Archive for the ‘Mandatory Mediation’ Category

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)

Back

Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and… by Phyllis Chesler

4.6 out of 5 stars (5)

Divorced from Justice: The Abuse of Women and Chi… by Karen Winner

4.5 out of 5 stars (13)

All But My Soul : Abuse Beyond Control by Jeanne I. King

5.0 out of 5 stars (9)

$19.95

Joint Custody with a Jerk: Raising a Child with… by Julie A. Ross

3.3 out of 5 stars (43)

$10.85

Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry… by Lundy Bancroft

4.8 out of 5 stars (259)

$10.88

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

GuideStar USA, Inc. is an information service specializing in U.S. nonprofit companies. It provides information on more than 1.7 million IRS-recognized …
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GuideStar – Cached – Similar

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?

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

Printer-friendly Version

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

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

April 21, 2010 at 1:53 PM

Posted in AFCC, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with Young Men's Ultimate Weekend

Responsible Fatherhood and (ir)Responsible Social Policy — MY informal findings…

with one comment

OK, it’s my indignant rant, but I bet you’ll admit an informative one….

You have NO idea what’s up in the honorable and well-funded halls & courts (that’s regal, I’m talking, not legal) of social policy.

In-breeding in Federal Programs to Examine Fatherhood….

The courts are biased against fathers? Yeah, and what other religious myths are still circulating? ??? Poor dears…..

Fact is, rather, the bulk of the US populace is being used, wherever possible, for wide-scale, years-long, federally funded (and let’s look at which foundations are involved, not just non-profits whose money comes from foundations and the feds) social demonstration projects — often without informed consent — and questionable summaries of “findings” in order to justify more expenditures. And more. And more.

This apparatus could simply NOT be sustained if there were concerned, and NOT desperate for basic survival — individuals around in sufficient mass and with sufficient memory of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, what they were about to start with — who fought back about being “used” for elitist pyschologists (etc.) with what is too damn close to a dissociative Nazi mentality willing to run experiments on OPK (Other People’s Kids). And the parents. And report to each other (out of earshot).

Here’s (just one — just one) piece of evidence that fathers are NOT underrepresented (the opposite is true) in these circles, and that the LAST thing we need is more Warren Farrell’s to sell their wares to men objecting to the women they couldn’t keep actually getting free without being punished for it. And roping in plenty of (2nd wives, etc.) women to support their misogyny and need to continue access to young boys and girls “for their own good.”

Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives

February 2008

Prepared for:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Prepared By:
Karin Martinson and Demetra Nightingale
The Urban Institute

This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/PFF/KeyFindings/

This report is part of a larger project:

Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) Demonstration Projects

Printer Friendly version in PDF format (12 pages)

At the end of the report is, naturally, credits to the authors. Although they appear to come from two reputable institutions, The Urban Institute and Johns Hopkins, a quick Google search shows that one author (Ms. Nightengale) was formerly principal at The Urban Institute itself, i.e., professional referrals, apparently). cf. Wade Horn, formerly of HHS, but also of The National Fatherhood Institute (f. 1994)…. Real independent…

You can look at the report here — but these are the authors credited for it:

About the Authors

Karin Martinson is a senior research associate in the Urban Institute’s Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population. Her research interests include welfare reform, employment and training programs, service delivery systems, and work supports. She has worked on numerous program evaluations in these areas, with a focus on implementation studies of programs and services for low-income families.

Demetra Nightingale is a principal research scientist at Johns Hopkins University. An expert in social policy, she has focused for more than 30 years on issues related to employment, welfare, poverty, and the alleviation of poverty. She has written many reports, books, and articles.

SPOKE.com lists her as a principal researcher at The Urban Institute

Here (from The Urban Institute) is a list of 51 articles, some shared with Karen Martinson:

View Research by Author – Demetra Smith Nightingale

// And here’s the Google search on Dr.. Nightengale — obviously a social policy researcher…

And here is a bio blurb:\from where she is now:

DEMETRA NIGHTINGALE, PH.D.

Dr. Nightingale holds a Ph.D. in public policy from the George Washington University. She has directed numerous program evaluations and policy studies, publishes extensively, and sits on many advisory groups, boards, and task forces. Before joining Johns Hopkins, for over twenty-five years she was at the Urban Institute, most recently as a principal research associate and program director in the Labor and Social Policy Center.

Understand, I’m not PERSONALLY criticizing a person who obviously can write and research and has chosen social policy as a field. I’m sure there are reasons she and others in the field ended up in their fields, just as there are reasons why I, a former teacher and musician (and dual-degreed) ended up marrying a man who didn’t respect woman, and having a helluva a time just staying a live, let alone involved in that profession, during and after marriage. My research on this blog is in part of an intent to know WHY I shouldn’t be able to leave and get on with life, given that my only apparent crime was poor choice of spouse and giving that marriage “the old college try” before leaving, shortly before it got lethal, as opposed to merely dangerous.

I believe the answer lies in the fact that what we expect to be halls of justice and law (let alone expecting the soon to be nationalized school system, either, to be as involved in education as in behavioral conditioning) have become dispensers of pop psychology and use of the human populace as a research subjects, and doing so at public expense — ALL of the public who pays taxes…

On my last post, I posted writings from an attorney, and a Ph.D. The Ph.D. (Warren Farrell) probably gets more press, but I found her reasonings to be more sound. I think we are entering into an age in which the presence of “Ph.D.” in any social science field should be a contra-indicator, not a positive.

=======

This is an adequate living, apparently, all this research (note. None of mine produces a dime…)

“Evaluation of the Partners for Fragile Families Projects” (Acting Project Director 2003; key
senior analyst); 2001-2007 Contract with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Urban Institute contract.
“Evaluation of the Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration” (Senior
Evaluator, with MDRC prime contractor and Urban Institute); 2002-2009, Contract with U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

HHS (translation: Your federal taxes, if you are in US and paying them…) is paying this salary. MDRC is another contractor I aim to report on one of these days, along with more on CPR (Center for Policy Research) and Thoennes/Pearson (both Ph.D.s I believe also), who show up in this featured report today:

So, let’s talk more abound the “independence” of this report, project, or others like it, in looking at its bibliography.

This brief was completed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Partners for Fragile Families evaluation, under contract number 100-01-0027. The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and comments provided by their project officer, Jennifer Burnszynski. Helpful comments were also provided by Linda Mellgren of ASPE and by Margot Bean, Eileen Brooks, and Myles Schlank of the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Administration for Children and Families/HHS. The authors also benefited from comments by Burt Barnow and John Trutko and editing by Fiona Blackshaw.

From the Bibliography of the Reporters summarizing the programs they are paid to evaluate, and quoting some of the key contractors profiting from those programs, in the year 2008 in which (in my county) there were, I believe, 10 deaths (femicides) from domestic violence, and women attempting to leave such marriages, some of them tearing up businesses and claiming a police officer also, and a bystander or so…. Not to mention the 18-year imprisonment and repeated rapes and impregnation of Jaycee Dugard by an improperly monitored Phil Garrido, who had already been in jail for kidnapping in rape, there was contacted by a woman, married her, and with her, got that adolescent girl, and IMPRISONED her. Her childhood was stolen, while these studies marched on, and on, and on. She worked from a ramshackle set of tents and out-buildings, supporting her kidnappers own business in a professional manner and raising two children fathered by him.

Quite a different persepctive…

Anyhow, here is “CPR” footprint on this report, under the Bibliography.

Office of Child Support Enforcement, Responsible Fatherhood Programs

Pearson, Jessica, Nancy Theonnes, David Price, and Jane Venohr. 2000. OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Early Implementation Lessons. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, Inc. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/rpt/process.htm.

Pearson, Jessica, Nancy Theonnes, Lanae Davis, Jane Venohr, David Price, and Tracy Griffith. 2003. OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, Inc. http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Stability/RespFaPgmsClientChar.pdf.

If you are comfortable with us becoming, instead of a republic with 50 states, a single nation carved up into regions on which demonstration projects about us will be run at our expense, and supporting a bureaucracy which would be jeopardized if this was stopped, then just stop reading, and thinking, and go on paying taxes without thinking, and demanding, accountability. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT, teach your youngsters to use the internet to research nonprofits and look at their IRS forms, and connect the dots. Do not, in fact, teach them about economics, history, or money in any coherent manner.

Just keep showing up to be demonstrated upon, and believe (like a religion) that this is going to improve someone’s lot in the long run, or our society. Sure.

And make sure NOT to look at the conversation between a family rights lawyer (Kates, Esq.) and a man who provides expert testimony — for fathers — and help getting their attorneys to coach the mother’s attorney to cave in, or risk losing custody to him (Farrell, Ph.D.). Don’t read the decades earlier conversations between Kates & Farrell on the Positive qualities of Incest, and quoting the Penthouse article (by Farrell) on it.

If Incest is acceptable, then by all means, let’s change the laws. however, if the laws against this are still pertinent, then I suggest we get the Dept. of Health and Human Services 100% out of the courts, and defund anything resembling Farrell & friends! I for one, am opposed to the concept, as are, I trust, most underage girls, or boys, who have been subjected to it.

Anything else is pure Cognitive Dissonance, and part of the problem.

I realize the survival benefit of denial, but at some point, it reaches a point of no return. That point is directly related to the SIZE and WEIGHT of the institutions influencing our individual lives, and whether we are going to also farm out reflective, informative THINKING to experts who have run amok, like a pack of dogs running out of meat and without restraint.

Sorry, sort of, about that last analogy, but it sure seems appropriate, if you are not dazzled by 3-syllable words.

Did I mention that one of the founders of the Center for Policy Research is among the founders, also, of the humongous AFCC (that group of professionals that seems to hearken back to a tax-dodging group run under the Los Angeles County Courthouse, and under its EIN#, but consisting in effect of a slush fund for judges…)

When you have the same personnel PROPOSING projects, CONDUCTING projects, and REPORTING on/EVALUATING on those projects to each other (i.e., policy makers reporting on policy), when the words “demonstration” are used on PEOPLE, then, Houston (and Plano, TX, if you’re there) we indeed have a problem. The ship isn’t going to come in, ever, and that dog ain’t gonna hunt…. until it is recognized HUMANITY is not correlative to educational and $$ status.

Catch you later — — —

Meanwhile, check out this: If the Fatherhood Guys aren’t able YET to totally get the balance swung back in their favor, adn if women as a whole aren’t willing to boycott sex, parenting, marriage, and child support to make a point (perhaps for even just 3 months in a row), it is going this direction sooner than later, while you were, probably, waiting for a court hearing, or wondering (moms) where your kids were on that weekend or joint-custody visitation time….. or between paying to see the children you gave birth to, so your interactions could be further studied and reported on by social policy makers, like those above…..

The Artificial Womb

“If you didn’t see this coming, you haven’t been paying attention.”

Copyright © 2009, Paul Lutus —

ACTUALLY, I was going to link to the IS PSYCHOLOGY SCIENCE page..

To further motivate you to actually READ ‘Is Psychology Science?” (and a close reading will show he’s not particularly female-friendly, but poses some good question), here’s one:

During the 2006 meeting of the American Psychological Association, psychiatrists admitted they have no scientific tests to prove mental illness and have no cures for these unproven mental illnesses (more here). I’ve always thought the first step to learning something new is to acknowledge one’s own ignorance. It seems the professionals are willing to take this first step.

Conclusion

At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion.

Like religion, human psychology has a dark secret at its core – it contains within it a model for correct behavior, although that model is never directly acknowledged. Buried within psychology is a nebulous concept that, if it were to be addressed at all, would be called “normal behavior.” But do try to avoid inquiring directly into this normal behavior among psychologists – nothing is so certain to get you diagnosed as having an obsessive disorder.

In the same way that everyone is a sinner in religion’s metaphysical playground, everyone is mentally ill in psychology’s long, dark hallway – no one is truly “normal.” This means everyone needs psychological treatment. This means psychologists and psychiatrists are guaranteed lifetime employment, although that must surely be a coincidence rather than a dark motive.

This article also raises the question of ethics, as does Liz Kates, Esq., in her “Therapeutic Jurisprudence” article. Unlike her, I don’t think that the family law venue can be cleaned up of the practices, because I believe that its originators and promoters (family law DOES have a history, it didn’t just pop out fully formed, like Venus (unclothed) on a clamshell, or Athena (?? fully clothed and armored) from the head of her male forebear divinity..

EVERY institution has a Daddy somewhere. The field of psychology and social science don’t have very honorable ones… a little too close to Hitler’s minions, for my comfort:

If society correctly evaluated human psychology as a loose grouping of subjective cults and fads, the above summary would not pose any kind of social problem. But in fact there are people who still think human psychology is based in science, all evidence to the contrary. The sad result is that society’s engine of legal and social authority is sometimes steered by psychology, sometimes with unjust and terrible consequences. Here is a brief list of historical examples in which psychology’s bogus status as a science has produced harm (it is by no means a comprehensive list):

During World War I, psychologist R. M. Yerkes oversaw the testing of 1.7 million US Army draftees. His questionable conclusions were to have far-reaching consequences, leading to a 1924 law placing severe limitations on the immigration of those groups Yerkes and his followers believed to be mentally unfit – Jews and Eastern Europeans in particular. Yerkes later thoroughly recanted his methods and findings in an 800-page confession/tome that few bothered to read, and the policies he set in motion had the dreadful side effect of preventing the immigration of Jews trying to escape the predations of Hitler and his henchmen later on.The original test results happened to dovetail with Yerkes’ explicit eugenic beliefs, a fact lost on nearly everyone at the time.

In an effort to answer the question of whether intelligence is primarily governed by environment or genes, psychologist Cyril Burt (1883-1971) performed a long-term study of twins that was later shown to be most likely a case of conscious or unconscious scientific fraud. His work, which purported to show that IQ is largely inherited, was used as a “scientific” basis by various racists and others, and, despite having been discredited, still is.

(photo, ABOVE)

Walter Freeman performing a lobotomy

In the 1950s, at the height of psychology’s public acceptance, neurologist Walter Freeman created a surgical procedure known as “prefrontal lobotomy.” As though on a quest and based solely on his reputation and skills of persuasion, Freeman singlehandedly popularized lobotomy among U.S. psychologists, eventually performing about 3500 lobotomies, before the dreadful consequences of this practice became apparent.

At the height of Freeman’s personal campaign, he drove around the country in a van he called the “lobotomobile,” performing lobotomies as he traveled. There was plenty of evidence that prefrontal lobotomy was a catastrophic clinical practice, but no one noticed the evidence or acted on it. There was — and is — no reliable mechanism within clinical psychology to prevent this sort of abuse.

These examples are part of a long list of people who have tried to use psychology to give a scientific patina to their personal beliefs, perhaps beginning with Francis Galton (1822-1911), the founder and namer of eugenics. Galton tried (and failed) to design psychological tests meant to prove his eugenic beliefs. This practice of using psychology as a personal soapbox continues to the present, in fact, it seems to have become more popular.

What these accounts have in common is that no one was able (or willing) to use scientific standards of evidence to refute the claims at the time of their appearance, because psychology is only apparently a science. Only through enormous efforts and patience, including sometimes repeating an entire study using the original materials, can a rare, specific psychological claim be refuted. Such exceptions aside, there is ordinarily no recourse to the “testable, falsifiable claims” criterion that sets science apart from ordinary human behavior.

One might think that psychology might have learned from its past errors and evolved into a more strict and scientific enterprise. In fact the reverse seems to be the case. Here are two contemporary examples:

Facilitated Communication

Facilitated Communication to me is uncomfortably close to what gets termed (but isn’t) “mediation” in the courts. We are not adults able to speak for ourselves, neither are our children (regardless of their ages), therefore a Mediator must “intervene” and produce a “required outcome” of the “due process” which results in “increased noncustodial parenting time” (the A/V grants and fatherhood thesis, in application), thereby shattering the concept of facts, evidence, and law.

As this DOES produce endless income, no wonder the shattering of the legal process is not of primary concern among the social policy makers….

Perhaps if we can BOTH mock and boycott, something might change. But this won’t be easy… And it requires sustainable livelihood to do this, which is getting scarcer and scarcer, as the evaluations and declarations get “curiouser and curiouser.”

{The next subtitle in this article is about “Recovered Memories” and he discredits it. However, there is a factor where denial serves to protect the nervous system; I have experienced this in a (recent, not childhood) sense, and there IS a ‘dissociation” which seems to occur to preserve survival under extreme circumstances.

When society itself gets dissociative, then we have substantial problems. I think the desire to change society should be done like Jesus did it — with self-sacrifice, and on a case-by-case basis. When HE confronted the political-religo-combo, it was threatened, and (as the account goes in the Bible, at lesat) they crucified him. Wars are still being fought over that, so perhaps if we could cool it on the institutional SIZE, the RELIGIOUS aspects of any institution might be minimized and deflected.

As I write, my President is pushing the HEALTHCARE initiative, which I oppose on the basis of it’s going to end up, soon enough, in who merits living, and who merits dying, who can have babies and who can’t, and after producing them, whose kids ARE they? All the linguistics I’m hearing (press, TV, etc.) is that they are “OURS.” That simply defies the concept of biology, until a real artificial womb takes its proper place beside artificial insemination, fatherhood practitioners, and domestic violence advocates, CPS, Child Support agencies, and the rest of them.

What a “village” to raise all these kids…

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 26, 2010 at 12:05 PM

“Where’s Mom?” and other vocabulary issues

with one comment

We have to have a talk about the word “children” and “families” when it really means “fathers.”

This is from FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND, a.k.a. “endabuse.org”

FIRST, a little indicator of the funding behind this organization. But my point is, the vocabulary. So the charts, are for an indicator, at this point, of the influence.

For some years, I read materials from this group, and associated groups, and inside, went, “YEAH! Right-On!” and “THANK YOU! for validating what I (and others like me) already know by experience!” This is a very big deal when one has been in isolated circumstances and living with a person, or dealing immediately post-separation, with personalities who are still in the gaslighting (crazy-making) mode, i.e., we imagined our own abuse, and that evidence really doesn’t count, etc.

But I was in the family law system, and the credibility gap between this obvious information and their practice still remained. I was going through the experiences, without support or help IN THE COURTROOM, because once it hit family law, it was not considered the venue of the federally-funded or other nonprofit DV organizations. Go figure — once a divorce is filed, or custody action, then suddenly the violence becomes irrelevant? Not quite, but it might as well be, from the handling in that venue.

So, here’s FVPF.org:

For years, this has been a leading organization in stopping violence against WOMEN movement, but as its funding has changed, so has its vocabulary.

