on information from The Holy Spirit? Then go to Dr. Abshier, ND (Naturopathic doctor, Christian Counselor, Political Philosopher).
1) Thinking Errors: Processing Problems, Irrational Beliefs, Irrational Thinking, and Self-Defeating Beliefs: There are many nuances and variations of the various cognitive distortions. They all include some degree of error in perception, proportion, meaning, processing and judgment: The thinking errors include: irrational beliefs about cause and effect, erroneous attributions of meaning, and wrong philosophical connections about the larger play of life in history and politics.
I happen to think his fields are interrelated — a nice combo: Naturapath (do it how the Creator designed it, or as close as possible; Christian Counselor (do it how the Creator designed it, hmm… is he fundie, or fatherhood promoter? conservative or liberal?? Was Eve responsible? Was she inferior? Did Jesus change that? What’s the domination quotia in this one?) and Political Philosopher. – – I just hope he can keep them all straight and segregated during counseling.
Are you a “design, quality, or manufacturing engineer or manager,” who needs to understand why people, unlike materials, often screw up, causing system failure? Then take this 2 – 4-day organization/management course:
Eogogics.com (“the science of knowledge sharing”)
Root Cause Analysis of Component Failure: Understanding Human and Engineering Factors for Improved Product Performance.
Design, test, and maintenance engineers; failure analysts; technical purchasing agents and supplier quality engineers; and engineering managers looking to integrate the lessons of failure analysis into a more comprehensive design operation, and procurement process
The standard presentation of this course assumes background in mechanical or materials (metallurgical) engineering. However, with some tailoring, the course can be understood by an audience with a bachelor’s in any engineering discipline
Are you a Computer Software person who doesn’t want to see another Y2K bug scare? Or a plain old person who wants to know why we had to go through that? Then go to:
Systems Failure is a role-playing game written by Bill Coffin and published by Palladium Books in 1999. The fictional premise for the game is that during the “millennium bug” scare . . .
A report investigating the causes of system failure in a software context, and highlighting and classifying those causes.
The Google search of this shows a title remarkably similar to the NCADV conference title, above:
Understanding System Failure And The Thinking Errors Which Cause · International Space Station’s Cooling System Failure Raises Long …
scitechbox.com/topic/system–failure – Cached
Which I find interesting, and revealing. For one, how original is the thought coming out of it? For another, systems that systematically fail to do what they SAY they want to do may have had another intent to start with. Either that, or two types of systems may have merged, and the antibodies in the one rejected the other, causing “System failure.”
Actually, this is exactly what happened in the family law system. You cannot add JUSTICE based on PROCESS based on Constitution and Bill of Rights with Mental Health Practitioners (for one, it’s illegal to experiment on human beings, and abhorrent. For another, IS psychology a science? I say, no. It’s a language set and interpretation of reality….). The Family Law system is a merger of (at least) two systems — legal & mental health. That’s simple fact — see AFCC. The other “invisible agent” in the matter (unless one has eyes to see it) is the child support system, i.e., the financial factor. That’s another fact — see “Access Visitation Funding” and a site ending *.gov.
So this system is indeed a hybrid — like a mule. Mules are great for work, strong and stubborn, but they have to be bred — they are sterile and can’t reproduce. They get a lot of work done, though… Same deal with this system. It CANNOT reproduce justice with a bunch of immune-to-accountability and READILY subject to conflict of interest (or bribes) professionals, and private clubs and conferences where they meet and prepare a strategy to throw on the whole system.
Perhaps by now readers have figured out MY system, and that I am playing games with Google in order to show similar phrases in different contexts (applications). That happens to be MY response to a decade in this system. It’s part of my STOP, LOOK and MOCK policy (see above post responding to the Thinking Errors post). I really do hope some will STOP, LOOK , and THINK. It beats rocking back and forth in a chair with grief, or shaking with PTSD, or sitting within range of someone who has now determined that such behavior is a thinking error which needs an Rx — which one of their business allies has been marketing. It makes me happy, and with luck, will offend someone and cause a quick BLINK of THINKING about what such systems have done to our Constitution and Courts.
Here’s one that’s a little closer to the topic — someone analyzing PTSD patient’s / trauma survivors’ “Thinking Errors.”
[PDF]
THINKING ERRORS THAT LEAD TO FAULTY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ONE’S ROLE …
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
We have identified fifteen thinking errors that can lead trauma survivors to draw faulty … Obliviousness to totality of forces that cause traumatic events. … Failure to recognize that different decision-making “rules” apply when time is …. have conscious control over their autonomic nervous system. …
This ARTICLE IS 1997, .
Handout 10.4: Thinking Errors, Faulty Conclusions, and
Cognitive Therapy for Trauma-Related Guilt by Edward S. Kubany, Ph.D., ABPP
Published in National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinical Quarterly (1997, 8, 6-8). Reprinted in Trauma Response (1998, 4, 20-21). This article is in the public domain.
THE FIRST PAGE IS INFORMATIVE:
“There is growing recognition that trauma survivors’ explanations of their involvement in trauma may contribute to posttrauma symptomatology and interfere with the process of recovery (1,2,3). These explanations often revolve around cognitive aspects of guilt, which is conceptualized as an unpleasant feeling accompanied by a set of interrelated beliefs about one’s role in a negative event (2,4,5). My colleagues and I have identified four cognitive dimensions or components of guilt, which include (a) perceived responsibility for causing a negative outcome, (b) perceived lack of justification for actions taken, (c) perceived violation of values, and (d) a belief that one knew what was going to happen before the outcome was observed.
Considering this Cognitive Therapy, which correlates trauma such as combat veterans, rape victims, battered women, and incest survivors, — the latter three which FREQUENTLY are in this system — addressing the trauma and helping them correct thinking errors saying they were responsible for it — and, on the other hand, the Family Law (and sometimes Family) systems which, quite literally, blame the woman for her abuse (or minimize it), blame her for not maintaining a child’s attachment to the other parent (but fail to do this the other way round when a noncustodial Dad has won a custody switch in court) can cause some real Cognitive Dissonance (and more business for other therapists). Let me express this as a formula:
TRAUMA-BASED HEALING APPROACH + FAMILY COURT PICK A PARENT TO BLAME approach = INCOMPATIBLE = CYCLE OF DISTRESS = GOOD FOR $OME BU$INESSE$.
Add to this:
This therapist just said, trauma victims can NOT predict outcomes (so much for instinct, let alone pure prophecy). I don’t agree – I accurately predicted my daughters were going to be snatched, based on instinctive and ongoing assessment of the patterns around me. They were. I couldn’t predict exactly when or how, and I didn’t have the wherewithal to stop this. I accurately understood before it happened that the officers were not going to enforce, stop, or help, but there comes a point of overload of situations when one cannot process them all and handle them all.
A major business to the courts these days IS in exactly the business of prediction. It’s called Lethality Assessment, and it’s been around a very long time. I don’t share that point of view, because it’s my life, and kids (and women like me) whose lives are being risk-assessed. I’d rather go with PROTECTION (WHICH A RESTRAINING ORDER, FYI, ISN’T, REALLY).
Imagine applying the “risk prediction” process to something as important as, say, getting (someone) pregnant.