I think it can be identified as a major “player” in this field: (from USASPENDING.gov, I searched on the title). 2000-2010

Federal dollars: $32,245,683
Total number of recipients: 1
Total number of transactions: 68

FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND $32,245,683

It is receiving funds from multiple agencies:

Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance

DOJ – Office of Justice Programs	$18,464,457
HHS – Secy. of Health and Human Services	$9,607,290
HHS – Administration for Children and Families	$4,071,750
HHS – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention	$102,186

Assistance Type

Grants and Cooperative Agreements	$32,245,683
Other	$0
Insurance	$0
Direct Payments (both specified and unrestricted)	$0

Trend

Bar chart is from the data in the below table

2000	$1,229,542
2001	$1,591,442
2002	$2,466,092
2003	$2,916,044
2004	$1,940,689
2005	$3,573,082
2006	$585,210
2007	$5,243,959
2008	$3,373,812
2009	$7,825,811
2010	$1,500,000

2009 was clearly a banner year, and the Congress apparently likes this group. Kids are still getting killed on court-ordered visitation, and sometimes the Moms, and sometimes the fathers too, or bystanders, but this group is going strong for sure.

Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located

California 8 (Nancy Pelosi) $5,602,750

Top 10 Recipients

FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND $32,245,683

HERE”s ANOTHER SEARCH, from the TAGGS (HHS only) SITE:

Results 1 to 22 of 22 matches. (may not be all: I just searched on the Institution title on TAGGS.hhs.gov….)

Page 1 of 1

Fiscal Year	Program Office	Grantee Name	City	State	Award Title	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2010	OPHS/OWH	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM	93088	Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 (ASIST2010)	LISA JAMES	$ 1,500,000
2009	FYSB	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$- 1
2009	FYSB	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	DEBBIE LEE	$ 1,353,812
2009	OPHS/OWH	Family Violence Prevention Fund	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM	93088	Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 (ASIST2010)	LISA JAMES	$ 31,000
2008	FYSB	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	DEBBIE LEE	$ 1,323,812
2007	FYSB	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	DEBBIE LEE	$ 1,394,127
2006	FYSB	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	DEBBIE LEE	$ 1,145,872
2005	CB	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	ESTA SOLER	$ 496,000
2005	FYSB	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 1,240,689
2004	FYSB	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 1,215,689
2003	NCIPC	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE SUPPORT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT	93283	Centers for Disease Control and Prevention_Investigations and Technical Assistance	ESTA SOLER, PRESIDENT	$ 102,186
2003	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 1,133,236
2002	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 1,113,796
2001	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 958,542
2000	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 804,542
1999	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 698,710
1998	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 50,000
1998	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 678,710
1998	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	LRNI MARIN	$ 50,000
1997	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	ESTA SOLER	$ 637,604
1997	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC	93592	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants	JANET NUDELMAN	$- 9,549
1995	OCS	FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC	93671	Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grants to States and Indian Tribes	JANET NUDELMAN	$ 451,525

Here’s a recent program listed:

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

It’s no surprise that children who are exposed to domestic violence need supportive and protective adults in their lives to mitigate the effects of exposure. The FVPF has created many programs and campaigns in response to this need. We also know that there are many adverse outcomes for children who are exposed, but how can we as a society make it better for the next generation? One way is to create more opportunities for abusive men and fathers to stop their violent behavior and make amends.

Since 2002, the FVPF has been developing a framework, strategies and products to help further the work of keeping abusive fathers accountable, while supporting them to change their behavior. Partnering with batterers intervention programs, victim services, child witness to violence programs and supervised visitation centers across the country, FVPF created Fathering After Violence (FAV), an initiative to enhance the safety and well-being of women and children by motivating men to renounce their violence and become better fathers and more supportive parenting partners. As a continuation of this work, in 2008, the FVPF created the National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence (NIFDV). We are adapting the original framework and guiding principles for use in new and different practice fields and create the next generation of champions for this work.

Guiding Principles of the Fathering After Violence Initiative

The working collaborative behind the Fathering After Violence Initiative developed the following guiding principles to inform its work:

The safety of women and children is always our first priority; {{{OH??? I HAPPEN TO DISAGREE!}}

This initiative must be continually informed and guided by the experiences of battered women and their children; {{Oh?? HOW CAN IT WHEN OUR INPUT IS NOT SOUGHT, we ARE STUCK IN FEAR & LITIGATION OVER CUSTODY, FINANCIALLY STRAPPED, AND FORCED INTO MEDIATING WHAT ARE CRIMINAL MANNERS, WHICH DEPRIVES US OF DUE PROCESS? }}

This initiative does not endorse or encourage automatic contact between the offending fathers and their children or parenting partners;

In any domestic violence intervention, there must be critical awareness of the cultural context in which parenting happens;

Violence against women and children is a tool of domination and control used primarily by men and rooted in sexism and male entitlement;

Abuse is a deliberate choice and a learned behavior and therefore can be unlearned;

LOOK, the courts are either for justice, or they are not. If they are social transformational behavioral modification centers, then forget the Bill of Rights, OK? Which is exactly what is happening….

Some men choose to change their abusive behavior and heal their relationships, while others continue to choose violence;

Working with fathers is an essential piece of ending violence against women and children; and

Fathers who have used violence need close observation to mitigate unintended harm.

Personally, I think this is just about a lost cause. Get protection for the women, teach them to protect themselves, and allow them to separate. Acknowledge that if you are going to abuse a woman, you forfeit fatherhood privileges. I’m sure the message will get out sooner or later, instead of the contrary message now being sent — nothing much will happen….

Public and Private Partnerships:

The NIFDV has been supported by public and private partners including the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Ms. Foundation for Women, the Office on Violence Against Women, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Family Violence Prevention & Services Program, Administration on Children and Families.

This project is being developed in partnership with other national organizations, such as the>> Center for Family Policy and Practice, <<the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community, the National Latino Alliance to Eliminate Domestic Violence, Mending the Sacred Hoop, the Domestic Violence Resource Network, and the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.

The National Institute has three core elements:

Training and Technical Assistance Leadership Academy

Program Practice and Development Center

Information Clearinghouse

Fatherhood has proven to be a powerful tool to reach men in understanding the effects of family violence. There is much to learn in this area and we need to move cautiously forward. Safety for women and children remain the focus and center of our work. By working with fathers in breaking the cycle of abuse, we will enhance the safety and wellbeing of their partners, children, grandchildren and future generations yet to come. ===========

Fatherhood is not a tool, it’s a role that responsible (versus violent, and intending only to control and dominate) men fill. It’s not an entitlement.

Amy Castillo, who lost 3 children drowned in a bathtub years ago, because some judge was smarter than her, when she warned he was unstable and had threatened to kill them or himself (she’s a pediatrician — what would she know? In family law, she’s just a woman) now is trying to make a difference for future women, and took more insults in public recently. This link from 2/28/2010 and yesterday’s post, comments on it:

Amy Castillo testified at this hearing, as she tried to get a protective order in 2007, but was denied. Her husband Mark Castillo had their three children on visitation after when he murdered all three in a Maryland hotel, drowning them in the bathtub. At the protective order hearing, her husband’s lawyer questioned her (from the transcripts):

Douglas Cohn–Defense Attorney, Mark’s Attorney: “He threatened to kill your children and you, and you made love to him that night.”

Amy Castillo: “Yes, because I’m scared of him. If I act scared or upset or emotional, he really reacts to that, and I didn’t want him to know I was trying to get a protective order.”

With this, the judge denied the protective order. Judge Joseph Dugan ruled “There is not clear and convincing evidence that the alleged acts of abuse occurred.” This left Mark Castillo the opportunity to murder the children.

28.Feb.2010 Maryland Mother Fights to Change Law After Husband Killed Children

Updated: Friday, 26 Feb 2010, 12:26 PM EST
Published : Thursday, 25 Feb 2010, 7:15 PM EST
By Sherri Ly

ANNAPOLIS, Md. – When Amy Castillo’s husband, Mark, killed her three children nearly two years ago she knew he’d carried out his threat. “He said well really the worse thing I could do is kill the children and not you so you have to live without them,” Castillo said.

Fifteen months earlier she told a Montgomery County judge the same story but he denied her final protective order because there wasn’t “clear and convincing evidence.” Castillo says she was devastated.

The interim protective order had already angered her estranged husband, who suffered from mental illness and transcripts show had planned to violently end his own life. “I think he would have had to have hurt them before, in the past, actually physically injured them. All along I felt that you have to actually hurt someone or prove you sexually abused them before you can get any help,” Castillo said.

For her efforts, she is insulted again…

AND we are talking about fatherhood after violence? Pierce county, same thing: PARENTING CLASSES to handle an out of control man who doesn’t respect the law. More important to get those kids with Daddy.

This post to be continued…

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 2, 2010 at 2:36 PM

Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Where's Mom?, Who set bail?

“Here Come da Judge!”

with 14 comments

Some times, hard times, a little humor helps me. I seem to notice things that maybe others don’t (oft-burnt, twice as observant?)…

This is from Womenslaw.org about Custody, and a good question, plus a sidelong plug for (what else) supervised visitation. . . . And no absolute commitment either way on this topic:

Can a parent who committed violence get “custody” or “visitation”?

Maybe. It is possible that a parent who has committed violence will get custody or visitation if the court determines that it is in the “best interest of the child” to do so. Generally, judges beleve it is in the child’s best interest to have frequent contact with both parents.*1

{{so, the “court” kind of being the “judge” who signs the order, we get back to what judges generally believe… For more of that, see the AFCC conference as to what’s being promoted among many of them…}}

Conservatorship / Custody:

If a person is filing for sole or joint managing conservatorship, the court will consider whether the person has been abusive toward his/her spouse, the parent of the child and any person under 18 years old within the 2 years before filing for conservatorship or during the proceeding. A judge may deny joint managing conservatorship if s/he finds that there is a history or pattern of child neglect or physical or sexual abuse of a parent, spouse or child.*2

{{then, again, they also may not. Sounds like a toss-up to me…}}

The judge may not {{OR, may…}} appoint joint managing conservators if reliable evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *3

Likewise, the court [[as opposed to “the judge?”] will consider {{but will it act on?}} any incident of family violence in deciding whether to deny, restrict, or limit the possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory conservator.*4

Possession and Access / Visitation:

If a parent has been violent within the last two years before filing or during the court proceedings, a judge may {{or may not, we have no committed policy here, right?}} deny that parent possession of or access to the child unless:

the judge decides that allowing the parent access is not a danger to the child and is in the best interest of the child; and
the judge approves a possession order that will protect the child and any other victim from the abusive parent. The order may require:

supervised access; {{Here’s the Business Model…}}
exchange of the child in a protective setting (see note below);
that the parent not drink alcohol and not use any drugs within 12 hours before or during the time the child is with him/her; or {{See my comments on Oconto, Wisconsin, where the father was caught DUI with the daughter in the car, but still it was the MOTHER who was jailed for failing to force the daughter back into that situation.}}
that the parent attend a batterer’s prevention program or any program the judge finds appropriate. *5

Tell the judge if you have gotten a protective order within the last 2 years against the parent seeking possession of and access to your child. The judge will consider this when determining whether there is a history of family violence.*6

{{Note: Some women get SMART after the first several violent incidents, and survive more than 2 years in a relationship before someone shows them how to get out. In this case, asking what happened in the last 2 years may not indicate that the father/husband/partner has reformed or settled down, or repented, but simply that the mother/wife/partner simply got cagier and smarter in how to avoid them. As many abusers also are control freaks, as toa ccess to transportation and ways to escape their abuse, this may involve shutting down emotionally, and teaching the kids to also, i.e., “walking on eggshells.” how many judges take the time to tell the difference?}}

Note: If the abuser is granted possession and access to your child, ask the court or a local domestic violence program for information about visitation centers or visitation exchange facilities in your county if you think that is a good option for you.

GOT THIS? The judge MAY respect the danger of domestic violence, or the judge MAY instead choose to drop-kick the problem to some cronies in the supervised visitation field.

{{Which of course they will prime you to. . . .. . I asked for this, and was of course, not told that there is federal funding for this, but not available so readily for MOMS… Not being incarcerated, an abuser, or behind on my child support (as the custodial mother), there was no outreach program to help me. And as I wasn’t preventing access, that wasn’t an issue. Thanks, dudes for rewarding me for compliance and good-faith allowing regular access to my growing (and healing) children by totally removing them from me, failing to enforce child support — at all, practically — and allowing him after custody switch to totally cut off contact, failing to report felony child-stealing (meaning, no Victims of Crime compensation), and no help after this event trashed my jobs. Thanks. Merry Christmas to all, and let’ em eat cake…}}

It is assumed by the court that it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *7

*1 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131
*2 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(a)
*3 Tex. Fam. Code §153.004(b)
*4 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(c)
*5 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(d)
*6 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004
*7 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(e)

======================

(Since I’ve already dated, if not geographically marked (as to California) myself, I’ll go one step further and admit, this “well, it depends. . . .. ” approach to whether an abuser (or “a parent who has committed violence”) can get custody of a child approach reminded me (see highlit words, above) on the old comedy routine:

“Here Comes Da Judge!”

A little more judicial humor, even more dated (i.e., not my own…):

“THE INSCRUTABLE WORKINGS OF PROVIDENCE“

My last blog{{whoever this is...}}, on the rather bland exchanges between lawyers and justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, gave me a craving for red meat. So I pulled out my copy of Winston Churchill's marvelous little book, Great Contemporaries, and I turned to the essay on F.E. Smith, a lawyer who later became the first Earl of Birkenhead. Smith was famous for his stilletto wit, which once drew a pompous rebuke from a presiding judge: "Mr. Smith, have you ever heard a saying by Bacon -- the great Bacon -- that youth and discretion are ill-wedded companions?"

"Yes I have," came the instant repartee. "And have you ever heard a saying of Bacon -- the great Bacon -- that a much-talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal?"

Taken aback, the judge resorted to scolding, "You are extremely offensive, young man,"

"As a matter of fact," said Smith, "we both are; but I am trying to be, and you can't help it."

The judge, who apparently had never heard of citing a lawyer for contempt, came back for another drubbing: ""What do you suppose I am on the bench for, Mr. Smith?"

"It is not for me, your honor, to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence."

That kind of exchange is something we we will never hear in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Americans are much too dignified for any such thing.

Posted on January 9, 2006 10:40 PM | Permalink
OR:

If I want to quote a Supreme Court justice who was genuinely funny, I usually turn to Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935).Among my favorite Holmes stories is the one concerning how he was supposed to lecture at a college, and discovered that he had arrived at an insane asylum by mistake. The justice was philosophical. “Oh well,” he said to the guard, “I don’t suppose that there is a great deal of difference.”

For once, the legal eagle was topped. “With great respect, Mr. Justice,” the guard replied, “there is. Before they let you out of this place, you have to show some improvement.”

Posted on January 2, 2006 7:53 PM | Permalink

More, “HERE COME DA JUDGE” info:

Here comes the Judge!

Here comes the judge!

The court's in session!

The Funky Judge! Updated 8.28.02

That’s right. 1968 was the year of the funky craze (see last issue’s Soul With An African Twist). It may not have showed up on the Chinese astrological calendar, but ’68 was definitely the year of the Judge. Dewey ‘Pigmeat’ Markham trod the boards of the ‘Chitlin’ circuit for decades as well as appearing in many of the ‘sepia’ films aimed at forcibly segregated black audiences. In 1968 a routine of his about an angry, obstreperous judge broke into the mainstream of America’s pop consciousness. Pigmeat, a big guy with a loud, extremely gravelly voice would enter with a chant of: ‘Here come da judge, here come da judge! The court’s in session, the court’s in session!’ and then would launch into a hysterical tirade. In early 1968 Pigmeat and his rap found their way onto Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-in, and rapidly became a favorite, eventually becoming a regular on the show. It wasn’t long before ‘Judge’ records started to appear on the scene. Ironically, the first hit (chronologically) was not by Markham but Motown mainstay Shorty Long. Long, who had hit before with the original versions of ‘Devil With the Blue Dress On’ and ‘Function at the Junction’, made it (in June of ’68) to #4 on the R&B charts and #8 on the pop charts with his very funky ‘Here Comes The Judge’. In Long’s record, the Judge is sentencing the defendant to various amounts of time for the boogaloo, the four corners and the Afro-twist. The judge on the record even sounds like Pigmeat. Markham charted with his own version a few weeks later, on Chess (Chess2049). His tune ( a different song entirely) starts out with a long proto-rap speech, with exclamations from the gallery. The tune breaks into a deep, rough funk. In fact, despite the fact that he was an old fella, Pigmeat laid down the funkiest records in the entire ‘Judge’ genre (though it’s fair to mention that he had the mighty talents of the Chess house band backing him up).

I’m not really “playing around” so much as it might appear. Did you do your homework last few posts, and look up the L.A. County Judges Slush fund (at least acc. to Marv Bryer et al.), how it started out of the county court house, not paying taxes for years (til basically forced to), morphed into CCC then somehow AFCC, and now we have these tremendous professionals, and social scientists figuring out our problems for us…..?

ETHICS, TRANSFORMATIONS, and Dr. JUDITH REISMAN, Kinsey, etc….

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/CaliforniaCripplesWomen.pdf

I cannot find the exact article where Dr. Reisman was talking about the importance of ETHICS in public servants, and referring to a certain (old) law that was being undermined. She is a controversial figure for sure, but I responded to her personal story, which you might also, and how her own world got rocked when it was discovered a relative had been molested. …. I’d also like to note: articles are published onto “WND” (World Net Daily) which I do NOT espouse overall….

http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html#journey

Summary:

Dr. Judith Reisman is sought worldwide to speak, lecture, testify, and counsel individuals, organizations, professionals and governments in Media Forensics, the scientific analysis of images, pictures, cartoons, illustrations, pornography and text in sexual harassment of women and children in the workplace, schools, and homes. Her Media Forensic expertise has been successful in child custody cases, examining “pseudo-child” and “virtual-child” pornography, as well as in judicial and legislative decisions about a) fraudulent sex science, sex education and b) the way in which media images restructure human brain, mind, memory, and conduct by hijacking rationality. The special emphasis of her Media Forensic research has been and continues to be the scientific documentation of the difference between public and private space human erotic displays, and the subversion of informed consent via exposure to supranormal visual stimuli.