Mary Ann Dutton
Professor, Department of PsychiatryPSYCHIATRY, RESEARCH DIVISION
Mary Ann Dutton, PhD, Receives Grant
Mary Ann Dutton, PhD, Receives Three Year Grant from National Institutes of Mental Health
Mary Ann Dutton, Professor of Psychiatry and Associate Director of the Center for Trauma and the Community, received an R34 grant entitled A First-Line Community-Based Mindfulness Trauma Intervention from the National Institute of Mental Health. The study, which will run for three years, addresses an important new area in trauma.
The overall goal is to address the huge mental health care disparity for low-income, minority women exposed to intimate partner violence by obtaining new knowledge and skills in order to develop and test an accessible, tailored, and culturally-appropriate mindfulness-based intervention sustainable as a first-line intervention or delivery in non-mental health community settings. To narrow the remarkable mental health disparities gap, three interrelated studies using different methodologies will be conducted to develop and pilot test an adapted mindfulness-based trauma intervention. The proposal has three specific aims 1) to develop a mindfulness-based trauma intervention for PTSD and other trauma-related psychological (depression, somatic symptoms, quality of life). Intervention development will include writing intervention and training manuals, developing measures of intervention fidelity, and pre-piloting the intervention for feasibility and accountability; 2) to pilot test the interventions with low-income, predominately African-American women exposed to intimate partner violence and to examine potential mediators (mindfulness, coping self-efficacy, social support) of improved outcomes, and 3) to pilot test measures of the cost of administering the intervention. This pilot study will provide preliminary data for a rigorous large scale clinical trial to examine both self-report and biological outcomes of the mindfulness-based trauma intervention.
/
OR, you could go with another “Dr. Dutton” — here:
http://www.drdondutton.com/books.htm
Rethinking Domestic Violence
“Dutton’s analysis of domestic violence research and discourse is comprehensive, refreshing, and enlightened. He has gathered the latest work from multiple disciplines to create a volume that will surely be a cornerstone of a radical, distinctly feminist rethinking of domestic violence practice.” More…
Printed in Canada
Cover design: David Drummond
GIVE ME A BREAK. If he was an imminent target of DV (or his kids were), there’d be less publishing and more protecting.
Both Duttons have valuable things to say — and when I feel truly safe, I’ll be sure to read them. Maybe.
Wacko in Wisconsin — and no, I’m NOT talking about the Parents/Litigants (published 9/15/2010, updated 7/21/2017)
Nowadays (posts published = about 715 as of summer 2017), this is how I identify posts:
Types of updates: When you see quotes within solid borders (boxed), quotes with different background colors, the borders on the post itself, or comments with dates signed: “…//LGH 2017 (LGH= “Let’s Get Honest,” i.e., me). Also the added section in light-green showing several images for some of the links (I didn’t do screenprints, let alone annotated screenprints in 2010. In general, I’m trying to better distinguish actual quotes from my commentary on them, through formatting. Wordpress doesn’t naturally enable this, so each time you see it, I’m plowing through html “gibberish” for the specific codes, and tweaking them by “div” or “blockquote” or “span” or “Table.” This takes considerable time… For image display, the “WYSIWYG” (What You See is What You Get” function is imperfect, so there’s a lot of back and forth (edit, preview, adjust, preview again, etc.) on the layout.
There may be a more efficient way to do all this, but until then, and still being basically a self-taught amateur for blogging technology, and more to the point, still just one person (focused more on content than format), that’s how it works.)… I spent some time on this post also checking for and, where possible, replacing broken links. ….. some quotation / commentary notations towards the bottom are “best guess” where I no longer had valid links.
Why bother updating older posts? — Well, the other part of this one just got five more comments, so that’s why. The other reason is the types of people that are visiting the post, based on (html-based visitor ID software) some of the organization names. In 2016 and 2017 I’ve been hard-hitting at higher levels of organized networks (nonprofit and governmental as coordinated) on on following the money, and showing how to, also giving people again, permission to question any or all of the “experts” in any category, but with the platform and basis for doing so being objective, and on “operations” level. So, although they aren’t commenting much, visitors show up from various universities (incl. Harvard), or levels of government (esp. from California, where I live and on which blogs tend to focus), and overseas (London School of Economics at least a few times, Legislative Offices, President’s Offices at UC, and so forth). Sometimes these visitors seem to match what was being posted, sometimes, not.
And other times, I have to admit, it’s just to avoid humiliation in retrospect at the formatting/condition of the earlier posting.
There was a “Part 2” on this theme published 10/1/2010:
Picking up the narrative at Oct. 1, 2010…
I dare you to make some sense of this one: Actually, by now, there are about 4 cases below: Walkers (they squeaked in, in my intro), Archibalds, Stearns (thrown in for illustration), Katz, and that one’s a doozie. ALL of them are…What’s UP in Wisconsin?
Among the “parents” involved are <>the “Bodway” family who managed to get a daughter away from a mother after divorce, being nonrelatives; <>a mother who is caught, and on probation and medication for stealing her own daughters (and drugs and a gun involved– the drugs were antidepressants for her, and the gun, not fired, was for her safety, she said), and I’m going to presume that PROBABLY <>that prominent WI D.A. who was prosecuting a DV case and trying to make it (sexting was involved) with a woman half his age, while prosecuting her boyfriend for attempting to strangle her while still married (but divorcing) probably was a parent too.
SO . .
If you still think life as normal exists somewhere within our courts, then this blogger (who I suspect is the woman in question) will sound like a nutcase. And it’s easy to discredit someone whose allegations sound like a nutcase –unless one has spent some time looking up the court dockets, which I did here.
THE WALKER CASE IS A WALKING CASE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST– PARTIAL:, here.
He’s a violinist, she’s a violinist & mother & in jail, (update adds Ohio Judge deciding US-Saudi custody issues)
Get out your violin and play the sob story for this professional musician Dad, although it’s the professional violinist MOM who was jailed by a NJ (Bergen County) family law judge who QUICKLY bought his sob story.
OR. . . . get out some old-fashioned file cards and read the other side of this story, and take note of the biased language of reporting.
Remember those mothers whose own “sob stories” were NOT heard, and they are finding America a less and less safe place to live.
The United States of America sure knows how to make friends overseas, by telling other countries how to handle child abuse & divorce, or fork over the Moms.
I voted today. there were a FEW women on the ballot, and some of them got my vote.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/violinist_to_remain_in_jail_until_0dz5SWpINvLazKd7hJIdRJ
Violinist to remain in jail until kids returned: judge By KIRSTEN FLEMING Last Updated: 2:17 PM, May 28, 2010 Posted: 2:16 PM, May 28, 2010 Comments: 9 | More Print
A globetrotting violinist who was arrested in Guam months ago after she absconded with her two young children in South Korea will remain behind bars until the children are returned home, a Bergen County judge said today. “She remains arrested under my orders,” said Judge Alexander H Carver, of Si Nae-Shim, who did not appear in court.
{{well, “duhhh….” — she’s in jail. THAT’s real 4th Amendment conscious..}}
He reiterated that she would not be released until the children are brought home. Shim, 33, is being held on a warrant for interfering with a custody order, while her son Kristian, 6, and daughter Haerin, 3, remain with their maternal grandmother near Seoul.
{{Let’s talk about how that custody order was gotten, and what chance a woman has of getting a similar one should her husband (or ex-) pull the same stunt….}}}
Gee, kind of reminds me of our friend Lorraine in Wisconsin and HER daughter… Or Nathan Grieco in California….