Dr. Reisman is a consultant and former president of The Institute for Media Education and is the scientific adviser for the California Protective Parents Association. She was Principal Investigator and author of the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice study, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler (1989), Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Reisman, et al., 1990) and Soft Porn Plays Hardball (1991), Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation (w/Johnson, 1995), and Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998, 2000) and is a news commentator for WorldNetDaily.com. She has been a consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, The U.S. Department of Education, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Reisman is listed in numerous Who’s Who biographies such as: Who’s Who in Science & Engineering, International Who’s Who in Sexology, International Who’s Who in Education, Who’s Who of American Women and The World’s Who’s Who of Women. Her scholarly findings have had international legislative and scientific import in the United States, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, while The German Medical Tribune and the British medical journal, The Lancet demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated, saying:

The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life…. and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, “Anything goes”. In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports … Kinsey et al … questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of “normal” sexual behavior. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles–or so it must be hoped. Kinsey…. has left his former co-workers some explaining to do. The Lancet, (Vol. 337: March 2, 1991, p. 547).

Tim Tate, UNESCO and Amnesty International Award-winning Producer-Director of “Kinsey’s Paedophiles,” Yorkshire Television, Great Britain, 1998: “In the course of producing my documentary-Kinsey’s Paedophiles–it became clear that every substantive allegation Reisman made was not only true but thoroughly sourced with documentary evidence–despite the Kinsey Institute’s reluctance to open its files.”

HER STORY:

By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.

I have been asked to introduce myself so that you know something of my life and how I came to discover Kinsey’s child molestation protocol, his false data, his molding of modern sex education and of western sexual culture and conduct, as well as how I came be involved in international governmental hearings on science fraud, child sexual abuse, pornography, drugs and the other critical issues of our time. I will try to touch on the points in my life which may be of most use to readers of this Kinsey expose.

I was born, Judith Ann Gelernter, in 1935 in Newark, New Jersey. Mine was a large and thriving second-generation Jewish-American family, Russian on my maternal side, German on my parental side. Both sets of grandparents had fled persecution in Europe, and upon landing at Ellis Island in New York, they thankfully embraced their adopted country, immediately took up menial labor, and raised large families of achievers.

My father Matthew was born in Massachusetts and my mother Ada in New Jersey. They eventually owned “Matthew’s Sea Food,” which they developed into a prosperous fish business in Irvington, New Jersey. The Gelernter’s held family meetings every few months at Aunt Laura’s large home in South Orange, New Jersey. More than forty adults and dozens of children sat down to dinners tastefully arranged and served, table manners always impeccable. After dinner, without the modern invention of television, political debates raged between my parents and the family. My parents were the radicals of the family. They believed the widely publicized propaganda of a perfect new world order under socialism or communism. None of our mainstream newspapers had ever revealed the multiple millions of Russians murdered by “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Still, all was mended when cousin Ruth sat down at the piano to accompany my father and three aunts, Laura, Shirley and Mary, as they sang old Yiddish and American folk songs in four-part harmony. I was mesmerized.

For me, they were musical giants, singing, swaying, smiling and beckoning. My dad, looked, I thought, movie-star handsome alongside my favorite Aunt Mary, a beautiful red-haired, green-eyed soprano who had rejected an offer from the Metropolitan Opera in order to marry and raise a family.

. . .

I lived at a wonderful time. My mother welcomed me home every day and my father supported anything I did. I was safe among neighbors, uncles or cousins due to the delightfully repressive influence of the time. I married, and the hedge of protection about my life was not breached until 1966 when my 10-year-old daughter was molested by a 13-year-old adored and trusted family friend. She told him to stop, but he persisted. He knew she would like it, he said, he knew from his father’s magazines, Playboy, the only “acceptable” pornography of the time. The boy left the country a few weeks later, after it came to light that my daughter was but one of several neighborhood children he had raped, including his own little brother. My heart was broken for all the families involved.

This appalling event in our lives, I would learn later, was a pattern with juvenile sex offenders, as they are known in law enforcement circles.

I might never have known anything about her violation, except that my daughter slipped into a deep depression. Only after I promised not to call the police would she talk about what happened. After assuring her this was not her fault, I called my dependable, staid aunt who listened sympathetically and declared, “Well Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. Children are sexual from birth.” Stunned, I replied that my child was not seeking sex, and called my Berkeley school chum, Carole, who counseled, “Well Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. You know children are sexual from birth.” I wondered at this same locution from two such different people so separated geographically. I recognized an ideological “party line.” I did not know it then, but as a young mother, I had entered the world according to Kinsey. I would hear and read that “children are sexual from birth” often again. But finaly I would uncover the hidden circumstances surrounding its source.

What will your judge believe? Suppose it was your daughter? As a mother — like the Berkeley (female) officer who finally noticed something was “off” regarding Phillip Garrido’s twoa ccomplices, will “da judge?” be receptive to your story, your kid’s story, or your partner’s story? Will all of them be considered “stories” and then business farmed out to a mediator, because the story now, is, equal parenting, pretty much no matter what….. And we MUST resolve our (irreconciliable?) differences in Conciliation, excuse me, Family Court, because it’s emotionally damaging to have irreconciliable differences with real damages.

I really believe the only way out is to find out who is paying these pipers. My research, to date, shows that it’s NOT just the litigating parents, but the entire taxable workforce. And the organization spouting all this stuff began by dodging taxes itself, allegedly. Go figure!

(THESE few from NAFCJ.net, home page — links may or may not be current, but are searchable):

“Protective Mom Accused of Witchhunt”, 11/23/1999, By Cheryl Romo, LA Daily Journal — Karen Anderson, one of the retaliated protective mothers mentioned in the Insight story, has since obtained hard evidence (cancelled checks) that federal money from fatherhood programs was used without her knowledge to pay-off all court officials in her case. Anderson along with Connie Valentine are heading up NAFCJ’s reform action in California.

A Financial Fiasco Is in the Making, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara, Insight Magazine, Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association, 2002, still slushing funds
and not paying taxes…

Insight Magazine “Is Justice for Sale in LA?”, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara – Marv Bryer fights against corruption in Los Angeles County Court – the original AFCC court judges’ association, and promoters of Dr. Richard Gardner’s discredited pedophile theory, “PAS” Parental Alienation Syndrome.

Insight Magazine “New Scandals in LA Courts”, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara — Continuation with more of Marv Bryer’s evidence details on an alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association (AFCC judges) and the possible extortion of civil litigants by some officers of the court.”

Retaliation Against Professionals Who Report Child Abuse, By Katherine Hine, J.D., Exposé The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes, A Resource Book for Lawmakers, Judges, Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals.

I’m still looking at the googled “Marv Bryer” myself: here’s a sample of printouts:

Videos: Interview with Marvin Bryer – Naples, Fl | Naples Daily News

Marvin Bryer talks about getting to see Obama – Video taken in or around Naples, Florida.
http://www.naplesnews.com/videos/detail/interview-marvin–bryer/ – Cached – Similar

Have you Ever Heard of Marvin Bryer

3 posts – 3 authors – Last post: Dec 28, 2008

Have you Ever Heard of Marvin Bryer. … It starts at about Minute 50 about Marvin Bryer. The below document indicates some of the stuff …
forum.prisonplanet.com › … › General Discussion – Cached – Similar

IRS Non-Profit Organization

Dec 21, 1998 … A letter has been sent by Marvin Bryer to the IRS alerting them of this scam; the attendant mis-use of government facilities; …
http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/irscpa.htm – Cached – Similar

Bryer Tort Claim of 9/10/98

May 8, 1999 … Enter Marvin Bryer, a retired computer analyst in La Crescenta, Calif. . . . . Bryer became ensnared with the family-court system after his …
http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm – Cached – Similar

You know what? Maybe the love of money IS the root of all evil. Not using it, not having it, but loving it more than, say, children. Or oaths of office, etc.

Exposing & Prosecuting

Judicial Corruption thru

Common Law Discovery

by Marvin Bryer [1997]

http://famguardian.org/PublishedAuthors/Media/Antishyster/V07N4-ExposingProsecJudicialCorrThruCommLawDisc.pdf

DISCLAIMER: Note, this seems to be a survivalist, gun-toting, all-American (you get the picture), I’d say for sure conservative site. I am just curious to read the Marv Bryer article, and don’t know if this represents his philosophy either. Sort through it, though.

THE THING IS:

If you are going to the fruit stand in a store, are you going to sort and pick through apples for the good ones? Or pick a pre-bagged, inspected, certified organic (etc.) one, whose packaging you trust? Or, alternately, skip apples for today.

They say one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. When you get divorced and can’t figure it out OUTside court, you must go INSIDE, and in this case, you can’t forum-shop or judge shop. Remember, if there is conflict within a family, the parents just lost jurisdiction, acc. to that old law (see last few posts). Your kids and your life are no longer your own.

Therefore it’s IMPERATIVE that ALL financial incentives to defraud the public be removed for ALL judges. This ain’t going to be a walk in the park, and I wish that the Moms and Dads both (the honest ones) would quit yakking about social science studies and do their math homework.

Hope you appreciate this sacrifice of my own internet time just made to day. Have a nice day… and Let’s Get HONEST! And make sure our public officials do also!

Thanks.

AAJ clocks in on Court Secrecy & Forced Arbitration….

with one comment

And maybe the clock should run out on both of those practices!

I can’t always keep straight the Associations from the Institutes from the Foundations, from the what-nots, but this came up today from the American Association for Justice. This post is as-is — judge for yourself. I’m simply relaying the information….

AAJ points out the dangers of (1) COURT SECRECY in settlements, where the defendant is large and influential, and the tort could be “tortuous” to children, adults, and the public at large. In the family law arena — and believe me, some of my fellow-bloggers know this — it’s a gag order. Right up there with First Amendment, eh?

Check out the 8th Deadly secret in their list…

and of:

(2) Forced Arbitration. While I didn’t look to far into this one, in the family law venue, it’s “mandatory mediation.” Same principle. THIS organization spoke up against it.

Think about it.

American Association for Justice.

Eight Deadly Secrets—How Court Secrecy Harms Families and Children

(1) Cooper Tires Johnny Bradley became a widower on July 14, 2002, as a result of a rollover accident caused by tread separation in his Cooper tires. While litigating Johnny’s case, his attorney uncovered documented evidence of Cooper tire design defects. These documents had been kept confidential through protective orders in previous lawsuits against Cooper and Johnny’s attorney had to fight numerous uphill litigation battles to gain access to them. He only knew about these documents in the first place because he specialized in tire litigation. Prior to the end of his federal trial, Cooper Tires settled with Johnny Bradley on the condition that almost all litigation documents would be kept confidential under a broad protective order. With no access to documented evidence of design defects, consumers will continue to remain in the dark until the next tragedy. Civil Action No. 4:03cv94LN (S.D. Mississippi).

(2) Zyprexa In 2005, drug giant Eli Lilly paid $700 million to settle 8,000 state and federal lawsuits filed by patients who had taken Zyprexa, a Lilly medicine used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Patients taking Zyprexa experienced inordinate weight gain and developed dangerously high blood sugar levels – some even developed diabetes. Zyprexa only agreed to settle these cases after all discovery documents were returned, and parties to the settlement agreed not to discuss the cases publicly. The public did not learn about dangerous Zyprexa side effects until two years later, when the New York Times published a related article after receiving some leaked documents. Lilly subsequently settled an additional 18,000 cases for $500 million.

(3) Seroquel
After two years of expensive and time-consuming litigation, recently released AstraZeneca documents reveal that the pharmaceutical giant had known about the dangerous side effects of its psychiatric drug Seroquel since 2000. While AstraZeneca continued marketing Seroquel as safe, the corporation buried unfavorable studies linking the drug to diabetes and major weight gain. According to the previously sealed documents, sales representatives were even directed to assuage doctors’ fears about patient weight gain by emphasizing that study results showed no causal link between diabetes and the drug. Doctors even switched their patients from Zyprexa to Seroquel, not realizing that Seroquel caused similar harmful side effects. Meanwhile, Seroquel topped $4.4 billion in 2008 sales.

(4) Cessna Caravan Airplanes A trio of successful Texas businessmen died in late 2003 when their Cessna Caravan airplane crashed as a result of the plane’s flawed deicing mechanism. The almost-new aircraft was being flown by a professional pilot. Only through litigation did their attorneys fortuitously uncover previously concealed evidence documenting the Cessna deicing defect and the sloppy testing that preceded certification. All documents were produced under a confidentiality order. The case ultimately settled in federal court but under the confidentiality order, Cessna demanded return of the key documents which were never made public. Most of the key internal documents have never been seen by the FAA or the NTSB. One key document suggested not telling the FAA about certain internal testing data to avoid the risk that the FAA might require recertification of the Caravan. Shortly after the Texas settlement, Cessna began discussing a change in the deicing design such that new production aircraft would be equipped with a system similar to that advocated by the families and their experts.

Unfortunately, Cessna has still not addressed the deicing defect in existing aircraft, many of which are still in use today. Furthermore, subsequent litigation has revealed additional defects in the aircraft’s stall warning system that make the aircraft even more susceptible to sudden loss of control when flying in icing conditions. The families’ attorneys believe that the FAA’s restriction of the Caravan to flight in “light” icing misleads consumers about the safety of the plane. The National Transportation Safety Board reports 6 fatal crashes and 1 serious injury crash since 2003 which, the families’ attorneys say, involve the same defect as that in the Texas litigation. The most recent Cessna Caravan crash which appears to result from the defects in the deicing system occurred October 7, 2007, near Naches, Washington and killed the pilot and 9 passengers.

(5) PPA in OTC Children’s Medicine Mrs. X gave her 7 year-old-son an over-the-counter children’s medicine to treat an ear infection. Hours after taking the medicine, Mrs. X’s son experienced a sudden hemorrhagic stroke and fell into a permanent coma. Her son died after three years of being on life support and many expensive but failed rehabilitation attempts. The stroke was induced by phenylopropanolamine, an ingredient in the children’s medicine that was later banned by the FDA. Similar lawsuits in state and federal courts had previously been filed against the drug manufacturer, but these lawsuits were settled secretly. Her son’s death occurred in a state that significantly capped damages, which limited Mrs. X’s financial ability to take this case to court and forced her to accept a secret settlement in 2005. The secrecy provision is so broad that she cannot disclose any details related to her lawsuit.

(6) Ford Firestone Tires 19-year-old college scholarship student Daniel Van Etten was killed on March 9, 1997 when the Firestone tire on his vehicle separated. Knowing it would take years to resolve her son’s case in trial, Mrs. Van Etten accepted a settlement with Firestone in federal court that required all of the discovery documents to be kept confidential. Firestone did not recall the 6.5 million defective tires until three years later. By October 2001, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) “determined that Firestone shredding tires had caused at least 271 fatalities, most of which involved cases settled secretly.

(7) Defective Baby Crib Linda Ginzel and Boaz Keysar’s son Danny Keysar strangled to death when his Playskool travel lite crib collapsed in May of 1998. Danny’s parents later learned that three prior lawsuits involving the same product defect had been settled secretly. Crib manufacturers Kolcraft and Hasbro also offered Danny’s parents a settlement with a secrecy provision but they fought successfully to deny the manufacturer’s request for secrecy. Danny’s family reached a $3 million settlement agreement in 2001.

(8) Clergy Abuse of Children Prior to the Boston Globe’s 2002 expose on the Boston Archdiocese’s clergy abuse cases, literally thousands of secret settlements and sealed court files allowed religious organizations to conceal incidents of child sexual abuse by their clergy. Attorney Mitchell Garabedian has handled clergy sex abuse since the 1980s, settling as many as 30 of these cases confidentially. Roderick MacLeish, Jr. also estimates that he represented around 400 alleged clergy abuse victims since 1991 – around 200 of these cases were settled confidentially. Some have criticized that signing secret settlements “prevented the scandal from erupting into public view sooner.

Sources:
1. Alex Berenson, Lilly Settles With 18,000 Over Zyprexa, N. Y. Times, Jan. 5, 2007, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9F00E5DB1430F936A35752C0A9619C8B63; Richard Zitrin, Secrecy’s Dangerous Side Effects, L. A. Times, Feb. 8, 2007, http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-zitrin08feb08,0,6742226.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail. See also Court Secrecy’s Drug Connection: Secret Settlements Used to Suppress Information on Public Health and Safety Hazards article on AAJ Web site: http://www.justice.org/pressroom/facts/secrecy/prozac.aspx (recounting how court secrecy was used to conceal the settlement of a Prozac lawsuit).

2. Keith Bradsher, S.U.V. Tire Defects Were Known in ’96 But Not Reported, N.Y. Times, June 24, 2001, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E2D61230F937A15755C0A9679C8B63 (last accessed Oct. 24, 2007).

3. Richard Zitrin, The Judicial Function: Justice Between the Parties, Or a Broader Legal Interest?, 32 Hofstra L. Rev. 1573, 1567 (2004).

4. Jonathan Eig, How Danny Died, Chicago, Nov. 1998, http://www.kidsindanger.org/news/news_detail/1998_chicmag.pdf (last accessed Oct. 24, 2007); Also see Danny’s story on the Kids in Danger website at http://www.kidsindanger.org/pressroom/releases/20011206_pr.pdf (last accessed October 24, 2007).

5. Sacha Pfieffer, Crisis in the church; Critical Eye Cast on Sex Abuse Lawyers Confidentiality, Large Settlements Are Questioned, The Boston Globe, June 3, 2007.

AAJ News

(2) on FORCED ARBITRATION:

(A) A woman was drugged, raped, beaten, and put in a container, and had to FIGHT to get access to justice.

If we understand this in a CIVIL format, why should vulnerable populations who are within FAMILIES take on the entire weight of the professional experts (supposedly) to protect themselves, or their children, from rape, abduction, harassment, stalking, and assault & battery issues?

EVERYONE seems mad at the family court venue, and evaluations/mediations (I refer to litigants, the parents). Father’s groups AND mothers’ groups. …. Well, maybe that’s because the entire system is an offence to due process.

When you consider that the basic premise of this family law venue is (see my last post, history of it) mediation, and reconciliation — not due process — going in the doors to start with is like hoping to find some good apples in a barrelful of those who are profiting off family distress. It’s a crapshoot! Children grow up fast, and no one has time for that in their brief childhoods!

Sexual Assault & Discrimination Victims Protected From Defense Contractor Forced Arbitrations
October 6, 2009
Washington, DC— Jamie Leigh Jones was raped, drugged, beaten, and then confined to a shipping container by KBR/Halliburton employees while working in Iraq. Because of a clause placed in her employment contract, KBR forced her to submit to a binding, secret, non-appealable arbitration. Jamie had to fight to obtain access to the justice system because she unknowingly signed an arbitration clause as part of her 18-page employment contract.

But an amendment passed today by the U.S. Senate (S.A. 2588), as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3326), will prevent other defense contractor employees from being forced into arbitrations as a result of sexual assault, harassment or other forms of discrimination. Upon the President’s final signature of the bill, the amendment – sponsored by Sens. Al Franken (D-Minn.) and Mary Landrieu (D-La.) – would bar defense contractors from imposing forced arbitration clauses on their employees for sexual assault claims or Title VII violations.

“No corporation should ever be able to force their employees or customers into these biased, one-sided proceedings,” said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. “But this one amendment goes a long way in protecting the rights of defense contractor employees, who should never endure what Jamie did to receive justice after such a horrific ordeal.”

Jamie will testify tomorrow at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of the bipartisan Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 931 / H.R. 1020) at 10am in 226 Dirksen. Sponsored by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), the Arbitration Fairness Act would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is made voluntarily and after a dispute has arisen, so corporations cannot manipulate the system in their favor at the expense of consumers and employees.

###

As the world’s largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others—even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org/newsroom.

http://www.justice.org/resources/searle_arbitration_rebut.pdf

.

AAJ Calls on Congress to Restore Americans’ Basic Legal Protections
November 19, 2009Washington, DC—A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives today will restore standards required to file court cases and strengthen Americans’ basic legal protections. The “Open Access to Courts Act of 2009,” introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), will address recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions – Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) – which irrationally raised the bar for Americans seeking justice in employment, discrimination, and other civil cases.

(A)

Searle Institute Report Shows Mandatory Arbitration Favors Corporations Over Consumers

A Searle Civil Justice Institute report on mandatory binding arbitration clearly indicates the process is stacked against consumers and overwhelmingly favors the corporations that utilize its services. While the authors try to paint a rosy picture of the mandatory arbitration process, the data actually illustrates otherwise.

Business claimants win overwhelmingly more cases than consumers.

Searle’s data shows that consumers won some relief in 53.3% of cases they filed; however, business claimants won relief in 83.6% of cases.

Business complaints receive drastically higher awards in cases they win compared to consumers.

In 41 of the 51 cases in which a business claimant won, the business recovered between 90 and 100% of the amount they claimed. Conversely, in the 119 cases won by consumers, the individual was awarded only 20% or less of their claim in 36 cases. In only 37 cases did consumers receive between 90 and 100% of the amount claimed. The rest, 46 cases, had the consumer winning anywhere between 11 and 89% of their original claim.

This data shows that businesses win far more often than consumers in mandatory arbitration and in much higher amounts. Consumers win less, and when they do prevail, receive much lower awards compared to their original claim.

It is likely that consumers have a much lower “win rate” than Searle’s 53.3% result.

As stated above, consumers are receiving less than 20% of their claims in a large amount of mandatory arbitration cases. Therefore, if a consumer is to claim $5,000 and only win $10, this counts as a “win” by Searle’s calculation, therefore inflating its 53.3% “win rate” figure.

Opponents of making arbitration voluntary, instead of mandatory, wrongly claim that the process is fair for consumers who don’t have an attorney.

When business is the claimant, consumers have virtually no chance of prevailing without an attorney, losing 93% of the time. With an attorney, consumers can defend themselves successfully against business claimants in 38.9% of arbitrations. Regardless of the statistics above that show how mandatory binding arbitration is stacked against consumers, Searle’s

data is narrow and hardly representative of all arbitrations. Searle looked at only 301 arbitration cases from one arbitration company (American Arbitration Association). This data is NOT

accessible to the public; AAA selectively gave Searle data to inspect, which raises questions as to the validity of the sample. Additionally, if Searle’s determination is that arbitration is fair and a useful remedy for consumers, this does not explain why corporations and their front groups are lobbying for these clauses to be

MANDATORY in consumer contracts. Arbitration should be VOLUNTARY, not forced upon consumers and hidden in contracts, even before a dispute arises.

About Searle Civil Justice Institute

: This institute is a creation of the late conservative philanthropist Daniel Searle. Searle donated to a long list of conservative organizations, including American Enterprise Institute, Manhattan Institute, and the Pacific Research Foundation. All of these groups have worked to undermine the civil justice system and prevent everyday Americans from holding corporations accountable via the legal system. This report from the Searle Institute follows in that same vein.

For press inquiries, please contact Ray De Lorenzi in AAJ Communications, 202-965-3500 x369

and, as to an individual:

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

December 18, 2009 at 3:27 PM

Posted in History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids

Circular Reasoning – 50 Ways to Leave Your Lover (with your kids)

A Quick Post (not mine, except intro & comments)

summarizing the situation fairly well:

On reading this post, pretty accurate, I thought of “50 ways to leave your lover,” by (if you don’t know this, you probably were born after the VAWA act passed the first time) Simon & Garfunkel.

Which I’d like to rededicate to women attempting to do so, once they realize what “love” is and is not. Switch the gender, the song applies; and act on it sooner, rather than later. I guess — pray, carry Mace, and suggest you also enroll in law school ASAP, you’ll need it…

she said it’s really not my habit to intrude
furtermore i hope my meaning won’t be lost or misconstrued
but i’ll repeat my self, at the risk of being crude
there must be 50 ways to leave your lover

chorus:
just slip out the back, Jack
make a new plan, Stan
don’t need to be coy, Roy
just get yourself free
hop on the bus, Gus
don’t need to discuss much
just drop off the key, Lee
and get yourself free.

she said it grieves me so to see you in such pain
i wish there was something i could do to make you smile again
i said, i appreciate that,
and would you please explain about the 50 ways.

she said, why don’t we both just sleep on it tonight
and i believe that in the morning you’ll begin to see the light
and then she kissed me and i realized she probably was right
there must be 50 ways to leave your lover
50 ways to leave your lover…

chorus

If children are involved, realize that Big Brother has a different plan for them, and you, as well. See below:

[[my comments in brackets, otherwise it’s quote. Quote ends at the line of ]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]’s..]]

Note: Cross posted from Battered Mothers Rights – A Human Rights Issue.

Permalink

Randi James is a brilliant writer- her site is replete with information from the top to bottom -thx you Randi James! http://www.randijames.com/

Between a Rock and a Hard Place: The System Sends Mixed Messages to Abuse Victims

Do you stay, or do you leave?

If you haven’t been a victim of abuse, or a victim of the legal system, you may not be able to understand why this is even posed as a question.

Of course you should leave!

I mean, who deserves to get beat up and/or sexually assaulted in their own home…regularly…or even occasionally. Even as careful as you could try to be to make sure everything is perfect, so as not to anger your abuser, SOMETHING always sets him off…sooner or later. He is a time bomb. You are his target.

What does it mean to be a target?

When you are a target, all of your abuser’s anger is directed toward you, specifically. Typically, he doesn’t pull the same shit towards those who he considers his equals, or more powerful than he. This is about power. He needs you like capitalism needs slaves. He uses you so that he can feel better about his shortcomings. He doesn’t know how to feel good without you.

But he is a good father. He doesn’t beat the kids.

You’re right. Good fathers don’t beat their kids…But nor do they beat up on women to whom they are temporarily, or permanently committed. Getting beat in front of your children doesn’t exactly send the kids a good message. In fact, they are put in limbo because your kids will either

A) Side with your abuser because he is more powerful and gets what he wants, or

B) Side with you in attempt to protect you…But let me break that down a little more

1) In protecting you, your children become targets, and the moment will come when they take blows for you

2) In choosing to side with you or not, your children will mimic the behaviors they have seen and normalize them.

Is this what you want?

I hope not because if some outsider reports what is going on in your household, CPS will come knocking and your kids may be gone before you ever get a chance to ask questions. You will be charged with neglect, endangering your children, or failure to protect.

Why?

Because everyone on the outside thinks you should have just left. You are themother. If you didn’t leave, you must be an accessory to the abuse.

What mother allows her children to get abused?

And what mother lets her children watch as she gets abused?

You must be a bad mother. You don’t deserve to have children. If you’re lucky, maybe your relatives will do you a favor and step in and raise your children for you. If not, foster care will do a great job…because it is indeed a job when they are getting paid.

Maybe you have a chance though, if you would just leave.

That seems like the best idea. Leave.

Wait!

Are you going to tell your abuser in advance, or are you going to sneak out in the middle of the night?

Remember, he needs you…is he going to agree to all of this?

Who the fuck do you think you are leaving him, and taking his children?

He owns you. He’s paying the bills. He’s the reason you can stay home and take care of his children.

[[Comment: Not all the time. Wasn’t true in my case… Many times they are financially dependent on you as well…]]

If you go, you have reason to be fearful. Get a lawyer and a restraining order. But, back up a little. The lawyer says, if you take out a restraining order, in the near future, the judge in family court could use it against you. He (the judge and your abuser) may say this was part of your vindictive scheme to get the kids and the money and the house and the car. Restraining orders don’t prevent you from being harmed though anyway, because you still have to rely on law enforcement to act.

Get the restraining order anyway.

You’ll have record of what you tried to do, in case the news opts to report it upon your “tragic” death. But you can’t put the kids on the restraining order…Silly woman! You know fathers have rights!

In fact they have so many rights that if your abuser happens to get locked up, Responsible Fatherhood money will ensure that he has the means to transition back into his caretaking, father-role (don’t roll your eyes, we know you were doing the caretaking, but you’re not important and this is politics).

Go ahead and report the entire history of abuse.

You do have pictures, right? You mean to tell me in all these years that you have been getting assaulted, you weren’t taking pictures of your injuries and saving them in a secret location?

Did you at least tell the doctor? Is there anything in your medical record?

Where are your vaginal tears, bruises, scars?

In talking to police without evidence (or with it), your case will seem suspicious. It will be your word, against your abuser’s. Your local DA will be hesitant to take the case…well, hesitant is an overstatement because he may not even acknowledge you. DA’s only take cases they can win. DA’s aren’t interested in intrafamilial abuse reports in the midst of divorce…

[[No matter what the local DA’s office website declares, it’s often true.]]

You have bad timing. You should have reported this before you were trying to separate. Oh, whoops, I forgot, they would have charged you, too!

Maybe you can work things out peacefully without involving the court.

[[Yeah, that’s the general philosophy behind sending such cases, involving kids, to mediation… Just “work it out.”]]

When was the last time you worked things out “peacefully” with an abuser?

In good conscience, you allow your abuser to continue to have a relationship with the children he didn’t abuse, well, directly abuse (or at least you think so). I don’t know if you are really doing him a favor, or rather doing as the court would order you to do so, because you do know that the court will order you to do it, right (askMs. Leichtenberg and also ask the Paul family…family, because Monica Paul happens to be deceased)? Father’s rights.

I know, I know. Yes, you have been abused, but now, yes, yes, you will be court ordered to continue to have a relationship with your abuser because kids deserve both parents. If you try to resist, they will call in the child custody evaluators and Guardians ad Litem and they will say things you would never imagine…because you ARE crazy, aren’t you?

What mother would keep a father away from his children?

[[I didn’t, because doing so would’ve been to violate a standing custody order, ordering visitation. Consequence? I lost contact with my kids. To this date! He continued to violate without impunity thereafter.]]

You know your abuser best.

[[Yeah, right. Everyone knows that only the ‘experts’ know what they’re talking about when it comes to abuse. ‘Experts” prefer to talk with each other in their language, out of the earshot of the traumatized folk. It’s cleaner and less personally disturbing/challenging. People suffering PTSD often skip around in chronology, speak or write associatively, and can ge derailed on particularly frightening topics. It takes a lot to overcome that. . . . . . . So, in one sense, this is understandable, because after long enough living with “lethality assessments” and threats, after actual physical assualts and the very high stakes of child custody, plus retaliation for reporting, some women can sound more garbled than they really are. In reality to even stay alive, or emotionally somewhat intact, through significant abuse, esp. years of it, takes keeping track of more things that the average middle manager can, I’d be, in a rapidly changing economy. We have literal lives at stake, let alone livelihoods. Let alone the normal multi-tasking that often goes with being a mother, let alone a working mother with small kids who are growing up watching your abuse. We also are highly motivated to stay alive, knowing that if we don’t who is likely to get custody of our offspring — either the abuser, or someone who enabled it, such as a close, nonreporting, non-intervening relative. Or CPS, for which money changes hands…]]

You know that when he makes threats, he can carry them through. You know if you don’t meet his demands, you and your children will suffer. But if you try to protect yourself and the children, you risk losing custody to your abuser. And why would you want to put your kids in that situation? They don’t want to live with him and if they do live with him, you already know how their lives will turn out. They will be like lost souls.

Sacrifice yourself…like Jesus Christ. Maybe you were put on earth to suffer for the sins of others.

You were supposed to be omniscient–to know that this man you chose would end up being an abuser.

You were supposed to be omnipresent–to know that this man would abuse your children while you were away at work, or school, or while he was away with the kids.

You were supposed to be omnipotent–to protect yourself and your children and to be able to hide and simultaneously remain visible, and to be able to leave your abuser, but let him remain in your life.

How do you want to die?

[[Seems to me I blogged on this long ago — title about unacceptable choices for women.]]

What do you want the news to say about you when you are murdered?

That you were nice? No, they won’t say that! The neighbors and other members of the community will say how nice your abuser was. He was a family man. He played with the kids in the yard.

Everyone will be so shocked and sad that this happened. No one knew that you and your children were getting your asses kicked on a regular.

Your family may’ve thought you were crazy, or a bad mom, so they may’ve distanced themselves from you a long time ago. In fact, they may have ADORED your abuser.

Your children’s friends will not come forward. They are children–either they won’t tell anyway, or their parents won’t let them.

You know who else might know? The teachers. But teachers are so busy disciplining and teaching to the test…and besides, it’s too late for them to come forward now.

You see what you get for pretending and ignoring and trying to keep the family together? No credit.

Maybe the media will pull your court record and note that you tried to get a restraining order, but you didn’t show up. More than likely, they will relay gossip about how you were having an affair and how you were always provoking your abuser. Because violence is mutual. Girls hit, too.

Didn’t you know in advance that he was easily provoked? You should have checked his criminal record, or asked his ex.

Maybe your children will die, too. But everyone will talk about how tragic it was andhow innocent they are. They, not you, because you had to have done something to make a nice guy want to kill you.

Or maybe you wanted to be killed, because who stays with an abuser anyway?

Indiana’s Bench

The Paradox of Recusal

Minnesota Supreme Court Allows Judge Timothy Blakely to Profit from His Fraudulent Earnings

In Texas and Florida–Court Ordered Exortion

Pennsylvania, Corruption, and Children, Just Like Florida

How Judges Set Up A System to Rig Cases for Fathers

Technorati Tags: Rock,Hard,Place,System,Messages,Abuse,Victims,Randi,James,haven,victim,abuser,equals,needs,capitalism,father,kids,children,message,fact,limbo,Side,moment,outsider,reports,failure,accessory,Maybe,Leave,Wait,Remember,lawyer,money,orders,news,death,woman,rights,Responsible,transition,role,politics,history,pictures,location,doctor,Where,tears,word,overstatement,cases,midst,conscience,relationship,Leichtenberg,Paul,Monica,custody,Litem,threats,demands,situation,Sacrifice,Jesus,Christ,earth,life,yard,friends,affair,violence,Girls,Didn,Also,Carl,Brizzi,Women,Indiana,Bench,Paradox,Recusal,Minnesota,Supreme,Court,Judge,Timothy,Profit,Fraudulent,Earnings,Texas,Florida,Exortion,Pennsylvania,Corruption,Just,Judges,fathers,injuries,Guardians,souls,members,teachers,doesn,aren,parents

Note: Cross posted from Battered Mothers Rights – A Human Rights Issue.

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

http://www.nbc-2.com/Global/story.asp?S=10697462

Joseph and Melissa Shook had been separated and a final mediation hearing for their divorce was scheduled for the 26th – two days after her disappearance.

Meanwhile, her van was located at the Alva residence, allegedly abandoned with the keys in the ashtray.

The case was then turned over to detectives with the Lee County Sheriff’s Office Major Crimes Unit.

Air, K-9 and ground searches were coordinated with family and friends in attempts to locate Melissa over the following . . .[fill in the details… they tend to blur, one family after another…]

On July 29, Shook’s body was found in a shallow grave, just four blocks from the Fitch Avenue residence.

Her hands were tied behind her back with approximately 10 feet of rope and her mouth was covered in duct tape.

AND, obviously:

Wednesday, a local hardware store employee was contacted and verified the sale of a red handled shovel and approximately ten feet of rope.

Thursday, an employee positively identified Joseph Shook as the person who purchased the items.

Around 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, 32-year-old Joseph Shook was located at local restaurant and taken into custody.

He has been charged with second degree murder.

Thursday evening Amy Davies, spokeswoman for Melissa Shook’s family said, “The family is relieved an arrest has been made, that justice has been served, and the family now has some closure.”

Davies said now the family’s main concentration is providing care for Shook’s three children.

Her parents knew something was funky about those text messages declaring she was going to break up with a boyfriend. Her coworker heard her ask who wanted some lunch brought back, after dropping off child(ren) to the father….

On Wednesday, Melissa Shook’s mother took the stand to talk about texts message she received, supposedly from her daughter, the day she disappeared.

One said she and her boyfriend, Justin Castagner, were through.

Smith thought that was odd since she’d spoken to Melissa just a few hours earlier and there was no mention of any problems.

Castagner testified Tuesday that the couple had made plans for that night and she left him a note in his lunchbox that said, “I love you.”

Melissa’s father, Gary Esckilsen, also testified Melissa was happy with Castagner.

Melissa’s parents said she had a strong relationship with Castagner and texts saying she was going somewhere to get herself help didn’t make sense. They knew something was wrong.

A co-worker of Melissa Shook testified as well, saying he got a call from her when she was on her way to drop the baby off at Joe Shook’s home.

He said she asked if anyone in the office wanted her to bring back lunch – and never heard from her again.

Just to reiterate my point: Mediation, frequent exchanges ordered. Was there prior domestic violence? WHY did she leave? Was the risk known? Should ALL women separating — not just ones experiencing abuse as the reason for separation — be afraid?

Or, should they learn to be cautious, period, and should the family law venue stop advising them to “just get along” for the sake of the kids, without regard to this possibility…

Was money a factor? Who knows…:

……..

January 2009 – Akron, Ohio

Police say emotional distress led man to kill estranged wife

Mother’s death, impending divorce, lack of medication are factors in Lakemore killing

By Phil Trexler
Beacon Journal staff writer

Published on Saturday, Jan 10, 2009

LAKEMORE: His mother had died unexpectedly, he avoided the pills that helped combat his depression, and just this week, his wife left him.

Daniel Tice’s emotions boiled over Thursday afternoon when his wife, Brandi, came to pick up their three children, a day after announcing her intention to divorce.