=========
We of course know our government and courts are PARENT-friendly and GENDER-Neutral, right?
For example, this just out:
Current Government Projects
NFI has partnered with departments and offices of the U.S. Government to promote involved fatherhood. Learn more about these projects below.
NRFCBI
National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity Building Initiative
In partnership with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance, National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) has designed the National Responsible Fatherhood Capacity-Building Initiative (NRFCBI) to aid grassroots and community-based organizations through a series of capacity-building grants.
Awardees receive a one-time $25,000 award to strengthen fathers and families and are provided with National Fatherhood Initiative’s professional training and technical assistance at the annual Certification College.
“I pledge allegiance to flag of the United Healthy Marriage Demonstration Project Regions of America.. . . . . . One Nation (alized School, Health, Tax. Warmachine, and Family Design programs), under (our approved) God, with liberty, and justice, for all (those who fit our [male-dominated] definitions of fully human)
There’s a lot more to this story than hit the NY Post. .. Use your SEO and take a look. There’s an age gap between him and her. BOTH of them came from overseas to study at perhaps THE top music school in this country, Juilliard, and I believe the Manhattan School of Music (think Juilliard, high school level) also. SHE as well as HE had to audition and qualify, and both must have been exceptionally personally talented.
I have heard (from a graduate — not Robin Williams, obviously), that the latter school attracts teenaged talent internationally, sometimes without parental protection and support. She (yes she) related being sexually exploited (prostituted, as a matter of fact) through a psychology-based program in the school, and being raped overseas (during a tour) by a (also young, male) music colleague. It was devastating. In this anecdote, her birth mother was not available, and the stepmother was hostile.
BUT she had a Dad. SUrely more Dads in more homes will solve more problems, and if only we women would recognize that we are BREEDERS (whether musical and otherwise talented ones or not) and the fruit of our wombs, those human beings we gestated and many times nursed, or raised, and held, — are not REALLY ours, except by permission.
I also note a significant age difference in this couple (he was older). Perhaps he thought all Asian women were submissive?? ??? Maybe she broke that mold when her kids were involved.
If a North Jersey judge says, your word that they were in danger doesn’t count with me, well, your ass is grass (and jailed….). and his sob story will be heard.
There are a LOT of missing pieces in this story, and I regret that I cannot hunt them out, gather them together, and predigest them for the readers. But YOU can –if you wish to ….
Compare that with THIS:
Divorcing dad wants to take kids to Saudi Arabia
Culture clash at root of Cincinnati custody fight
By Dan Horn • dhorn@enquirer.com • June 5, 2010
File it under “FORWARD TO THE PAST”
Shaheen wants the kids to stay with her in Cincinnati, where they have lived for the past six years.
Bawazir wants to take them to Saudi Arabia, where he says he can get a good job.
Judge Elizabeth Mattingly will make the call, but she says she’s not happy about her choices.
HE JUST NAMED 3 CHARACTERS. HOW COME ONLY THE DAD MAKES THE HEADLINES? ??? AND WHAT ABOUT THE FOUR CHILDREN?
“You have got very few good options here,” she told Shaheen at a court hearing in March. “It’s not a perfect world.”
The big legal questions in the case – who should get custody and what are the rights of the other parent – come up in countless custody battles every day in Hamilton County’s domestic relations court.
But the case of Shaheen vs. Bawazir raises cultural, social and gender issues that few others do.
Shaheen and her lawyer are outraged the judge even is considering allowing her husband to take the four children, all of whom are U.S. citizens, to live in a country halfway around the world.
Yet in other cases, judges and sometimes legislators will reach overseas and try to get U.S. Citizen (children) BACK from a foreign country if a mother took them there, and arrest her for coming back when she did. For example, the Collins case…
They argue that a ruling in Bawazir’s favor would leave Shaheen, a homemaker, with the choice of either losing her kids, possibly forever, or following her ex-husband to a country where she believes he would control every aspect of her life, from where she worked to when she could see her children.
This is NOT just a “she believes” statement, it’s very likely true. Good grief, are our judges literate???
Her lawyer, Phyllis Bossin, said she also fears that any custody or parental visitation order Mattingly issues would mean nothing in Saudi Arabia because men in that country control decisions related to child custody and get preferential treatment in court.
Once there, Bossin said, Bawazir could make his own rules and American courts would be powerless to stop him.
Not Without My Daughter – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_Without_My_Daughter – 1 hour ago – Cached – Similar
“He wants to take these children to the other side of the world, practically into a country where she could never see them again,” Bossin said in court last month. “There are human rights issues here. She has a right to parent her children.”
Doesn’t her (female) lawyer yet know that the ubiquitous use of the word “parent” instead of “mother” is to delete the term “mother” from common usage (at least in a positive sense)? I mean, if our current Single-Mom raised African-American President can barely spit out the word — what more can we expect from the rest of us??
Bawazir and his lawyer, Reeta Brendamour, say Shaheen is maligning Saudi culture and that the children would not be harmed by moving there. Bawazir, who was born in the United States but has worked around the world, said he has job prospects in Saudi Arabia that would provide a good life for his kids.
Define “good.”
“We really think it’s the best for this entire family, for everybody, to move back there,” Brendamour said at the March hearing.
That’s right. I’m sure her Swiss born mother would approve of moving to Saudi Arabia, and say “obey your husband, er, ex-husband, honey — it’s all for the sake of the family…”
Brendamour does not recognize his wife as a separate entity here… And I’ll wager he has some understanding of the United States, the Bill of Rights, and some feminist movements here also. Perhaps we moms who have lost our kids WITHIN United STates should reassure this Dad, he need not be worried on that account (unless he has more horrific plans for his four kids)…..
“In the event mom does not want to go, that’s totally her decision. We would like to go and take the children with us.”
Mattingly has noted that the couple, whose children range in age from 6 to 14, lived in Saudi Arabia for eight years earlier in their marriage and are familiar with the culture. Shaheen’s father is Saudi and mother is Swiss, while Bawazir’s father is Saudi and mother is American.
So those Saudi fathers like European or American mothers …. Why??
Both have dual U.S. and Saudi citizenship, although they have lived most of their lives in the United States.
The judge told Shaheen in March that she should consider moving to Saudi Arabia or somewhere else overseas if her husband cannot find a job in the United States, suggesting it might be in her children’s best interests.
Yeah, this family law judge probably never heard of a child support order, or a SEEK-WORK order, or all the many fatherhood programs in place to help men meet (i.e., reduce) their child-support obligations. Or if she has, she ain’t mentioning them…. Or of creative single-Mom solutions available to this mother of four. She wouldn’t be the first single mother of four around.
“You are running out of money, and pretty soon your kids are going to be on the street unless you get a little more realistic about what your true options are,” Mattingly told Shaheen, reminding her that Bawazir had been unemployed since 2009.
WHY ISN’T SHE LECTURING BAWAZIR ON HIS RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD OBLIGATIONS?? BECAUSE WOMEN ARE EASIER TO LECTURE?
FACT IS, THAT’S WHAT THIS SYSTEM DOES — EXTENUATES AND EXACERBATES THE SITUATION TIL THE (TYPICALLY, FEMALE) PARENT HAS FEWER REAL OPTIONS LEFT. THAT’S SURELY IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN….
“Maybe you don’t want to live in those places, but you got to start thinking about your kids at this point,” she said. “If the two of you remain broke, I don’t know how welfare looks to you, but they don’t pay much in this country.”
That’s funny. In MY state, when my ex was thousands$$ behind (without saying why, or expressing any remorse about it) I literally asked her to order a minimal percent (I was thinking 10% ) of his arrears to preserve my housing. Cool and calculated she suggested I apply for welfare.
The idea behind the OCSE Child support diversion acts was too many female-headed housese on welfare, let’s go get them dudes and make them pay up! Get them back in their families. (See above logo). That’s ostensibly the PRINCIPLE behind taking money out of TANF (and taxpayer millions into Responsible Marriage, etc.). Now it’s working beautifully in reverse, driving women BACK onto welfare, with or without access to their own offspring… Sometimes because their wages are garnished to pay a father who won in court.
Well, damn, I’d come to that county and gotten myself OFF welfare, and now a family court judge ruling on a child support arrears, unexplained, after child-stealing, tells me go back on it? How sweet ….
A difficult job search
Shaheen and Bawazir married in 1991 and lived overseas for years as he moved from place to place for his job with Modern Products Co., which is based in Saudi Arabia. They moved to Loveland in 2004 and his family stayed there when Bawazir was assigned two years ago to a job in Venezuela.
He said he lost that job because of the stress of his deteriorating marriage and the separation from his children.
“I want to be with my kids,” Bawazir said at the March hearing. “She refused to come down to Latin America. So it’s like, how do I bridge that?” He said he has been unable to find a job in the United States because his experience in international business means his best job opportunities are overseas, particularly in Saudi Arabia.
“I don’t think I can personally get a job in the U.S.,” he said.
But Shaheen doubts he has been trying hard to find a job here. She and her lawyer say a man with more than 20 years experience in the business world should be able to find a job in Cincinnati at least as easily as in Saudi Arabia.
Shaheen also questioned the fairness of her and the children starting over in a new country every time her ex-husband gets a new job.
“Being divorced, are we supposed to just keep moving and following each other from country to country?” she said in March. “I also fear that going to Saudi, I will not have any rights over there.”
Bossin said Saudi Arabia should not even be an option. She said divorcing parents make concessions about their jobs all the time to be near their children, and that Bawazir is more than capable of finding a job closer to Cincinnati.
“When people get divorced, people don’t follow their spouses,” Bossin said. “They are not married any more.”
Both sides are lining up experts for the trial, which starts June 15, to talk about life in Saudi Arabia. Bossin made clear at a hearing last week that the impact of Saudi culture and society on the children is closely tied to the question of whether Bawazir should be the custodial parent.
When Brendamour said Bawazir would agree to shared custody in Saudi Arabia, Bossin said no.
“If he has the children in Saudi Arabia, he can just simply say, ‘You’re never going to see the children again,'” she said. “The right of women to have custody of their children in Saudi Arabia – or even to see their children – is an issue.”
Discrimination a problem
The U.S. State Department’s 2009 country report on Saudi Arabia, which adheres to a strict form of Islamic law, lists several concerns about the status of women in that country: They are not permitted to drive. They need the permission of a male guardian, such as a husband or father, to get a job, open a business or to move freely around the country.
And the family court system tilts heavily toward men, who get full custody of boys at age seven and girls at nine.
“Women have few political or social rights and society does not treat them as equal members,” the State Department report says. “Discrimination against women was a significant problem.”
The rules for women have loosened a bit in recent years but they remain stringent, said Karen Dabdoub, director of the Cincinnati chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
“Just living in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily the most horrible thing,” Dabdoub said. “I know people who lived there and liked it. I know people who lived there and hated it. The kinds of jobs that women can do are limited and where they can go is limited.
“If she’s saying that her movement and rights would be restricted, yeah, absolutely.”
The judge will have to take those factors into consideration when she makes her decision about the couple’s two boys and two girls, said Katherine Federle, director of Ohio State University’s Justice for Children Project.
She said the case is, technically, no different than any other relocation case involving divorced parents, although this one is “writ large” because it involves a potential move to Saudi Arabia.
“This sounds like a relatively typical custody battle that involves relocation,” she said. “It’s just a long way away.”
Mattingly will hear at the trial from experts about Saudi society and what a move there would mean for the children. She also will hear from a court-appointed guardian and lawyer responsible for protecting the children’s interests.
Shaheen, Bawazir, the judge and the lawyers would not comment before the trial, but court proceedings so far have been contentious. Mattingly has said she wants to get the case resolved as soon as possible for the sake of the kids.
She said their grades in school and their well-being have been damaged by the long court fight.
“Your children are suffering with this battle,” Mattingly said in March. “You are getting to the line where decisions have to be made.”
Yeah, well — — there’s the Korean/Chile/NJ case, then there’s the dual-citizenship Saudi-Swiss-American Hamilton County Ohio case. Either way, women are getting lectured and jailed and separated (or threatened with it) from their own children. Sounds like third world stuff to me…
Go read Phyllis Chesler’s account of getting HERSELF out of such a marriage. It’s on her site….
It Looks Different From Here — Advocates versus Litigants
Note: My internet time is very limited, and I rarely spellcheck or proofread posts. Style is often consistent. I simply get the ideas OUT, and trust (hope?) that some of them will take root on a thinking, activist populace. Judging by the Feedjit counter, that’s a wide range of geographic and institutional viewers, especially for such a fly-by-night blog….
The second function this blog fills is something of a track record. Although I’m anonymous, people who know me could probably figure out who’s who. As a woman who left an abusive relationship years ago, and has not been able to exit the system (the parties involved simply run out of steam, or money, periodically, until someone makes a move to get free, which can bring an escalation or counter-move. IN fact, experientially, it’s not much different than the fabled “cycle of abuse” at all. Little did I know! But I would STILL have left, even if I’d known, and I still assert that it’s been better to have had this experience now, than to have remained in a household where we were likely to become a statistic, faster, and have virtually none of the record public, or the story told. I did experience some brief independence, exhilarating, while a restraining order was on, and partially (at least) respected. I thank God for that.
Put straight out, I am living day by day, and by faith, instinct, creative networking, continual adapation to situations, guts, and (let me say) the grace of God (not churches) and bunches of friends, nearly none of them dating from the years of in-home assault and battery spouse abuse. I wanted a fresh start, and made one.
I also pick my family where I find it, and sad to say, none of the biologically related ones, OR in-laws qualify for what family is supposed to be about. This is not uncommon (see Lundy Bancroft books for more on the topic).
POST INTRO:
I read a post yesterday, and decided to address what I consider the inappropriate approach and tone of this post, although it’s calling for greater transparency in the courts and independent audits. I have some familiarity with the organization and author of the article, and prior interactions with them.
With hopes I don’t now alienate some other women I am networked with, I feel it necessary to say, THAT NONPROFIT DOES NOT SPEAK FOR ME, and my particular case crosses most of the major factors in family court abuse — it’s entailed domestic violence restraining orders, child-stealing (unreported and), stalking (current), and continuous involvement in this court venue (though both parties are broke! and no issues have been resolved) for just over ten years. I know many women in similar situations.