Brandi Tice, 28, would never leave the Lakemore house. She died of a single gunshot wound to the head — a rifle shot that police say was fired by her estranged husband.

About seven hours later, after keeping SWAT officers at bay with his 4-year-old son by his side, Daniel Tice was shot by police, struck by a 9 mm bullet that miraculously bounced off his forehead, sparing his life.

Tice, 32, was to undergo surgery Friday for a fractured skull. He is expected to recover and be charged with murder.

Daniel Tice admitted in conversations to family, friends and police that he killed his wife of eight years, shooting her once in the head with a .22-caliber rifle, police said.

He blamed infidelity and divorce.

”[Brandi Tice] told me before she
was wanting to leave him and I said be careful because of his mom dying, [Daniel] was bomb,” family friend Janice Wood told police in a taped call. ”I was afraid something would happen.’

Wood, a close friend of Tice’s late mother Diana, told police that Daniel Tice called her after the shooting. Around the same time, police were surrounding his home.

”He said he killed his wife,” Wood said. ”He thought everybody was against him or hated him . . . he said, ‘I’m not coming out [of the house]. They’re going to have to kill me.’ ”

Daniel Tice made a series of phone calls that afternoon, including one to a sister who came to the Tices’ ranch-style home on Martha Avenue shortly after 3 p.m., saw Brandi Tice’s body on the living room floor and fled outside.

Tice’s brother-in-law struggled for the rifle outside the home, but the towering Daniel Tice won out, and retreated back inside.

At one point, Tice stood guard by a window with his rifle in one hand and his son, Noah, in the other, police said.

Shortly afterward, Tice’s daughters, Faith, 8, and Grace, 7, exited their school bus and were met by police, who rushed the girls away before they could go inside their home.

Stressful standoff

For the next seven-plus hours, police took over Martha Avenue, trying to coax Tice into surrendering and hoping to avoid more bloodshed. Lakemore Mayor Michael Kolomichuk gave the order to use deadly force on Daniel Tice, if necessary.

A small army of SWAT officers, talking by phone to Tice, crept closer over several hours — from the street, to the front door, to the living room and eventually to the basement stairs, where Tice paced below with his son.

The silence was sometimes unnerving to police, who feared little Noah was dead. As the night dragged, they hadn’t heard from the child and Tice was talking to police in past tense about how much he loved his son.

”We were worried that he had done something to Noah because he wouldn’t let us talk to the child,” Police Chief Kenneth Ray said.

Police eventually disconnected a land line into the Tice home and with the help of prosecutors, they cut off Tice’s cell phone. Negotiators then moved inside the house to bring Tice a cell phone.

By then, Tice had moved to the cover of the basement, at times hiding under the staircase. Metro SWAT members tossed a miniature camera to the basement, which gave them insights into Tice’s location.

Around 10:40 p.m., SWAT snipers from the top of the steps could see Tice and his rifle leaning against a wall out of reach. They fired two nonlethal bean bags, hoping to knock him to the floor. The bean bags didn’t faze Tice, who then made a move for his rifle, police said.

A sniper tried to fire his AR-15 assault rifle, but the trigger jammed. A second SWAT sniper twice fired his MP5 assault rifle. One shot missed; another struck Tice’s forehead, penetrating to the bone and bouncing off.

Suspect interviewed

Police interviewed Daniel Tice at Akron City Hospital shortly after he was shot.

”He confessed, that’s all he did,” Chief Ray said. ”He didn’t give a reason. He just said he did it.”

Noah was reunited with his sisters. The children are staying with Brandi Tice’s mother, Sandra Fox, 53, in Green.

”She was a good mother, she loved her kids so much,” said Brandi Tice’s uncle, Randy Renard.

The Tices spent Christmas with Renard and other family members at Sandra Fox’s home. The get-together came four days after Daniel Tice’s mother died.

Daniel Tice, who family said suffers from bipolar disorder, said little on Christmas Day. Family and police said Tice stopped taking his medication, which contributed to his erratic behavior.

”They brought the kids over for Christmas and I already heard what he was going through with his mother,” Renard said. ”He come over and he didn’t talk for four hours. He just sat in the chair with a stare.”

On Wednesday, Brandi Tice told her husband she wanted a divorce and was taking the children, Renard said. Police said the couple had a history of domestic squabbles, some of which ended with Daniel Tice’s arrest.

Daniel Tice also told friends that his wife was carrying on an affair with one of his relatives. The couple married in 2000.

On Thursday afternoon, Brandi Tice arrived at the Martha Avenue home, planning to take her daughters with her as they exited their school bus.

Brandi Tice worked the past four years with Community Caregivers, a Hartville home health care provider. She visited three or four patients every day, helping them with health needs.

Terry Smith, the company’s director, said Brandi Tice grew close with her patients, whom she would visit for more than two hours a day, passing the time sharing stories and proudly showing pictures of her children.

She hoped one day to be a nurse to better provide for her family, he said. The company has set up a fund at all Huntington bank branches to help the Tice children.

”Brandi was somebody who had been through some bumps in the road, some hard knocks,” Smith said. ”Yet she was someone who gave so much even though she had so little herself.”

Phil Trexler can be reached at 330-996-3717 or ptrexler@thebeaconjournal.com.

LAKEMORE: His mother had died unexpectedly, he avoided the pills that helped combat his depression, and just this week, his wife left him.

Daniel Tice’s emotions boiled over Thursday afternoon when his wife, Brandi, came to pick up their three children, a day after announcing her intention to divorce.
Brandi Tice, 28, would never leave the Lakemore house. She died of a single gunshot wound to the head ? a rifle shot that police say was fired by her estranged husband.
About seven (Akron Beacon Journal (OH), 1079 words.)

June 2009 — Autenreith – Pennsylvania:

Police rescued a 9-year-old boy who had been kidnapped by his father as a fatal gun battle broke out between the man and state troopers.

After arguing with his estranged wife during a custody exchange, Daniel Autenrieth kidnapped his son at gunpoint, then led police on a 40-mile high-speed chase that ended with a crash and an exchange of gunfire, state police commissioner Col. Frank Pawlowski said. Autenrieth and a state trooper were killed.

“I can’t begin to describe the hurt and sorrow being experienced by the Pennsylvania state police,” Pawlowski told a somber news conference at the Swiftwater barracks, the trooper’s home base. “What happened yesterday is nothing short of an American tragedy.”

September, 2009 (Labor Day) Minnesota:

Minn. officer reportedly killed with own gun (see video)

Posted by FyreWebmaster on September 9, 2009 at 7:46pm in OFFICER DOWN

Holidays — family times for some — can be trouble hotspots for others.

Veteran North St. Paul police officer Richard Crittenden apparently was shot dead with his own gun during a violent struggle with a man who lunged at his estranged wife and the slain officer with a burning towel or rag.

“He died saving someone else,” said a law enforcement source of Crittenden. The source, familiar with the ongoing investigation, offered the first detailed description of Monday morning’s chaotic scene.

Crittenden reportedly pushed the woman out of harm’s way but in the process left himself vulnerable for the man to ambush him, grab his handgun and shoot him, the source said.

A Maplewood police officer was slightly wounded but shot the suspect dead during an exchange of gunfire moments later inside the North St. Paul apartment in the 2200 block of Skillman Avenue.

The scenario, based on preliminary witness accounts from the injured female officer and the estranged wife, remains to be confirmed and is the subject of an investigation by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.

But the setting pieced together so far by investigative sources shed light on the likely circumstances that led to the first shooting death of a police officer in the line of duty in North St. Paul’s 122-year history.

Investigators on Tuesday released little official information about the details surrounding the Labor Day shootings — including the names of the injured officer and slain suspect, who was identified by his estranged wife as Devon Dockery.

But reams of court papers released Tuesday on Dockery’s numerous run-ins with the law show a violent and troubled man.

“Devon is a ticking time bomb ready to explode,” his estranged wife, Stacey Terry, wrote in filing for one of four orders of protection against him.

What would she know? Is she an “expert”?? However, she got those protection orders. . . . . .

October 23, 2009 Atlanta, Georgia, Strube-Allen:

(Isn’t this DV awareness month?)

Child of woman killed at Target in custody battle

Mother-in Law charged!

In April, a toddler sat in the backseat as someone shot and killed his mother, Heather Allen Strube. She had just gotten him from her estranged husband, his father, and hadn’t buckled her child into his car seat yet.

Moments after Steven Strube left the Target parking lot on Scene Highway, his estranged wife was approached by a person wearing a black wig that looked like a mop. As Heather tried to get into her SUV, the disguised person shot her. Investigators found Carson holding his mother’s cellphone. His mom turned 25 years old just six days before her death on April 26.

Carson, who turned 2-years-old last month, has been in the care of Heather’s parents — Buddy and Mary Allen.

Family Photo A family snapshot from 2008 shows Heather Allen Strube, left, with son Carson. On April 26, Strube was shot and killed in the parking lot of a Snellville Target moments after a custody exchange.

Little Carson Luke Strube is now thriving in the care of his maternal grandparents. But his other grandmother, Joanna Renea Hayes, was charged this week with killing his mother, her daughter-in-law.

Hayes in jail facing charges of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. Carson’s father, Steven Strube, is also in jail, following a probation violation from a 2008 conviction (for what??)

Hayes is now behind bars following her murder indictment on Wednesday. Police believe she is the one who donned a disguise and killed her daughter-in-law.

Sometimes it turns into a virtual tribal warfare, with in-laws and relatives involved….

November 30, 2009 (this one, barely cold…), New Jersey:

Police Search For Motive In Fatal N.J. Shooting

Paterson Father Allegedly Shot Estranged Wife, 2 Children

Reporting
Jay Dow

PATERSON, N.J. (CBS) ―Police are still trying to figure out what triggered Edelmiro Gonzalez to go on a shooting spree, killing his seven-year-old son, and injuring his wife and other son. They are recovering at St. Joseph’s hospital.

Related Stories

2 Dead, 2 Wounded When NJ Dad Shoots His Family
(11/29/2009)

Police were looking for a motive Sunday in a triple shooting that left one boy dead, and his mother and brother fighting for their lives.

Detectives in Paterson said Edelmiro Gonzalez opened fire Saturday morning on his estranged wife and two young children.

“I don’t know how anybody could do something like that,” said resident Angie Rolon.

Investigators said 31-year old Johanna Gonzalez, who had been separated from her husband since September and had a restraining order against him, was in the process of dropping off their two sons at her mother’s apartment on Broadway. That’s when the 54-year-old father allegedly walked up to their vehicle, armed with two handguns.

“Her estranged husband came up to the vehicle, shot several times into the vehicle, at which time her two sons, Adrian and Eldryn exited the vehicle,” said Det Lt. Ray Humphrey.

Police said

Gonzalez actually then chased down his 7-year old son and shot him in the neck near the rear of the apartment building.

The boy was pronounced dead at the scene.

However, the ordeal didn’t end there. Police said Gonzalez went back to the street and chased down his estranged wife. That’s when off-duty Paterson Detective Lt. Washington Griffen, a 19-year veteran who was at a nearby McDonald’s drive-through with his son saw what was happening and intervened.

“He hollered out to the suspect, advised him he was a police officer, and to drop the weapon. There was an exchange of gunfire, and the suspect was shot twice,” Humphrey said.

Edelmiro Gonzalez died later at an area hospital. His elder son Edryn and the child’s mother Johanna remained in critical condition.

November 2009, Oregon?

Gunman kills estranged wife at Tualatin lab, injures two, kills self

By Bill Oram, The Oregonian

November 10, 2009, 8:49PM

TUALATIN — By late afternoon Tuesday, a lone state trooper guarded the front of a drug-testing clinic where a man with a rifle opened fire, killing his estranged wife and injuring two of her co-workers.

The gunman fired multiple shots inside Legacy MetroLab-Tualatin shortly before noon, said Tualatin Police Chief Kent Barker.

The shooter was found dead at the scene, apparently of a self-inflicted gunshot wound, Barker said.

The dead woman was identified as Teresa Beiser, 36, of Gladstone.

A week ago, she filed for divorce from her husband of 15 years, Robert Beiser, 39, who worked as a car appraiser for Property Damage Appraisers in Lake Oswego and as an independent contractor for The Oregonian.

They had two children, a 14-year-old daughter and an 11-year-old son.

That was “Beiser”. Here is “Reiser”, July 2009 he admits guilt in exchange for plea-bargain. Murder happened during an exchange of children.

Hans Reiser Admits to Murdering Nina Reiser, Pleads to Reduced Murder Sentence

Full story: Associated Content

Hans Reiser was sentenced to 15-years-to-life Friday in an Oakland, California, courtroom for the murder of Nina Reiser. Many believe that the sentence was too lenient, that prosecutors should have given Reiser more time on his sentence. Besides, Hans Reiser was convicted in April — and

convicted without the body of Nine Reiser. But Hans Reiser, a brilliant Linux guru, had held onto one piece of information about Nine Reiser throughout his trial, a trial throughout which he maintained his innocence. Hans Reiser knew where Nina Reiser was buried.

According to Wired, Hans Reiser led authorities to Nine Reiser’s body Monday in exchange for his prison sentence being reduced from a 25-years-to-life charge to 15-years-to-life charge. Prosecutors offered him the deal with the added stipulation that he waived his right to appeal the conviction. He had buried his wife just a short way from the house where he lived with his mother.

According to his confession, which was part of the plea deal, Hans Reiser killed his wife, Nina, on the afternoon of September 3, 2006. She had dropped off the couple’s two children for the Labor Day weekend. The two were going through a bitter divorce.

FYI: All I googled was “estranged wife exchange of children”

]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

Did you enable any of these events? I bet you’d say, Heck NO!

But, wait again (US residents) — do you pay taxes? Well then, perhaps you did….

The Trap Door They Don’t Tell Divorcing Mothers, or separating-from-abuse partners about — almost ANYwhere…

Forcing the Connection through “Access Visitation Funding” and social policy closing the exit door.

Taxpayer funds enabling these events, sometimes, through federal grants to encourage contact with noncustodial “parents” (Dads).

Meanwhile, nationwide HHS-funded “Access/Visitation” funding encourages more, and more frequent, contact between children and noncustodial parent (if male), and advertises this through child support services (“OCSE”):

GEORGIA:

These services are offered at no cost to OCSS clients and include the following:

Coordination of visitations or parenting time

Mediation between the parents (non-legal, non-binding)

Written parenting plans

Group parenting education

Counseling on access issues

Funding for all of these projects comes from grants from the Administration for Children and Families

MISSISSIPPI:

What is access and visitation?Mississippi’s Access and Visitation Program (MAV-P) is designed for noncustodial parents to have access to visit their children as specified in a court order or divorce decree.

[[HUH? The court order or decree ALREADY specifies this, so why do we need this program?]]

Assistance with voluntary agreements for visitation schedules is provided to parents who do not have a court order.

NOTE: Participation without a court order is strictly voluntary. Both parents must agree to be involved.

What are the goals for MAV-P?The ultimate goal is to afford services that improve the quality of life for separated families by providing noncustodial parents opportunities to participate in their children’s growth and development.

[[If it didn’t have a noble-sounding goal like this, it might not have passed Congress or anywhere else. Who wants to vote for, after-all, exchange-related gunshots, stabbings, and officers/bystanders-down headlines? But if you read details of many of these articles above, it’s in there.

“Improve the quality of life.” How does this resemble “Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness” eh? Come here. We have federal grants to improve the quality of your life. TRUST US…]]

Other goals include:

Encouraging family agreements through mediation;

Providing parent education plans to enhance parenting skills;

Furnishing a safe, neutral facility for visitation, as needed; i.e., [pushing Supervised Visitation]

Promoting compliance to the noncustodial parent’s court ordered support obligations; [[Translation: reducing support obligations in hope to bribe the other parent to better comply. This is called “helping.” ]]

Aiding custodial parents in honoring court ordered visitations; and

Women are regularly jailed when they fail to comply with court ORDERS. Recently, a 14 yr old young man in Michigan was jailed himself, briefly, for refusing to comply. So what is this a sort of persuasive pleading session, or brainwashing? The legal process provides for a contempt process. When custodial parents are women, this is often enforced, regardless of consequences. When they are men, a different standard seems to apply.

Working with fatherhood mentors and coaches through a Fragile Families Initiative Program.

Now WHY doesn’t that surprise me?

What are the benefits of the program? The program benefits include:

BOTH parents being involved in the development stages of the child’s life.

BOTH parents providing emotional, medical, psychological and financial support.

BOTH parents sharing in the child’s character and core values development.

BOTH parents agreeing on scheduling and time-sharing.

Potential side-effects, where an overentitled abuser, a man off (or on) medication for depression, or someone not in control of his emotions is involved — death. That’s a potential “benefit” in certain contexts. But let’s not talk about that in THIS setting, OK?

Who is eligible to participate in MAV-P?Individuals interested in participating in MAV-P are not required to have a child support case or affiliation with the Mississippi Department of Human Services. Paternity must be established for all cases. Participants seeking assistance with supervised visitation must have a verified court order or divorce decree. Finally, the custodial and noncustodial parents must agree on scheduled mediation, parent education, unsupervised or supervised visitations, as needed.

(EVER tried to “agree” with an overentitled abuser? See Randi’s article, above….)

What services are provided in MAV-P?

MEDIATION includes MAV-P staff working with both parents to develop a peaceful resolution to visitation disputes. This process is a face-to-face interview and/or telephone sessions.

SUPERVISED VISITATION is scheduled for parents with legally established visitation directed by a court order or divorce decree.

EDUCATION is offered through parenting classes which address the basic needs of the child, money and stress management, child abuse, co-parenting and the concerns of the parents for their child(ren)’s well-being.

Take time for THIS link: a “wiki-leak” an “mit” site. I’m OUT of time for today….

There is some evidence that indicates that among fathers who visit their children,

fathers who do not pay their child support are more likely to have frequent contact with

their children (many on a daily basis) than fathers who pay their child support.

fathers’ rights groups would argue that spending time with one’s children (especially on

a daily basis) should be counted in terms of reducing that father’s financial obligation.

More generally, advocates of increasing parental responsibility would argue that it

is now time for the federal government to focus more attention on the “non-financial”

benefits associated with preserving the connection between noncustodial parents and their

children. Many policymakers and analysts maintain that a distinction must be made

between men who are “dead broke” and those who are “deadbeats.” They argue that the

federal government should help dead broke noncustodial fathers meet both their financial and emotional obligations to their children and vigorously enforce CSE laws against deadbeat parents.

+/- $1/million/state/year for Access/Visitation grants (ongoing) can’t be all wrong, despite headlines, and despite reality of the consequences of frequent exchanges, more time, with resistant disgruntled fathers..