Posted at RightsforMothers.com, a site I stay in touch with in general, particularly as it has been reporting on the recent Linda Marie Sacks travesty in Florida. This is a nice example of how it “works.”
(more than one link to this story, above, and below):
Linda Marie and Children
Gina Kaysen Fernandes: To an outsider, Linda Marie Sacks had the perfect life. Her husband was rich, and they lived in a huge home in Daytona Beach, FL, where she spent her days shuttling her girls to school and various activities. Linda Marie describes herself as a “squeaky clean soccer mom” who “lived my life for my children.” Behind that façade, Linda Marie says she married a monster — a man who verbally and emotionally attacked her for years and sexually abused their two young daughters.
When she finally left him and tried to take her girls with her, she encountered a new monster — family court. Rather than protecting Linda Marie and her two young daughters from a sexual predator, a family court judge denied Linda Marie custody and put her daughters into the hands of their sexually abusive father.
Talk to mothers, divorce lawyers, and child advocates and you’ll hear tales of a family court system that’s badly broken. It’s one that routinely punishes women for coming forward with allegations of abuse by denying them custody of their children. Instead of protecting children from abusers and predators, the court often gives sole custody to the abusive parent, say child advocates. Mothers who tell judges their children are being molested or beaten are accused of lying and are punished for trying to intervene. Some are thrown in jail for trying to keep their kids from seeing an abusive parent. Women, many of whom have few financial resources at their disposal, are often at the mercy of a court system that is not designed to handle domestic violence.
{{ In short, about 3 years, and $140,000 later, a woman who was thrown out of her own home for reporting child abuse (like we’re supposed to, and being a mother) is badly mistreated (what else is new) during a motion to UNsupervise her OWN visitation of her OWN daughters. Rules of court are broken (what else is new). She sticks up for her rights, and a number of groups are publicizing this one. It seems (to me) to be a prime example of how pushing “supervised visitation” as if to enable kids to safely interact with both parents were actually for that purpose. No, it’s been used to spawn a new profession (wealth transfer, in other words, from litigants and/or government) AND punish and extort mothers for expecting due process in the courts, and — as they’ve been coached by society to do — report that abuse and expect someone else to make it stop..
{{Do the math on $140,000 divided by 3 years, divided among the court professionals that, so far, have NOT gotten these kids back to their mother, where they belong!
{{If there’d been no money there, it’d have been funneled even faster (lightening-quick) through mediation only, providing demonstration grant material for other nonprofits to report (to each other) on, like mine was. I’ve not seen my own kids that much in the past 3 years, probably, the only difference being, as money is gone from THIS family, no supervised visitation center is making a profit off us.}}
Now for today’s Main Feature:
Point Of View-1: The Voice of Professional Advocates
Typical Characteristics:
-
Tone — Moderate.
-
Recommendations — Moderate.
-
Apparent Process.
Gradually establish a reputation as speaking to the crisis, and through collaboration and compromise, get SOME reforms STARTED and repeatedly, prominently, call for more, while remaining employed…
UPSIDES to this approach —
-
Speech and recommendations are not actually so offensive or radical as to actually cause (or even jeopardize) present professional direction or job loss, let alone personal whistleblower physical retaliation through assault by an “ex” or legal kidnapping of one’s own children through the courts.
-
As such (though I can’t say for sure), less likely to deal with PTSD in speaking out. This moderte tone is certainly easier for other professionals in the systems being confronted to “take.”
-
Client referrals through getting one’s name in print, a quality shared with the family court professionals all trying to “help” the litigants. There’s a great –or at least reasonable — living at fixing things, if it’s done right, and without actually completing the fix…
-
Reduced potential for becoming homeless, or extinct. I.e., longevity. This approach is not likely to turn a professional into a Nancy Schaefer or a Richard Fine or a Barry Goldstein, Esq.
-
DOWNSIDES to this approach —
(Note: This is my personal “take,” and I don’t expect even all of the bloggers (see blogroll) might agree with me on it. However, after some analysis and prior interactions, it’s the conclusion I came to, and why I am not otherwise associating or promoting this particular nonprofit’s attempt to address the family court crisis.)
- The moderate voice is entirely inappropriate to the scope and extent of the crisis. People are dying over this, and society is picking up the tab. To me, such a situation would require the fastest and strategically MOST accurate and effective solution.
- Timeframe/urgency for System reform and Timeframe/urgency for raising one’s children/stopping their abusers (or one’s own) are entirely different. The second one is shorter. A parent wants ONE thing FIRST (any good one): To STOP his or her child’s abuse NOW. (Or her own abuse), NOW. It’s LIFE, then LIBERTY, then PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. LIFE is first. Part of life is sustaining a livelihood…Getting closure, and getting on with life after divorce.
Point Of View 2 — Of Litigants Whose Children’s Lives or their own are still at risk.
(note: this is my take on this point of view, those who disagree, feel free to comment).
POV of Noncustodial Mothers struggling to stay alive, employed & housed, analyze “what happened and WHY?,” speaking out appropriately about these outrages, and keep see her children again, safely, yet knowing that justice is not likely to take place in the courts before the children age out. Of Noncustodial mothers who are also kept traumatized by the continuous NONresolution of issues in the family court system, and forced contact with their ex-batterers — AND agents of their exbatterers, both in and outside the courtroom — through it. Women who have been forced to take on repeated restructuring of their own lives when custody switch happens, and whose sense of betrayal includes not only (at times) the enablers of the former abuse, but the institutions which promised yet didn’t deliver help, and lied to them about the prognosis of the help delivered. Who failed to distinguish in a timely fashion between civil and criminal protective orders and concealed conflicts of interest in the system. Mothers who trusted family court attorneys, being led to (falsely) believe that they couldn’t adequately represent themselves, but then were sold down the river and deserted by attorneys when money ran out.
TONE — STRONGER, and often less polished.
Tends to rants at times. Sarcastic, Stringent, and NON-compromising. We have already been compromised to the ground. Tendency to use figures of speech and more vivid vocabulary. Don’t like to mince words. Haven’t got time to attend all the conferences, and proper priority is (#1) Their children, and (#2) System reform. It is NEVER in reverse order… Our timeline is shorter and of indefinite duration until we are OUT of that system.
APPARENT PROCESS —
Once help is found NOT to be up a certain tree, ceases barking up it, and associating with others (generally) who continue to. Researchs and networks to find where shortest and most probable route to success is. Continues Lethality and other risk assessments. Willing to sacrifice just short of death and homelessness for this cause. Willing to change perspectives when perspective has serious flaws (and mine did, in the first few years) and wishes to pass this knowledge on to the uninitiated.
Less interested in nationwide collaboration than in where individual help for the case lives. When a hot lead is found, blogs it. Wishes to maintain more personal independence and personal voice because there is less time to screw around.
Analyzes systems almost as widely as the policy-makers do, because this trail leads back to those policy makers to start with. We take the system apart from the personal, experiential level upwards, not from the theoretical and “demonstration grant” (upon the public) downwards. As such, it has some more legitimacy — at least on a per-family basis.
UPSIDES to this approach —
- Well, I think it preserves personal integrity and power base, rather than handing it over (yet again) to others who lose our story in translation and over interpretations.
- One Mom who succeeds in a court case by exposing the fraud helps the next Mom by blazing that trail. Moms who lose their fortunes, but eventually regain their children, still lost their fortunes. This is no help to mothers who had none to lose.
- Develops transferable skills in life, and by empowerment helps reverse the process that may have gotten them trapped in abuse to start with, or in ignorance that their kids were being molested.
- Contributes to society by helping clean it up, one batterer or molester at a time, or one crooked judge, mediator, or other abuse-enabler.
- The ability to analyze systems accurately and quickly is an entrepreneurial skill.
- Approach isn’t built on the fantasy that the courts and attorneys in general consist of basically honest folk with a few bad apples.
DOWNSIDES —
- Fewer friends. On the other hand, fewer fair-weather friends, too! May lose family too, when family has become comfortable with abuse, or worn out with supporting the prolonged exit from it via the courts.
- Sometimes one acts like a fool (case in point).
- Gains a better understanding of how the world acts, and what place one wishes to occupy within it.
- Learning by personal trial and error is one of the more effective.
The voice of a Staff Consultant to a prominent California Nonprofit
Reinstate Accountability To Our Courts: Pass Assembly Bill 2521
Daily Journal
Reinstate Accountability To Our Courts: Pass Assembly Bill 2521
By Kathleen Russell
No part of our government is more integral to fairness and justice than our court system. That’s why the people who must abide by the laws of our state deserve to see the courts administered with model efficiency, accountability and transparency. It is especially important that as taxpayers and businesses suffer the lingering effects of a deep recession, they see their tax dollars being spent prudently.
Everyone from business owners, to abused and neglected children, to victims of domestic violence count on our courts to be accessible and reliable.
Just a reminder, some victims of domestic violence are, and/or were, business owners, and some are children, too. And, quite frankly, though we’d LIKE our courts to be accessible and reliable, I don’t think many of us any more COUNT on them to be this. I believe the word is out that they’re screwing people over and causing trouble. Nor are they truly “our” courts. They have been co-opted by special interests. I find this tone too moderate here. It’s a conciliatory tone. I don’t share it.
Funding shortfalls from the state budget have resulted in courts being closed due to the public and massive layoffs of hard-working courts staff who serve critical functions like court reporting and collecting payments and fines.
In an earlier interview on KFOG (SF Bay Area) in which Supervisor Gayle Steele participated or hosted, one caller was a court employee, who told of how some court staff followed a teenage child and convinced the child to change her decision and request, resulting in later violence (as I recall it). Courts staff DO serve critical functions. I wonder how ‘collecting payments and fines” came into play in this article.
That makes wait times longer for simple transactions and means crime victims wait longer to see justice.
CJE has been dealing, to my understanding, prominently with the family court venue, not law enforcement and police/criminal agencies. This is a bit of loose wording, as family courts and criminal courts differ. Nor is the wait time the issue in “waiting to see justice.”
Yet at the same time, the Administrative Office of the Courts, the state agency that oversees court operations, has pursued a $2 billion computer system and given double-digit pay increases to its top staff, calling into question whether our courts are being administered with financial integrity.
Again : “Our” courts?
The reference to Administrative Office of the Courts fails to mention– which Ms. Russell has been advised of, and didn’t really follow up on — that this office administers grants originating in father’s rights movements, and compromising court cases through a grants system that is not being properly tracked:
From the California AOC:
MATERIALS POSTED!
The Center for Families, Children & the Courts announces the following new publications. For a complete list of CFCC’s publications, click here.
California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009-2010) (March 2010) (PDF) (note — this link is broken now — why?)
THIS “AOC / CFCC” (Center for Families, Children & The Courts) is where many of the practices Ms. Russell’s group has been protesting (in public, & loudly) LIVE and are administered through, and she has rejected the assessment that this is taking place, from what I can see. http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v/research.html
Legislative Report 7: Ten Years of Access to Visitation Grant Program Services (Fiscal Years 1997-2007) (March 2008). The grant program celebrated its 10-year anniversary in fiscal year 2006–2007. The report showcases programs funded, program successes and accomplishments, innovative promising practices, and program service delivery gaps and challenges. Although no formal recommendations are made in the report, it does identify various challenges and complexities regarding the administration and operation of the grant-related services that limit the ability of the grants to address the great demand for program services
I have blogged and quoted excerpts from some of these reports and repeatedly directed readers to the HHS which is funding the grants. These reports are fatherhood-oriented, and PAS-friendly. Professionals in this area (including, to my understanding, Isolina Ricci, Joan Kelly, et al.) are pushing mediation and reconciliation on women attempting to leave abuse, a totally unfair power balance. They tend to be active in the AFCC, an organization which also is where Gardner’s pedophile friendly philosophies reside.
To JUST NOT SPEAK about this is just a travesty, and I’m tired of it! I’d rather take a brusque, and/or offensive version of truth, and act on it (see nafcj.net) than a watered down version of it talking, why can’t we just collaborate, after all, we ALL want what’s good for our kids, don’t we? This is an offence to me. Again, I speak only for myself in that. Ms. Russell knows better.
California NOW (Family Law Page) has known better for a very long time. A study back to 2002 (oft cited on my blog) studied the history and origins of family law, and details how due process is farmed out to other professionals.
Other professionals themselves (source: LizLibrary, Trish Wilson, and others) have also detailed this. It’s an acknowledged issue, in the wider public. WHY softpedal this?
When a member of the public visits their local courthouse and [his/her] finds a “closed” sign on the door, they deserve [he or she deserves] to know if courtroom closures could have been avoided. But a loophole in current law shields court financial information from outside scrutiny.
Every member of the public has a right to inquire about the use of nonprofit or federal funds funneled through or to the courts, even down to examining vendor payments. This is what Marv Bryer (Los Angeles area) did a long time ago, and discovered the L.A. Judges Slush fund, and a private organization operating out of the county courthouse. Look it up yourself — I did, and I’m a litigant. How’s come more others didn’t?
The unintended consequences of a well-intended law known as the Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 have allowed our courts to escape the same kind of outside audits required of other public institutions, such as school districts and county and city governments, even as our courts should stand as shining examples of the accountability and transparency we expect of our government. The Trial Court Funding Act put local court administration under a larger state umbrella that lawmakers hoped would provide greater stability in funding and better services to the public, but it did not include some basic accountability measures such as independent audits. This lack of adequately independent financial oversight is a problem at both the state level, where no regular audits are required, and at the local level, where the audits are conducted only by the AOC itself.
The public is going to have to start doing these audits themselves. Unless they want to charge the foxes guarding the henhouse with monitoring the other foxes over the same henhouse.
Coming before members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee today, Assembly Bill 2521 is common sense legislation that will ensure that court finances are transparent by requiring independent annual audits of county courts and the AOC.
AB 2521 is a good government bill that will correct one of the flaws of the Trial Court Funding Act. The goal of this bill is simple – to apply the same transparency requirements that apply to school districts, cities and counties to trial courts in California.
Failure to conduct independent audits has serious consequences for our system of justice. For example, a multi-million dollar error resulted in layoffs of San Mateo Superior Court employees, a situation which hurts workers and families and compromised access to our courts.
A lack of transparency prevents our government agencies from operating efficiently and openly. No agency that runs on taxpayer dollars should be free from public scrutiny. Our judiciary exists to serve the people, and reinstating accountability to our court system will give taxpayers back the right to know whether state agencies are doing just that, or whether the courts are failing in their mandate to serve the public interest.