I may take up that document in a later post; it illustrates the system involved in these issues.

Randi, good writing, thank you –I find it pretty darn close to the reality.

From “Our Bodies, Ourselves” to “Our Courts, Ourselves”…

with one comment

The topic of mediation, especially mandatory mediation, is a hot one within the family court venue, and particularly among domestic violence advocates. Many have come up opposed to it.

On the other side of the fence (??) are those who are advocating mediation to cut down on the caseload in these courts, and attempt to reconcile opposing parties for the best interests of the children, supposedly.

While looking through the RAND corporation policy papers, available on-line, I was astounded to find almost nothing whatsoever on violence against4 women, or women per se (although there were articles about the education gap for men and boys of color, with the kneejerk recommendation, more and earlier preschool. I happen to disagree, I think there’s enough subject matter for child development scholars to study throughout the educational, penal, and court institutions in this country already…). There was next to nothing current on domestic violence, although a few articles dating back to 2004/2005 actually used this word.

However, there is this interesting take on mediation. My limited technique can’t paste in the image, so I recommend taking a look at:

All I’m going to say about Our Bodies, Ourselves, is that it is reminiscent of the feminist movement (after all, these ARE our bodies, if it’s women involved), and another era. For more info, read Dr. Phyllis Chesler, including Women & Madness, Mothers on Trial, and Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. Don’t forget to also take a serious look at Honor Killings vs. Domestic violence (articles), and so forth.

Now about, Our Courts Ourselves — I believe a takeoff on that title:

http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2005/RP1090.pdf

“Our Courts, Ourselves: how the Alternative Dispute Resolution Movement is Reshaping Our Legal System.”

It says plainly what I have deduced, in using the phrase “Designer Family” and in sarcastically stating that a world without conflict IS indeed possible — if everyone is drugged, asleep, or simply not paying attention. . . . . Which appears to be an imminent possibility, or business goal in some arenas… I mean, as slavery is supposedly abolished, SOMEONE has to do life’s dirty work, for cheap or free…. Women got the vote, heck what next? ???

This tends to verify my observations: (from page 168, Section II, “Puritans Populists and Utopians.”)…

Members of America’s utopian societies yearned for social harmony and eschewed conflict. One of their goals was to eliminate adversarial legal processes. In Edward Bellamy’s Utopia, depicted in his wildly popular 1988 novel Looking Backward, citizens are inducted into the armies of a corporatist state into which all contribute and from which all receive the necessities of life….

Are you frightened yet?

As communitarian values replace private interest, economic competition, social conflict and adversarial processes are eliminated…Wise citizens take the place of judges and juries in deciding how and when to punish bad behavior, lawyers’ services become superfluous, and the law itself is discarded.

(My quote here, since I can’t cut & paste from the pdf, is from memory, for speed — check source yourself)

Bellamy’s novel inspired a new political movement called Nationalism, comprised of a series of grassroots organizations dedicated to creating a utopian society devoid of economic and social conflict and gave rise to the establishment of the Populist Party.. . .

Many in the Nationalist Movement had ties with Theosophy, a contemporary religious movement…. substituting “Universal brotherhood and cooperation for competition..” but the roots of Theosophy lay in spiritualism, and elevating the divine spirit within the individual. Their leaders eschewed social justice and activism, and eventually the movements parted paths.

To those who are somewhat versed in one of the “Abrahamic” religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, Islam), this utopian vision and non-involvement in social justice are at odds with fundamental beliefs that man’s nature needs redemption (i.e., “the Fall”) and that a future resurrection and judgement await.

At the very least, then, this utopian philosophy goes against the core of a substantial portion of the world’s population. Experientially, someone has to become the “wise citizens” and of a supposedly superior, elitist, caste to inform and educate the plebians in how to get along.

The philosophy that CONFLICT is bad, and that PEACE AT ANY PRICE (and sacrificing safety, or justice in the process) is the primary good is — to my reading — a violence against the concept of justice, balance and equity.

Hence, the jargon calling a divorce or process in which women protesting abuse of themselves, or their children, even when sexual abuse has been involved and documented, a “high-conflict” custody comes from this worldview. That is not the primary characteristic — only according to a certain view.

As to “our bodies, ourselves,” an 11 year old in Wisconsin and (I recently heard) a 14 year old in Michigan, have learned that they are property, not people. Michaela Tipton went back to her father to get her mother out of jail. A young man, A student, spent a night in detention for refusing to visit his father also.

http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2009/11/21/news/srv0000006883874.txt#blogcomments
Teenager incarcerated for refusing to visit his father
Published: Saturday, November 21, 2009

A 14-year-old boy was thrown into the county youth home overnight and handcuffed for about four hours after refusing to follow a judge’s order to visit his father, as part of an ongoing custody case.

The boy, Jacob Mastrogiovanni of Warren, was ordered Thursday to spend three days in the youth home by family court Judge John Foster, who lifted the sentenced Friday following protests by his mother and a night of incarceration for her son.

The uncommon occurrence of a contempt of

court sentence for a child in a child custody dispute angered his mother, Dawn Platevoet, and several of her relatives, including the boy’s grandmother. They picketed in front of the county courthouse in downtown Mount Clemens on Thursday and Friday, garnering media attention.
“A judge shouldn’t throw an all-A student in jail for refusing to visit his father,” Platevoet said. “There are other ways to handle the situation, and apparently the judge agreed because he let him out.”
Jacob was slated to remain in the Juvenile Justice Center until 7 p.m. Sunday but was released by Foster about 12:30 p.m. Friday. Foster had Jacob brought from the youth home in handcuffs about 8:30 a.m. Friday to appear in front of him in Macomb County Circuit Court later that morning. Jacob waited in a holding cell.

Moments after he was released Friday, Jacob said Foster didn’t specify why he freed him.
“He said that I don’t decide whether I see my dad or not,” Jacob said. “It was kind of like a warning, this time, I guess.”
Foster’s secretary said the judge did not want to comment.

Jacob and Platevoet wouldn’t delve into many details of why he won’t visit his father, Victor Mastrogiovanni of Chesterfield Township. She said Jacob began resisting in July following an unspecified incident.

They said when Jacob has visited Mastrogiovanni recently that he is forced to stay in his room without any contact.

On Foster’s order, the three have been attending weekly counseling sessions since early September. {{That’s the racket, folks…}} But they and the therapist have been unable to resolve the disagreement.

Platevoet and Mastrogiovanni never married and have had some disputes for years {{OBviously. The boy is 14!}}regarding custody and support issues, they said.

Mastrogiovanni, who has been married for two years and has a 15-month-old child, [[IE 2nd marriage, new kid]]said he did not want to comment specifically about the dispute.

“I love my kid very much and want what’s best for him,” he said.

Platevoet said she would like her son to visit his dad but can’t force him.

“What am I supposed to do? Grab him by the back of the head and put him in the car?” she said. “He’s a teenager and wants to do teenager things.”

She said Jacob “listens to me” about other things but not about the visits

ANYHOW, you are either awake or asleep in this matter about trying to create a utopian society where wise citizens (NOT due process and facts/evidence, etc.) choose punishments, and where all the requirements of life are also obtained from the state. Hence, “Health & Human Services.”

The question is, Who is Being Served? And being served What?

2nd largest federal expenditure, Educational Department, making sure (that’s a laugh!) no child left behind. What isn’t being openly marketed — where they are marching, goosestep style, who is paying the drummer, and what is the origin of the tune. Not only can we not make medical or health choices for our kids, we as a populace aren’t smart enough to resource or network our life choices and also help them get educated.

You cannot really deal with the courts entirely separate from the educational system. For one, the courts are trying to run cleanup after educational (moral/value) failures, all at the expense of taxpayers (not those who can write off expenses as business owners and investors, etc.). For another, I am simply not interested in an oligarchy, a dictatorship, or any of that. After all, it’s my own body here, and the children that came out of it are NOT state property, or fodder for others’ professional careers in psychology, mental health, law, pharmacology, etc. I respected their father’s contact with them, and the law. In return from this, I lost all contact with them, and made a mockery of the process.

Several entities are laughing all the way to the bank on this one. The thing is, to get an audit of those statements.

Anyhow — take a look at that rand document — it’s for sure informative. Then also realize that what takes place through the courts, when it does — that’s not mediation in the proper sense of the word. That’s basically program marketing, and “required outcome enforcement” from things such as the Access Visitation Grants, Responsible Fatherhood/Marriage, and such-like.

Enough for today!

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

November 23, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, compulsory schooling, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, public education, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with custody, Due process, Education, family law, Feminists, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..

My gut reaction to more news of a fathering court.

with 2 comments

It takes but a few moments of passion — and a woman — for a man to start a child.

Between funding of abstinence education, healthy marriage initiatives, fatherhood initiatives, a “fantastic” public school system (USA), trailing the industrialized world in several core topics, like reading and math, and rampant crime inside and outside the schools; between initiatives preventing parents from knowing whether or not a teen daughter has gone to have an abortion on school time (Google “Pacific Justice Institute”), and so forth — PERHAPS with all these, plus federal funding womb to tomb, more studies and evaluations of those studies, and of course the “help” of the child support system in setting reasonable and consistent standards in assigning — and collecting the child support to relieve the welfare load (supposedly) — and of course with more, and more prominent active fathering courts replacing the rule of law and common sense —

we might find a few good men with moral integrity and empathy for the welfare of their offspring.

Actually, from what I can see, the idea is with ENOUGH props, such men can be made — or bribed — to shape up, and care about their offspring.

This is among the many causes our debt-ridden country has decided to espouse.

As a mother, I didn’t feel it necessary to bribe and/or threaten my children to excel at their studies (which they did), and I am puzzled why this approach is thought to be so important to make sense as applied to grown young (or older) men in order to step up to the fatherhood plate.

So . . . re :
Jackson County Pioneers Missouri Move to Fathering Courts
(below)

I add my sarcastic italicized comments so the text doesn’t blithely slip down reader’s gullets and a warm fuzzy feeling about the nobility of this enterprise get assimilated into the thinking system. This is a first-response post.

Then again, what you assimilate is your choice. When you read, remember that every Court Comissioner, Defense prosecutor, and public prosecutor mentioned is, I would think, on public dole also. Welcome to the OK Corrale.. Everyone feels better after a few sessions in there.

This post is based on an emotional gut reaction to the concept. Perhaps my “reasoning” as such is fuzzy, but I don’t see how it could be much fuzzier and emotionally based than what I’m commenting on. Judge for yourself. Please! – – -these are government-supported policies (and therefore $$), so keep it real!

http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-story-daddy-do-over-110609,0,5997057.story

Jackson County Pioneers Missouri Move to Fathering Courts
John Holt, edited by Jason Vaughn
November 6, 2009

KANSAS CITY, MO – Kevin Gainey was on top of the world. A good job as a bail bondsman, a lake home, and custody of his young son following his divorce.

{{FUNNY, I thought there was gender bias against men in family courts. That’d be an interesting case to look up. . . . Maybe Mom must have abused substances, abandoned children, been a slut and was off witha nother man, or simply a stay at home Mom who was financially outclassed somehow. Maybe she was a working Mom and he was a stayathome father? Or, maybe she just gave them to him, not being financially independent and called that a good deal. Or perhaps she was not emotionally connected to her son. There are a thousand reasons this father, not mother, may have gotten custody of his son after a divorce, all of which might be relevant to the story, and shed a different light on the situations, and the wisdom — or lack of it — of whichever judge decided to allocate custody of his son to a Dad. Boys should be with fathers {{no matter the character…}} was maybe the thinking, I guess. H OW OLD was the son? Who had been previous caretaker? Was his former Mom a stay at home Mom? Was the divorce contested or amicable? What was that background story???}}

But bad habits caught up with him, his son moved back with his mom, and Gainey lost his job.

{{“bad habits caught up with him.” Yeah, let’s gloss over that aspect.

Poor fellow, couldn’t run fast enough. Was it meth, crack, heroin, alcohol, pornography, — WHAT bad habits. No matter, poor dear, he couldn’t outrun himself..

Also, I note, “moved BACK with his Mom,” meaning, she had custody, then lost it. Maybe not. But if so, Gee, sound familiar, folks? — except the actually getting to move back with Mom part…}}

“Wasn’t always accountable for my actions,” Gainey now says. “A lot of it had to do with my substance abuse problem.”

{{Externalizes the problem — I am so familiar with this language pattern! Not his fault, still..}}

{{Notice he didn’t say: I wasn’t always accountable, I abused substances (and which one[s])..and “I hurt my son” }}with what ramifications…was it endangering his son most likely? What was he doing to support his “bad habits” and “substance abuse” problem that caused a radical custody switch?)

With no money, doing odd jobs, and a sobriety issue {{SO it was alcohol…}}, Gainey fell behind in his child support, and wound up facing criminal charges.

{{Again poor dear, he was drinking, making holding a job difficult– apparently AFTER he lost custody of his son, as child support was involved. I say apparently, because I don’t know for sure, but it seems likely…}}

Despite that, prosecutors deemed him a good candidate for a diversion program that could give Gainey a fresh start and keep him out of prison: fathering court.

{{FORMULA: State & Court order child support. Child support not paid. This is contempt of a law, and a quasi-criminal situation that can land a parent in jail, the purpose of which is to communicate that child support is a serious issue and to be paid. However, there’s a way to dilute that message that child support IS for children, IS important, and that neglecting it IS negligence, when the potential to pay exists (i.e., stop drinking, and instead work, or at least seek work…. get help yourself…)

Enter — voila! —

((Somehow, I sense as systemic setup — do you?)) ((My blog talks about the Father’s Resolutions passed in 1998 & 1999 in US Congress, and posts some links and excerpts of the horror that XX% of African American children are sleeping in homes wi thout their fathers in them nationwide, and how Congress can stop th is travesty….

Note: The 15 yr old girl gangraped, with passers by, in Richmond, CA recently had a father in the home. He just wasn’t at the door leaving the dance to get her. The victim, and it’s STILL no excuse, but she was 15 and inhaled a good deal of alcohol first. She had a father. Must have been a statistical anomaly. Meanwhile, in another state here, to protect young sons (like the one exposed to substance abuse, above) and the young daughters (like the one whose currently devastated Dad, I’m sure, did NOT show up needy and underemployed in a fathering court, apparently) we need MORE, not LESS< “therapeutic jurisprudence.”

In fact, let’s actually just SKIP the jurisprudence part (except for the labels on the door) and go straight to therapy, just CALLING it “court.”

Gag me with a spoon.. . .Or show me the up and coming “mothering” courts. No one gives us that rope, that I’ve seen!

It will not change the wheels of the institutions — we still need more fathering intervention nationwide, and grants to fund them, and to alter the philosophical basis of law to accommodate a “required outcome” of more father-contact, and to bribe, cajole, coach, and help men to understand they must actually help FEED those they BREED.

Launched in 1998, Jackson County’s fathering court is modeled after its drug court: parents, most often dads {{Well, THAT”s a shocker….}}, get help meeting the challenges that may be holding them back through an initial screening. Regular follow-up court appearances are designed to keep them on track.

“I think that’s the role of fathering court. To identify the barriers that are preventing payment of support, and then to direct them to the services that resolve those issues,” says Family Court Commissioner Patrick Campbell, himself a father of two.

Commissioner Campbell presides over the court which meets weekly in Division 43.

{{Let me get this straight: He presides over this court, presumably making decisions and signing court orders affecting men, women, and their mutual children, and THINKS he understands its purpose? Does this Commissioner have a law degree in any state?}}

{{Are there any actual rules of court which apply in this situation? By the way, people have a right to be heard by a judge, not a commissioner, if they choose, or so I heard. I suppose that’s not highly publicized over there…}}

On a recent morning it was a crowded docket, as Commissioner Campbell greeted men who must demonstrate that they are making progress, make some kind of regular payment toward child support, and attend a 12 week parenting class.

{{Yes, there’s no problem on earth that a good parenting class can’t solve. }}

“Congratulations”, Campbell tells one dad. “I told you when you graduated and got a job I was going to raise you up a little bit. So I’m going to raise each of them to 150 a month.”

To another dad, the commissioner urges contact with his kids: **”These three kids have one dad and you’re it,” he tells the man, who admits he hasn’t seen his children much.

**I am a mother. I am having to fight pretty damn hard for contact with my kids, and there’s not one court commissioner, court-appointed attorney, mediator, judge or any one else assisting me. But because I wasn’t abusing substances and in trouble with the law, there were no “services” offered to help. In fact, when I went seeking them — after child-stealing on an overnight– they weren’t found. Period. If anything, these courts were resisting. I didn’t understand this fully til, again, I looked up the “Access Visitation” grants system and “REQUIRED OUTCOME” for grant recipients. You can research this, too — my blog, others, or the internet. THAT’s what this is about. NOT the kids…

To other men he’s a cheerleader, a task master, a coach, urging some to get something as simple as an email address so they can receive job listings sent to them by the program.

“You try to make a quick decision as to whether this is a time to encourage them or is this a time to push ’em where they’re not comfortable,” Campbell says later.

{{I am so sorry to find that the public servants in this country feel the need to parent parents, and have forgotten their assigned duties and oaths of office (for th ose who are also attorneys). The President of the USA had to swear an oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution. This includes due process, and laws. What’s up with this crowd? ???}}

A prosecutor and defense attorney stand at the bench with each of the dads, but unlike other settings, they appear more like a team, working with, rather than against each other in a court where there is no court reporter, and nothing is on the record.

{{WOW. That’s wonderfully reassuring that all decisions will be ethical, fair, not subject to any forms of bribery or kickback, and protect the interests of the children involved, and the rest of the society not to have to pick up the tab….}}

“They see that we’re all trying to help them get to where they need to be,” says prosecutor Rebecca Leavett, who calls fathering court her favorite docket. “And I think they get more relaxed and trust us, they open up to us more about the issues that are actually going on in their lives.”

{{Translation: some of them can be disarmingly open — when there’s money at stake. I am so glad that the prosecutor and the defense attorneys — in an adversarial system designed for the truth to come out, through due process, and fair judgments be made — are in truth not even PRETENDING to do “bad cop, good cop,” but admitting that it’s all a show. . . . . . . }}

{{I”m so glad that these hardened attorneys get to have some moments of warm fuzzy feelings of do-goodism. Perhaps the single mothers (if applicable) and fatherless children can take that warm fuzzy feeling and serve it up hot for dinner, or hug it as a pillow on a cold night. Perhaps th ose attorneys might want to empathize with those not actually present in court, in their warm fuzziness on the law…and accountability…. AA for effort, eh?? }}

Her counterpart agrees.