I think this bears following up on, and will attempt to do so. On my “free” time. MANY authors have written on the issues in the courts:
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Page 1 of 5 (Start over)
The authors are selling books (presumably). Mothers and fathers being drained, ARE NOT…..
Here is ONE search tool that looks at nonprofits, and NONPROFITS get GRANTS which are influencing the COURTS. Got it? As NONPROFITS, we have a right to know what they are using the funds for:
GuideStar – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Now WHAT can you do with this handy tool? You can look things up…
For example, CJE’s EIN#, and their stated mission:
TO IMPROVE THE JUDICIARY’S PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND And STRENGTHEN AND MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURTS
And their 2008 grants donations, etc. received (no earlier forms show up on Guidestar), which are around $215,000, and who are the executive officers (this is available for free on Guidestar). Ms. Russell, being a staff consultant, presumably gets some of this for her efforts, which is only fair. Workers are worthy of their hire.
Ms. Sacks, noncustodial Mom, on the other hand (see above) is, rather, Spending her money to get justice, hopefully.
Another thing I’ve learned to do is look at who’s on which board, and look them up too. This is one way I learned that Family Violence Prevention Fund went the way of Fatherhood Funding, and –voila — the vocabulary, tone, and emphasis of this major, major nonprofit has changed, to mirror policies already in place at HHS. While many social services are being cut, this particular group’s funding is in FINE shape (endabuse.org)…
Are they going to compromise that funding just because it might not fix the problems in the courts??? What do you think?
More from CJE’s website:
The Center for Judicial Excellence, or CJE, is a community-based organization established to improve the judiciary’s public accountability and strengthen and maintain the integrity of the courts. Since 2008, the CJE board has made a special commitment to protecting the rights of children and vulnerable populations in the courts.
CJE was founded to promote best practices, with a five-point plan of action – information gathering, education, collaboration, implementation and citizen review. The organization works to gather information and educate the community, the media and policymakers at all levels about the courts, judicial issues and best practices, as well as the dire need for judicial accountability and oversight.
And staff: An administrative assistant, and one consultant, Ms. Russell:
CJE also benefits from a long-term consulting relationship with Kathleen Russell Consulting.
Technically speaking, I believe citizens could ask to see receipts for that consulting. Not that I’m saying, something is amiss, but I’m pointing out, that while Ms. Russell is working hard, and advocating for (us?), she’s getting paid for it. We, litigants, are NOT, generally speaking. She also gets a reputation, and possibly business referrals.
I actually just saw the salary (it’s on the IRS 990 if you register with Guidestar). It seems to me that, along with a board of directors, and an advisory board, a website, and an administrative assistance, “CJE” in essence “IS” Kathleen Russell. So when she puts her name, for pay, on what may purport to be MY story (stories of women in my situation), I just think the difference of viewpoint should be pointed out.
I could educate both my kids and would’ve easily foregone child support (let alone social services of any sort) on, literally, one-TENTH of that salary. I am certainly educated and experienced enough to speak to the issue. I just wasn’t raised as a PR consultant, and hadn’t developed those connections over time. Like many Moms, we stayed on the right side of the law and minded our own kids-raising, income producing business, and changed society through our kids, our volunteer work (as appropriate), or our professional jobs.
I finally “got” how nonprofits operate when I had to resort to them for help while unemployed (after government agencies, not only the courts, had failed, and failed abysmally). These nonprofits are accountable to their funders at least as much as their “clients” (the group that the nonprofit status claims to serve). Pro Bono Buyer Beware.
And had I foregone child support, after leaving abuse, there’s a GOOD chance that my girls would’ve continued living with me. It’s that economic control that gets you every time, either while in the relationship, or while funneled INTO the family law system.
Kathleen Russell Consulting
Telling Stories Moving Mountains
The question arises, naturally, WHOSE stories are being told? This is where it gets a little interesting….
Among a wide variety of clients (appropriate for any successful consulting firm, and a sign of professionalism, for sure…) is the Young Men’s Ultimate Weekend.
The Young Men’s Ultimate Weekend (YMUW) is an initiation program for young men, providing them with adult mentoring and male support during their transition from adolescence to adulthood. By empowering young men with physical and mental challenges and providing strong adult male mentors, the YMUW helps young men develop confidence and leadership skills and learn the importance of teamwork through honoring what is RIGHT and embracing the principles of Respect, Intelligence, Gallantry, Humor and being True. KRC was hired by YMUW to conduct media and community outreach in the run up to the weekend event in the Santa Cruz Mountains
In addition to lots of nice, positive press, if googled, we also find it listed alongside some serious cult-like behaviors that (from MY POV) sound quite similar to the male-bonding and “setting off” procedure that my own ex (batterer) was more and more prone to, particularly with his religions connections.
And a whole SLEW of fatherhood groups. I tracked this down a while back, and the “Dean Tong” mentioned (see Rightsformothers.com narration, or a narration it links to, summarizing Linda Marie Sacks’ situation:
- East Bay Nation of Men
- National Men’s Resource Center
- Resource Center’s links to many men’s sites.
- Life Partners: (Bill Elbring)
- Men’s Divisions International
- Men’s Books
- Northern California Men’s Center (Gary Plep)
- The Mankind Project (New Warrior Training)
- Sterling Institute
- National Coalition of Free Men (Northern California)
- Manworth Chat Room (Terence Moore)
- Men’s Voices Magazine
- Men’s Voices Info on Men’s Groups
- Mircea Eliade
- Shadow Workshop
- Abuse-Excuse
- MenAlive
- Battered Men’s Helpline
- Men’s Resource Center of New Mexico
- Men’s Center and Mens’ Sight Magazine
- Men’s Center’s pages on Fathers’ Rights
- Sacred Path Productions (Los Angeles)
- Mosaic Voices
- Wide Sky Men’s Council
- Minnesota Men’s Conference (and other events including Robert Bly, others)
- Sunday Friends
- Men’s Flair, a “men’s style guide magazine”
- Cornerstones for Men: Men’s retreats.
- Fatherhood and Fathers’ Rights
- Dictionary for Dads: Family information site for Dads
While these may be all very well and nice (though I don’t think all ARE…), I think it MAY explain why Center for Judicial Excellence and Kathleen Russell Consulting aren’t going to come down TOO hard on fathers’ rights, or fathers’ rights funding. Although I don’t have a precise answer, I am deducing that MOVING A MOUNTAIN AND TELLING THAT STORY — about the Father’s Rights origins (1994 NFI, 1995 Bill Clinton Executive Order, 1998/1999 resolutions in Congress, and the Religion Through Government Agencies narration) story, as soul-numbing as it is (if you’re not a man) just wouldn’t be good for business. And we all have a right to sustain our own businesses, right?
In fact, every time I turn around there’s more “male bonding” going around. … SOMEONE has to counteract those feminists…
The New Warrior Training Adventure
The New Warrior Training Adventure is a singular type of life affirming event, honoring the best in what men have to offer the planet. We are only able to recognize the powerful brilliance of men because we are willing to look at, and take full responsibility for, the pain we are also capable of creating … and suffering. This is the paradox of modern masculinity, and it is a lesson we are dedicated to learning and teaching.The New Warrior Training Adventure is a modern male initiation and self-examination. We believe that this is crucial to the development of a healthy and mature male self, no matter how old a man is. It is the “hero’s journey” of classical literature and myth that has nearly disappeared in modern culture. We ask men to stop living vicariously through movies, television, addictions and distractions and step up into their own adventure – in real time and surrounded by other men.