“This isn’t a time for secrets, this isn’t a time for somebody to come up and say ‘whoa that’s attorney-client privilege, I want to keep this between me and my attorney,” says Gaurika Anand, a public defender who works with most of the dads.

Along with court transcripts, adversarial process designed to elicit truth, we now also want to do away with attorney-client privilege. Gee, I wonder what ELSE is on the docket here??

Are the sons and daughters of these child-support-deprived kids going to grow up realizing, as their Dads now have, that it’s not actual performance, but just a public effort, that actually counts in life? We can’t expect real standards based on real needs, after all….

I say this as a teacher, most of my adult professional life. I know that failing to make standards clear, and then get a consensus to excell at reaching them — accomplishment and stretching those standards upwards by effort (not bribery…) produces the warm fuzzy feelings. Not cheating them by constantly reducing the bottom line…}}

This year, Missouri lawmakers saw the eleven year old Jackson County court as a good model, and approved the concept statewide. So far several circuit courts have expressed interest, but there’s little money for launching new fathering courts. A state court spokesman says it’s expected the concept will eventually spread when the state’s economy improves.

Gainey is just happy he had the concept to benefit from in Jackson County. Initially reluctant to attend the parenting classes, he eventually did, and is grateful for the opportunity. He’s slowly whittling down his $17,000 back child support bill, has attended rehab, and says he’s now sober and working toward a better life.

When Gainey and other dads graduate, the criminal non-support charges are gone, so long as they continue to work to pay down their child support debt.

“There’s no way I could disrespect the opportunity family court’s given me,” he says. “This is gonna’ happen.”

That’s what Commissioner Campbell wants to hear from more of his participating dads.

“In this court you actually see people make changes.” he says. “I would never tell you it would be all of those making changes, but you see a lot of people make primary fundamental changes in their life. And that’s a very encouraging thing to see.”

__._,_.___

When you mix this scenario in with domestic violence, just know that economic abuse is a common factor. While I’m VERY jaundiced, there’s a reason — my personal experience, which is not unique, as a mother, watching the impact of sporadic child support payments, the NONresponse of the system to do anything about it when I worked and invested diligent time to get them to (and involved others). When the children lived with me, it stalled, delayed, obstructed, and gave me double-talk answers to direct questions. This affected my children, and my relationship with them.

The second the custody switch happened, this same system that would NOT move for a single mother, went aggressively to bat for a father who’d just responded to my attempts to collect by snatching the kids!

This will all come out in the wash eventually. Warm fuzzies (I don’t share them, in this matter) in one place don’t compensate for hungry children elsewhere.

For those new to these posts — the OCSE (That’s federal Office of Child Support Enforcement) are administering the grants to the states for increasing noncustodial parent (translation: FATHERS) involvement with their kids through mandated mediation, parenting plans, and other issues designed to — I hate to keep repeating this truth, but it’s the truth– diverting the evidence and fact-finding process from OUTSIDE The courtroom (and off the record — see this above case!) — to court paraprofessionals whose BUSINESS is apparently custody-switching, titles to the contrary….

How far away is the Gulag Archipelago from this Designer Family Concept?

Not too far, from what I can see.

Gag me with a spoon…..

For further reference on this topic.

http://www.NAFCJ.net.

For more on Kansas, Google (or search my post also) Claudine Dombrowski, Oletha Faust-Goudeau (and etc.). Kansas thought ANOTHER fatherhood initiative was needed recently. Guess they forgot about all the other programs racing through the courts, governments, county jails, chidl support agencies, faith-based nonprofit organizations, and university advanced social sciences programs, and — did I miss a venue? No matter, fatherhood initiatives wi’ll turn up there sooner or later. Just you wait…

LOOK: If it’s a court, let it be a court. If it’s therapy, let it be therapy. Tell the truth on the label outside the door. Also tell all the mothers involved what’s being done, out of their vision, hearing, and awareness, with the Dads of their children. So they can, like me, put their two bits in.

Failure to call things what they are in my book is simply called lying. No wonder confusion is rampant and mental health professionals are swamped, and stressed out with clients.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste. In order to put SOME kind of order to thoughts, it’s necessary to have a somewhat standard point of reference for the words used to describe them.

What I read about here — that’s not court, that’s a farce of a court process. Everyone might as well go laughing to their various banks, those that have them, while the single mothers, scourge of our nation, go find a 3rd job, and then get criticized openly in family court for their “relationship” with the latchkey kids.

Some of these Dads had legitimate problems. How many of them were screened for prior domestic violence and use of the child support system to apply pressure on the mothers of their kids? If so, why do they get the kid glove, and the families the backside of the hand?

I advise people to totally avoid the child support system, if at all possible. I do not think it’s redeemable at this piont. Too large, too much power, and too many people are dying when people get pissed off at its proclamations. the office shooting in Orlando, FL had a child support debt element, for those who noticed. The shooting (one died) took place in an office, but it was a Dad, with history of controlling and abuse, and a child support debt of over $11,000.

Was it a fair ruling? Quite possibly that system is adding to the stress factors.

I was within range of not needing child support, but I couldn’t get the protection to my own work life and relationships to make it all the way home. Somehow, that doesn’t seem (in retrospect), “accidental” at all. Strong, independent, law-abiding single mothers upset the machinery here, and it seems courts like these, and other programs, are intent on doing away with us, and our connection with our kids. We may maintain it, but it will cost us — whether through supervised visitation, or thousands in lawyers in the family law system; once entered — exit is difficult.

If these comments are helpful (or your gut reaction to them is like mine to the article), please feel free to comment on-line.

Have a nice day.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

November 9, 2009 at 2:45 PM

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, public education

“Why does he DO that?” A walk on the wild side…. [with some 2013 updates]

with one comment

(note — see the comment, from 2009. The person “gets” what I was doing in the post, thank you!)

I am speaking as an owner and long-time appreciator of the book. “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry & Controlling Men.”.. which showed up like a savior, emotionally, right as my case plummeted from stablized position under protection of a restraining order, into the volatile, “mandatory-mediation” arena of Family Court, which reminded me of “Chutes and Ladders”, with more chutes than ladders.

You take one false step (or have your family placed at the top of a chute through being hauled into this venue) and are on a chute.

Kind of like life WITH the abusive guy (or woman) to start with, anyhow, huh? Hmm… Wonder why they function similarly!

(The post on “Family Court Matters a la board-games” is in pre-development stage, meaning, a little gleam in the blogger’s eye still. Paper, Scissors Stone (last post) got me thinking for sure…..)

If you haven’t read Lundy Bancroft’s material AND/OR you are not yourself a victim or being forced to co-parent with a batterer, you’re not fully informed in the domestic violence field, period.

(2013 Update, In Hindsight):

Then again, if we’d all been talking about something besides “batterers” perhaps neither Batterers Intervention Programs nor “domestic violence” would have developed into “fields,” coalitions, or industries.

And the conversation about those fields and how THEY operate is the conversation that no one seems to want to talk about, even as updates to “The Batterer As Parent” have been published and being circulated in various circles.

I mean, think about it (why didn’t we earlier??) There is a crime called “assault and battery” — but by the time someone has become a “batter-er” that means, it’s habitual — which means someone else is experiencing “domestic violence.” How can you domesticate “violence” and what’s domestic about it? (Well, you can tame down its labeling and call it domestic “abuse” — which has been done…

In fact, as it turns out, “BIPs” are actually diversionary programs to criminal prosecution for the beating up on others. Some people figured out, along with programs like, “moral reconation therapy(tm)” and Psychoeducational classes for kids undergoing divorce — that the more programs the merrier. I guess… The money is made upfront in the trainings, yours truly (The United States Government, which is essentially “yours truly” — the taxpayers) set up the policies and the corporations and then runs the population through them every time someone shows up actually needing some realtime social service — or justice — or help.

I can’t explain it too well in a single post, but this conflict was staged and manipulated in order to obtain more and more central control (literally, an economic stranglehold) on most of us through those of us that are willing to sell out for collaboration, sales, and the conference circuit. As sincere or genuine as these individuals may be, I do know they are playing on empathy to increase sales. I do not know whether or not they see the endgame, after their own use has expired in the long-range plan of bankrupting Americans so we are left as a human resource without other options than begging or slavery, at a sheer subsistence level.

Some of us have been their in marriage, we have been there AFTER filing restraining orders, which were intended to protect us (allegedly), but we were NOT there after even a year or two in the family court Archipelago.

Somehow, in this destitute and distressed state, we grasp at straws of empathy and keep referring friends and neighbors to explain our own situation to the same types of information — such as if only someone would JUST UNDERSTAND batterers’ psyches, our kids would be safer, and life would be better.

Anyhow, what follows was from very early in this blog (October 2009) and shows my understanding at that time. Even then, I was questioning the logic of the question.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

October 8, 2009 at 7:59 PM

Access and Visitation, only $10 mill/year (annually, since 1997).

Oh No!

I just lost the top half of my last, colorfully-illustrated, and highly annotated, sarcastic scatalogical post, “Thrusting Abstinence Education on the Unwary Public” (as summarized, with links, by Wikipedia, in about 2005). It’s coming. I’ll expose it soon. It exposes the money that traded hands in private before the PR professionals, using their media connections, pushed two policies that are now coursing through the bloodstreams of the 2 largest United States Executive Branch departments and affecting, I say, all of us. These were the Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood/Abstinence Education initiatives (as to HHS) AND . . .. AND . . . .the “No Child Left Behind” policies (as to Educ.)

Regarding that. . . . .

I figured, since the Bush Admin public servants want to Push its way into the public’s thoughts (first) and pants, skirts, or burqas, etc. as to trying to regulate whether (let alone with whom!) we (or our children) do or do not engage in sexual intercourse, whatever they find where they don’t belong is their own problem, and any tone of response communicating “get out!” is appropriate. The moral being, #1, don’t take rides from strangers promising Health, Human Services, or any other ecstatic experiences or transportations, or accept candies from them, either, and #2, more of us need to restructure our lives so as to keep better track of our track of our Congressmen, and whatever % of them are Congresswomen who vote on how to dispense $$ collected from us through taxes. If these are being used Inappropriately (and failing kids K-12, then trying to back track and teach an abstinence Congresspeople themselves do not exhibit, either as to finances or their personal sex lives (not unilaterally for sure is most definitely INappropriate).

Who knows, the candy {whether in form of ideas, or psychotropic, as in Ritalin, etc. through the school systems, etc.) might have drugs. Besides which, anyone calling you, or people in general “Human” probably isn’t. Would such a person call their own offspring, or spouse, a “human”?? Then how come other, more distant people of the same species become suddenly “humans” and need “servicing.”

Marriage affects health, sure, but in definition is a commitment between two individuals who have exchanged vows, generally in front of witnesses in their community, and have also a certain public document. By definition, and usage, it’s private! Where it becomes public is only where an individual in it breaks a law, particularly as to domestic violence and child abuse, but also any others.

Similarly, a nation is not a living, throbbing organism to be run from the top and have its temperature taken by elected officials and parts re-arranged at (its will). We are not bees, we are not ants, we are not to be treated like them either. Our elected and/or appointed officials are not bee-keeprs or ant farmers, even if and (when) they may think they are and such activities have apparently given their otherwise meaningless lives purpose, by labeling others misery or happiness.

In PARTICULAR, we mothers are not to be bred for our children, and then judged as to our health by virtue of whether the “sire” of the kids is in the house or out of the house. And that, friends, is what this nation is currently (at our own expense) in the business of. Studying itself. The top half is studying the bottom half, only it’s not even close to “half.” The bottom half (sic) exists to serve, and pay the top half (sic) to study it.

That’s how I read the situation currently, anyhow. I may be jaundiced by my particular run through the last 20 or so years, but I have networked, read, studied, and collaborated plenty, as well as read what others are networking and collaborating about as well. When it’s one own’s life & kids (as opposed to, say, job) at stake, one tends to study more closely.

Moroever, the columnists promoting this already had their hands in the till by taking money from the public in the form of grants. So the hand was ALREADY in our pockets financially. Moreover, it appears the infamous (to me at least) “No Child Left Behind” (which takes the cake for vague, amorphous rallying cry if I ever heard one. First of all, it’s false — what about private schools? What about where are we going? what about the talented children already being held back in the schools, which is from what I can tell, probably the majority of them. What about keep your hands off my kids too, until you can talk sense? This initiative also started in similar manner — a man was paid to promote it, but failed to mention the pay.)

So, as to Abstinence Education, thus I figure anyone (promiscuous, married and faithful, or married and hot-Mike-Duvall, or abstinent, or celibate, or in fact ANYONE) should be able to give them a hard time about this. Especially because what was NOT exposed was whose $$ (ours — federal grants) was in whose pockets before the inspired (by $$) PR eulogies began. I guess you get the general idea of how I felt about that. The moral there, and with this Access and Visitation grandiose talk is, when someone on the federal dole comes up to you UNSOLICITED especially, saying “you need a ride? You look lost, you need some direction? You look poor! I’ll help you — just sign on the line (and give me your offspring) here. Come, let me give you a (mind/face/family-) lift — then the appropriate response is to ignore the talk and survey the surroundings, particularly for the closest exit. And any other strangers (to you) in the vicinity behaving oddly.

ANYHOW, another post. THIS one, is on a grants system set up back in, I gather 1996:

2 years after National Fatherhood Initiative (1994)
One year after Clinton wrote the (in)famous, “let’s revamp the Exec. Dept. to include more Dads (1995).
3 & 4 years before Congress voted”inexplicably” that the true crisis for the United States was fatherlessness, and they “resolved” (National Fathers Return day being one such resolution) to DO something about it (in both houses: 1998/1999)
only 5 years before the half-bald, mustached, slightly-smiling, white guy to the right (see photo) was “unanimously” appointed Secretary of the HHS (2001-2007), and I gather in 2007, he kinda sorta was encouraged (??) to step down. At least he resigned.
But not before the ball was really rolling on this idea that the REAL problem is Kids Minus Dads.

Since he’s white, middle-aged and half-bald,(and right-wing conservative), (and apparently well-off) why doesn’t he limit his concern to what he actually has lived? But know, he and his NFI prominent thinkers are going for the usual suspects, African American mothers who aren’t married to their children’s fathers. But attacking African American mothers, unmarried, isn’t QUITE PC enough, so the circuitous route is to express for or the kids lack of ROOTS (as defined , to their Dads).

: Psychologist Wade Horn, from NFI to HHS, and out again.).

DO YOU think I’m kidding? I’m not!

JUNE 17,1999, Congressional Chronicle(tm)

Topic: National Fathers Return Day

Mr. LIEBERMAN. (speaking) Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues. Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report, can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers.

(in some cases, those fathers got shot, in some cases those fathers were not interested in them to start with. In some cases those Dads may have been in a war and gave their lives for the country. In some case those fathers were violent. Perhaps in some cases those fathers may have been sports idols and are on the road. Does THAT put them at risk, per se? In some cases those fathers were womanizers. Should we put the Dads back with their sons and daughters to learn that this really doesn’t matter, when it’s Dad? In some cases, perhaps Mom OR Dad had a religious awakening, mabye like Mr. Horn’s, in which case the uninterested (in that brand of God) spouse may wish to continue (or re-act) by doing drugs or watching pornography, or being promiscuous.

I know one family (not African American) whose Dad decided to come out of the closet, with his new paramour, while his offspring were adolescents. Guess what. Those kids didn’t sleep in his home. Those poor (well, they weren’t poor) kids would have fallen under the Access Visitation grants definition programs. They had a noncustodial parent. If their Dad were nasty, or either parent poor, he could’ve been recruited through the child support program to further harrass her or impoverish the kids. It only takes one bad apple to get the whole family ensnared til kids reach age of majority.

Suppose Mom finds a second, healthy marriage. According to these theories, the kids are still at risk, because it’s not “Dad” in the home.

(LIEBERMAN, to CONGRESS, 1999, con’td.) We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.

We are NOT amused at what’s actually taking place in government grants la-la-land.

The first attempted post was about a Wikipedia article (about 2005) highlights who was paid what to screw us nationally, and that’s not much of an exaggeration. I’m talking about grants and initiatives that ended up transforming the role of the courts, and there was also a reference to the illicit origins (i.e., a PR person was PAID off from Dept. of Educ. Fund) to start “NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND.” Which, in my state, last I heard, means that approximately 42% of them are up to snuff, and this is considered “good,” however, if a child came up wit 42% on a test, that was considered failing. WHich pretty much describes the difference of standards between “government” behavior and our own. Also, if I only got 42% of my children actually literate after they’d been in my care for a few years (versus K-8, let alone K-12 years), I’d give myself a failing grade too.

Well, since all my technical (wordpress) wits was far below the level of the rhetorical wit, this crudely dropped the readers midstream, with no buildup or momentum, into the usual back-story commentary on the Wikipedia entry on the not-exactly-breaking-news that columnists and PR sorts sometimes do pay attention to what side their bread is buttered on be for buttering up the ideas of the person with the butter.

Ah well. . . . .

So I decided to “punt” and go to this topic: ACCESS & VISITATION GRANTS, where the real “conflict of interest is” in the courts.

Anyone that doesn’t like my profiling Wade Horn according to his race, gender, state of follicle challenge, age, and demeanor can go jump in a lake. I don’t like being profiled according to my gender, or having my household profiled according to how many adult males biologically related to my children in it, rather than to whether or it has a violent, battering, assaulting, property-destroying and chaos-inducing male (biologically or not biologically related to my children) in it. He can’t change his race, I suppose. He could even change his gender, if this were part of his right-wing religious preferences which I bet it ain’t.

I can’t change my DNA, nor can my ex, nor can my kids. But what I CAN change is whether or not I am going to sit around my home being slapped because I’m female in front of children, and mine happened to be female. Then let some (male) _______ (or female) come to me, after having ignored years of that, and then push this dogma that the real problem is, there’s not a “man” in the house.

There WAS a man in the house, and that was solved with a restraining order, temporarily.

I don’t feel like changing my gender either. And it makes equally as much sense (i.e., NONE) for a bunch of men (and some women) to get up there and saying, it’s a GENDER problem, starting with African American children (of either gender) — and they did! See below! — not having their OWN fathers living with them as it does to say it’s a RACE problem. I dare a bunch of Congressmen to get up there and have a national white folk day. And get it nationalized, with a straight face. CALL it that. Push it all over the state, county, and nonprofit institutions just like fatherhood and healthy marriages has been. State that as a lot of black folk are in prison, obviously the problem is their race — not the prisons, not poverty, and not communities, not behavior. And not racism. I am waiting for the day.