Among some of the topics, generally speaking, will be how to keep your woman (or women, as it may be) in line, and what you can talk with them about, and what you should NOT talk with your woman about. I kid you not. Back to feudalism….
SO, there’s a living to be made, and stories to be told.
Except family court litigants, one parties’ of which (or both) will most likely be destroyed — possibly permanently — in the process of being sripped of our civil rights.
So, improving court excellence and saving children? Of course, who doesn’t want to do THAT?
Of course, that’s the purpose, ostensibly, of the millions (see below) already going to the courts, also, for example under “court improvement” and so forth.
BELOW — some $$ figures from HHS on money going to the California Judicial Council to improve the courts and help noncustodial parents.
I want a lively discussion on THESE figures, but most people don’t have the head, or heart, or will for it. It takes a certain analytical and nosy mindset.
Again, hope I didn’t offend TOO many good people, and apologies for any incomplete sentences in the first part of the post.
This is not exactly the first time I posted this chart on-line, and I’ve emailed it privately enough also. THis is only ONE of many programs running through the courts affecting outcome IN the courts, the grants ending “SAVP.” You can also look up at least 3 other kinds of grants coming directly to the California Judicial Council, at the same source: Taggs.HHS.Gov.
For example:
2009 | 0901CASCID | 1 | 1 | ACF | 12-07-2008 | $ 786,069 |
2009 | 0901CASCIP | 1 | 1 | ACF | 12-07-2008 | $ 807,034 |
2009 | 0901CASCIP | 1 | 6 | ACF | 06-06-2009 | $ 266,289 |
2009 | 0901CASCIT | 1 | 1 | ACF | 12-07-2008 | $ 788,370 |
2009 | 0910CASAVP | 1 | 1 | ACF | 12-23-2008 | $ 942,497 |
Fiscal Year 2009 Total: | $ 3,453,010 |
Award Actions
State = CALIFORNIA
CFDA Number = 93597
Recipient: CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 95814
FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
1998 | 9701CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 2 | 05-31-1998 | $1,113,750.00 |
1998 | 9801CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 09-01-1998 | $1,113,750.00 |
1999 | 9901CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 2 | 08-16-1999 | $987,501.00 |
2003 | 9801CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 7 | 02-24-2003 | ($250,805.00) |
2003 | 9901CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 5 | 02-25-2003 | ($139,812.00) |
2009 | 9901CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 8 | 09-14-2009 | ($38,917.00) |
Award Subtotal: | $2,785,467.00 |
Recipient: CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 95741
FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
2000 | 0001CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 3 | 08-24-2000 | $987,501.00 |
2001 | 0001CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 4 | 10-06-2000 | ($987,501.00) |
Award Subtotal: | $0.00 |
Recipient: CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Recipient ZIP Code: 94107
FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
2001 | 0010CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 5 | 10-10-2000 | $987,501.00 |
2001 | 0110CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 08-23-2001 | $987,501.00 |
2002 | 0210CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 2 | 08-06-2002 | $970,431.00 |
2003 | 0310CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 09-11-2003 | $970,431.00 |
2004 | 0410CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 09-15-2004 | $988,710.00 |
2005 | 0510CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2005 | $988,710.00 |
2006 | 0610CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 09-19-2006 | $987,973.00 |
2007 | 0710CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 07-20-2007 | $950,190.00 |
2008 | 0810CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 01-30-2008 | $957,600.00 |
2009 | 0010CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 8 | 09-14-2009 | ($48,827.00) |
2009 | 0110CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 4 | 09-14-2009 | ($26,938.00) |
2009 | 0210CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 6 | 09-14-2009 | ($46,392.00) |
2009 | 0310CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 2 | 09-14-2009 | ($15,092.00) |
2009 | 0910CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 12-23-2008 | $942,497.00 |
2010 | 1010CASAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 11-25-2009 | $946,820.00 |
Award Subtotal: | $10,541,115.00 |
Total of all awards: | $13,326,582.00 |
Yes, Child Support Industry IS a For-Profit Government Fraud (“F.R.A.M.E.D.” and other topics)
with 18 comments
(after update notes, 2 paragraphs):
Posted originally July 17, 2011. I see from some of the charts that I updated it since (there are tables from HHS of Access Visitation grants showing from year 2014, 2015), probably to clean up the table formats. Visiting it again because of a recent comment (approved 2/17/2016). Searchable terms, “undistributable child support collections.” Beware challenging stockpiles of improperly withheld (by government) wealth — a long time ago, attorney Richard Fine representing John Silva (a father) — did this. Fine also challenged illegal payments to judges from the County after judges’ salaries were officially transferred to the State level (ongoing process of removing local control), and some powerful RE developers. He spent 18 months in solitary coercive retirement (designed to produce behavioral change) and as an old (69,70 yrs old) and lost his law license (was disbarred) as a result.
Since 2011, I became aware of a source of reading government financial statements (“CAFRs, see more recent posts), and and more aware of fund accounting within government. I recommend people (the public), particularly in your areas of subject matter priority, including child support, go hunt down some of these funds, demonstrate you have read and comprehended the basics in those statements, and start asking hard questions.
This blog discusses
“Child Support is a For-Profit Government Fraud” From: “F.R.A.M.E.D.” (framedfathers.blogspot.com) Saturday, May 15, 2010 / Bruce Eden
And while agreeing with the title, makes a few other points by commenting on it.
2014 update, (next few paragraphs in italics)
**The government’s ultimate goal appears to be power and control, for profit. The entire population, if it became fully aware of the actual profit retained by all levels of government entities (as expressed on their “CAFR” reports I learned in spring 2012 and have been reporting since), many of us would be justifiably outraged, and some of this outrage would not be expressed in nice, compliant, obedient manner.
By keeping us economically strapped through these institutions of perpetual warfare, against individual rights, constantly eroding them under the premise it’s for our own good (and usually what’s being held over anyone’s head at any point of time is someone else’s poverty. Put up with more erosion of rights “for the good of the group.”
At times, the government doesn’t just strip children off their mothers, but gives them back to the fathers after the domestic violence protection has been removed. That’s the game, folks. Promise protection, then fail to deliver. Take situations in crisis (for a variety of reasons, but definitely may include abuse), and exploit them – – – for profit. What I do, and what I recommend both mothers AND fathers do, is find that profit. To find that profit, one has to, after the anecdotes and narratives, which speak to the emotional, wounded, and high-charged issues, get clear, cold, hard, focused and analytical — and use that analytical truth in its own words, to expose the systems. These are not just one system with one results, but multiple systems with multiple goals, depending on what sector they are in.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
July 17, 2011 at 8:31 pm
Posted in Business Enterprise, Child Support, Context of Custody Switch, Funding Fathers - literally, OCSE - Child Support, Parent Education promotion
Tagged with Access-Visitation, Child Support, custody, Due process, HHS-TAGGS grants database, incest, Intimate partner violence, Kids' Turn, men's rights, obfuscation, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..