With President Obama now, no one would dare (let’s hope!) But one profile we CAN all gang up on is mothers, especially single mothers. Good grief! In another day and time, this would be Jews. In another, Tutsis. In another Hutu. In another Armenians. But the gender for all times to hate (and particularly if it stops hating its own, or protests) is for sure female. They must give up their kids and make sure that they have contact with Dads, even if Dad kills them (and this has happened), kidnaps them (and this has happened) and even if the ongoing conflict with a chaotic or controlling personality introduces years of needless conflict — AND more poverty — into the children’s home. And if Dad can’t restrain himself, or might rape, kidnap, beat, or hurt the kids during a visitation, no matter. There is ANOTHER government-funded and/or free-market-niche to make sure they still have contact: “Supervised Visitation.”

Now that’s not really safe either. No matter. There’s ANOTHER program to train the supervisors. How’re they going?

2008:

“Danger Zones: Battered mothers and their children in Supervised Visitation“

Supervised visitation centers (SVCs) have developed rapidlyacross the United States. Increasingly, courts are restrictingcontact between abusive intimate partners and their childrenby ordering visitation or exchanges to occur at SVCs. This articledescribes some of the key lessons the authors learned over 18months of planning and then another 18 months of implementationat a SVC developed specifically to serve families for whom domesticviolence was their primary reason for referral. The authorshave organized their experiences around five major themes: (a)battered women in supervised visitation, (b) how battering continuesduring supervised visitation, (c) how rules at the SVC evolvedover the first 18 months of implementation, (d) the importanceof well-trained visit monitors, and (e) the need to embed SVCswithin a larger context of coordinated community responses todomestic violence.

Key Words: battered women • batterers • children • supervised visitation centers

This version was published on November 1, 2008

2004:

Six Crucial Issues in Supervised Visitation

There is no way to predict whether a specific batterer is likely to kill his partner. {!!}} Even though data are available about batterers who actually commit such murders, the batterer’s violence behavior alone does not provide enough information about accurate predictions about which batterers will go on to kill the partners. Psychotherapists can use a variety of checklists and other instruments to help determine the level of risk for a lethal incident, but these assessment devices have not been validated by empirical research. ^[16^]

Who conducts risk assessment?

Despite their close ties with domestic violence shelters in their communities, many supervised visitation program staff do not have the level of expertise necessary to conduct formal risk assessments. Therefore, it should be domestic violence professionals who should conduct the assessments, not visitation personnel:

For those who haven’t “got” this yet, the majority of these studies are, (I finally “got” this) not about our safety or our children’s safety, or our children’s best interest, or to prevent family violence. From the front lines, and a front lines person who knows many families going through this AND has attended conferences, and probably reads as much as a lot of the professionals (at least to pass for one in a number of situations; all I lacked was the degree) on this, and has a REAL vested interest — my life, my family’s lives, my livelihoods, the safety and well-being of the communities I was in during all this stuff (before and after separation) and so forth — I pay attention, and try to place accumulated information in a growing database and I refile as necesary when stuff “doesn’t fit.”

It’s not about our lives, it’s about the professions. Here is a statement from a real well-respected site, now 5 years old, saying that the issue is not that we are bringing supervised visitation into the picture at all, but that it’s just that the visitation personnel are not properly trained by professionals, domestic violence professionals.

Here’s a question raised (finally!) by someone addressing a(nother) conference of ALL kinds of professionals associated with this topic about preventing violence, protecting children, and all kinds of REALLY nice healthy topics. I am thinking that PROBABLY the conference (Jackson’s Hole, Wyoming?) might have been an clean safe place. This (male) professional in the field started the first Domestic Violence Unit in Washington, D.C., he says in his opening remarks.

He broaches again the question I’ve twice posted on this site, in articles from 1989 and 1992, as to whether children need relationships with their (abusive) fathers. Let’s see if he qualifies in our eyes as a Professional. But first, the quote.

2009, June 2:

Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?

Even the question is a little “framed.” “have been abusive . . . in the past” is not the typical situation of a woman trying to leave abuse with her children. This mindset implies it was “over with” and that while broken bones, teeth, bruises, and blood may indicate “being abusive” (i.e. COMMITTING a pattern of misdemeanor or felony-level domestic violence), stalking, property destruction, intimidation of relatives, or keeping one’s ex in a nonstop pattern of defense against allegations in family court arena do not.

Oh yeah, incidentally this was the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and his short speech is on the date link.

It appears to me to be the present policy (I include practice) that mothers moreso than fathers, are considered dispensable to children.

Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?

Actually, by the time one sorts through how contradictory one policy is from the otehr, and then read about the conferences where organizations sponsoring BOTH sides of the contradictory policies collaborate together (but the parents involved are not invited, generally, nor their kids) I’d have to say that in the long run, one concludes that when it comes to dispensing TAX DOLLARS (my shorthand for grants, federal, local, state, and private) what’s really dispensable, and is being lost, are:

1. Justice.
2. Children.
(With justice, children will be safe, as long as laws against domestic violence and child abuse remain on the abuse, and SHOULD they ever start being consistently defined, and enforced).
and
3. OPM. Other People’s Money AND OPL. that’s other People’s Lives.

What really seems INdispensable, once underway, appear to be the systems dispensing 1, 2, and 3, above.

I am going to (re-)introduce you this concept “Access and Visitation” and its costs, starting with the HHS own site describing it. If the prose is lame and lacks vigor, just understand that I blew my wad on the first topic, so this is a pale second offering from a drained commentator.

However my commentary cannot possibly be as lame, nonsequitur, and incoherent as the concept of Designer Families at Public Expense, as executed by a centralized opaque bureaucracy in cooperation with private and nonprofit businesses, not to mention religious organizations that haven’t quite yet “got” that hitting women ain’t legal.

This is where “Access Visitation” concepts meets the “Supervised Visitation” concept. One encourages and ALLOWS certain services (this is the HHS source of grants) and the other DISCOURAGES but does not forbid, practically the same types of activity (this is the DOJ/VAWA source of grants, as I recall).

One is the government paying a LOT of government institutions (you have no idea, but I assure you, I do!) to make sure “NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS” have “ACCESS AND VISITATION” to their children, even if it means getting them free legal help while in prison to modify their custody orders, something I don’t recall getting of one second past the time our case hit the family law venue.

The converse of this is, when a parent is really bad and needs to be “spanked” or “supervised” somehow, then there is SUPERVISED VISITATION. I could’ve used solme of this and requested it, in fact, one reason was, I didn’t want the kids kidnapped. i asked for this in 2005 and was told No. Then when my kids were taken on an overnight in 2006, and we show up in court, I asked for it again, and was curtly told, there’s no money (meaning WE didn’t have some to fork over) for this. The result was, visits were so traumatizing I was hard put to get them. There was also no real exterior witness or regulation of the fact that the second this man got our children, theyw ere basically, not going to be seen by me again, even when a court order had stipulated, every othe rweek. So there you have it on SUPERVISED VISITATION.

Sometimes this also is used to punish mothers by forcing them to pay to see their chlidren after they speak up about something (seems like it could be almost anything — child abuse, harm done to the kid by the other parent, or some other violation of existing standards) and are silenced by having their kids switched, SUDDENLY, to the other parent. This has been described elsewhere better than I am summarizing here.

But, til I find the missing witty intro to a version of BUSH-WhACKED around MARRIAGE INITIATIVE type post, I give you:

OCSE Access and Visitation Grants Information

I suggest filing this under Congressional Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance.

Overview

With an annual appropriation of $10 million, 54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands) have been able to provide access and visitation services to over a half million non-custodial parents (NCPs) and their families since the program became operational in 1997! In FY 2006, States contracted with over 300 court and/or community- and faith-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services to NCPs and their families.

NCP is a “NonCustodial Parent.” Primarily, fathers. Note, that the CP (which obviously is another adult) does not even exist as an entity. it’s NCP’s and “Families.”

“STATES CONTRACTED” — Yes, the feds pay the states, and we’re not yet QUITE sure what happens once it hits state level, although some diligent research DOES ascertain that it’s pretty darn hard to track after that.

I. Enabling Legislation

The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Goal: “..to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”

Cognitive dissonance: “It’s about money. It’s not about money, it’s about the children. It’s about reducing welfare distributions. No, it’s not, it’s about noncustodial parental access. Aw heck, Im not really sure! No it’s NOT a pay-per-hour-per child scenario (i.e., children as property), it’s about families. Well, on the other hand, though we really need to entreat these men to get on the stick and get some work (including after they get out of jail) so we will help them for free, LEGALLY, to get back at those Moms, get more time with their kids, in exchange for which we will then lower child support obligations (but, listen closely, this is NOT, we repeat, NOT a pay per child per hour arrangement) (unless it refers to SUPERVISED visitation) and maybe then, if we treat the disgruntled — or unemployed — or incarcerated — NCPS nice, they will respond in kind, step up to the plate and pay the past due child support.

Alternatively, we can switch custody and put HER in jail if she doesn’t pay, because women don’t need to be BRIBED to support their own children, generally speaking. And, again, we’re not ordering, we’re just “supporting and facililating’ (modification of custody orders). Without telling the custodial parent in advance, of course.

II. Allowable Services

According to the statute, States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:

Mediation

Mediation is “premitted” for the States, but “mandatory” for the parents in many states, including mine, and that’s a PROBLEM when violence has been involved, already. Typically by the time the order was obtained (at least I know my case and many others), attempts to “mediate” the concept of not being hit, abused, threatened, etc., have already failed. Hence the protective order to start with. For protection, not negotiation! Well, mediation puts two parents in front of one mediator, which typically (given the little time he/she is going to have) will pick a side and stick to it, throughout the course of the case, which, given these factors, will probably stop when ALL kids hit 18. Or one parent has worn out, given up, or simply gone homeless, meaning, can’t fight back.

Moreover, all the opposing, “NCP” has to do is start a debate on almost any issue between them, and then it goes to mediation. This is simpler than presenting facts and evidence in the courtroom, adhering to all those rules of court, etc. All he/she has to really do is win the favor of the mediator, who then (although this isn’t strictly legal, it’s practice) sways the judge who then upends whatever the last status quo was. Note, abusers are great manipulators, it’s kind of their profession, that two-sided thing, or the abuse couldn’t be kept up for so long.

Development of parenting plans

Education

(And a REAL market niche for the would be parent educators, therapists, and counselors (see next item)

Counseling

Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)

Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

In other words, as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, once we figure out whether money, or the child’s best interests is the issue, we will — again, outside the vision and awareness of the CUSTODIAL parent, bargain with the NON-custodial parents and help them de-stabilize the children’s life, repeatedly, and on a proceess that takes place outside the courtroom.

(Responsibility/Opportunity/Responsibility/Opportunity — which is it?)

III. Annual Funding

$10 million is divided among the States annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.

Funding Formula (according to statute):”The allotment of a state for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the state living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all states.”

Minimum Annual State Allocation $100,000 This statutory provision ensures that states with small populations of single parent households with minor age children are guaranteed a base amount of $100,000. Those states with larger populations are awarded an allotment according to the prescribed funding formula.

Required State Match States are required, by law, to provide a minimum 10% match of the Federal grant amount. This match requirement can be fulfilled via cash or in-kind contributions by the state and/or local grantees.

This isn’t a section I’ve examined too much. I HAVE searched for the funding to states under these grants, and was appropriately shocked at amounts, and who was getting them.

IV. State Administration

Designation of State Agencies Following enactment of the AV Grant Program in 1996, the then-Governors of States were asked to designate a State agency that would be responsible for receiving the grant funds. Roughly half of the State AV Grant Programs are administered by State Offices of the Courts and the other half by State IV-D Agencies.

In California, it’s the California Judicial Council, which is THE policysetting arm of the Judicial branch in the state. Then it goes to the Administrative “office of the Courts,” and so forth. So we have pretty much a socialist type setup here. Read on.

Funding Responsibilities States are required (that’s “REQUIRED“) to ensure that funds expended under the Access and Visitation Grant respond to and support the program goal which is “…to establish programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”.

Comment: The thing that facilitated noncustodial parents’ access to their children PRIOR to this was called a court order. It was signed by a judge, stipulated some terms of custody & visitation, and people who interfered with this were (depending on when the law I am thinking of was passed) to comply, or suffer possible contempt of court (order) sanctions, and fork them over to the otherr parent. The thing was done in a process called, formerly, the “LEGAL” process, also casually referred to in some circles still as “DUE process.” It’s what our country is about at its most basic denominator: Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth. Remember those? So, these grants and grant programs can’t quite come out and say “ORDER NONCUSTODIAL PARENT ACCESS” because, after all, they come from the U.S. Exec. Dept., which is supposedly separate from the Legislatives, which is supposedly separate from the Judicial.

This was actually intentional, from what I understand of the ffounding fathers. They wanted these strong powers distributed among different players. NOT centralized in one or just a few players, in which case we’d be an oligarchy, not a republic (cf. Pledge of Allegiance, US Citizens, if you forgot what that means). “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which (this flag) it stands, one nation, under (expletive deleted, according to some sources), indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice, for all.” While we know it doesn’t exist yet, this is the pledge and that is the gol. Notice: “Justice” not “program goals.

JUSTICE is a process. It is a MEANS. “Program Goals” is an end, and apparently the end justifies the means here.

shall administer State programs funded with the grant directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit entities“;

shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and

shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs

Reporting Requirements The enabling legislation requires states to monitor, evaluate, and report on services funded through the Access and Visitation Grant Program. This statutory requirement is satisfied through the annual completion – by states – of the “State Child Access Program Survey” which includes:

State agency contact information;

Services funded; {{Note: “permitted activities,” above.}}

Provider agency contact information;

Number of parents served; {Define “SERVED!” — forced through the programs??}

Socio-economic and demographic information on families served; and

Outcome data (i.e., number of noncustodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services).

COMMENT #1. McDonalds “serves.” (1 billion served — did they mean hamburgers, or patrons?) But the fact is, the desired OUTCOME of these grants is to modify custody orders, basically, or make sure unenforced ones then get enforced.

I have looked at one of these reports. It ain’t much.

Here’s a Self-report on this (Margot Bean, from the Child SUpport commissioner. i STILL think it odd that the child support agency should be enforcing a grant whose design is to influence the judicial process. I have experienced this personally, and saw the connection, although in the courts involved, a pretense of separation is maintained. It’s a “DEAR COLLEAGUE” letter. As a litigant, of course, I am not a colleague and went forward like a lamb to the slaughter, not knowing how many millions were going to my state (approximately $10, over the years), to get a “required outcome” to what I myself wished and wanted to be a law-and-evidence-based process. Guess if you ain’t “in the IN crowd,” forget it!

DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER

DCL-07-15

DATE: May 24, 2007

TO: STATE IV-D DIRECTORS AND STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAM COORDINATORS

RE: New publication which assesses selected State Access and Visitation programs client outcomes especially with respect to subsequent payment of child support

Dear Colleague:

I am pleased to provide you with a copy of a new report entitled: “Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes.”

Since 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has been responsible for administering “Grants to States for Access and Visitation.” To date, OCSE has awarded $100 million dollars to states ($10 million per year) to “…establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children,” as mandated by Congress.

I cannot speak loudly enough to express how profound a conflict of interest this remains. Parents are recruited through jails, through child support offices (when in arrears) and sometimes flat-out through courtrooms by flyers, to participate in programs that are intended to sway the legal process, and THROUGh these programs. Many women leaving violence, or protective mothers, protest that the safety of their children should be left in the hands of someone who is having business funneled to them through these courts and through government mandate (and how are we to know whether or not actual money? It has happened, from what I understand) to tip the balance in the courtroom. THIS PROCESS makes a farce of the courtroom process.

In order to achieve this end, States are allowed to fund a range of services including (hint, hint, hint…) : mediation, development of parenting plans, education, counseling, visitation enforcement (including supervised visitation and neutral drop off), and the development of alternative custody and visitation guidelines. Between FFY 1997-2005, over 400,000 parents were recipients of AV services.

I’d estimate then, about 50% of them unwillingly, or unwitting that they have a right to refuse. Moreover (personal experience), quite often the mediator’s report is not even received before the hearing! I have twice out of three times received it IN the courtroom, which is hardly the place and sufficient time to reply and consider its ramifications!

This study assesses participant outcomes resulting from the Access and Visitation Program in 9 states for mediation, parent education and supervised visitation services. Mediation was studied in Missouri, Rhode Island and Utah. Parent education was assessed in Arizona, Colorado and New Jersey. Supervised visitation was looked at in California, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The primary findings for the 970 cases studied are as follows:

Let’s review this report here. Out of, in their own words “54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands)” only 9 (literally, only 1 in 6 states) were studied, and only 970 cases total. That’s approximately how many per state, and now we have math lesson #1 about this department: DEMONSTRATION SAMPLE — hardly any. APPLICATION FROM DEMONSTRATION (or even EVALUATION) SAMPLE — to the rest of the country. This study was in 2007 (10 years after program started).

Child support payments increased from 53 percent to 93 percent by service in the 12 months following service provision. {{DOES THIS INCLUDE THE SUPPORT ORDERS HAVING BEEN MODIFIED DOWNWARDS, WHICH IS ALMOST INVARIABLY THE RESULT OF SUCH PROCESSES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THEM, TOO}}

Child support compliance rose by 20 percent to 79 percent for unwed cases; but did not increase for divorce cases.

(I’M A DIVORCE CASE, AND THE REDUCED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS WAS BASICALLY TREATED AS A JOKE AFTER THIS PROCESS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GIVE A PERSON WHO ISN’T IN COMPLIANCE AN INCH, AND THE DOOR THEN OPENS WIDE TO NO COMPLIANCE. THIS IS WHY THROUGHOUT THE SEPARATION, I WAS TRYING TO STABILIZE ADN INSIST ON COMPLIANCE, AND AT EVERY TURN, I WAS DISCOURAGED FROM THIS, AND EXHORTED TO GIVE. FINALLY, I HAD TO “GIVE” MY CHILDREN. WELL, NOT FINALLY, ALSO A LOT MORE, INCLUDING THE SENSE THAT ANY COURT ORDER HAS ANY VALIDITY OR FORCE. THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF JIMMYING THE COURT PROCESS FOR A DESIRED OUTCOME, I BELIEVE.}}

The level of child contact by the noncustodial parent rose from 32 percent to 45 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision. (HOW ABOUT 13-15 MONTHS?)

The behavior of the youngest child as reported by the custodial parent improved by 26 percent to 41 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.

WAS THIS ABOUT WORK OPPORTUNITY OR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (REFERRING TO ADULTS!), OR ABOUT GRADING CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR? LET ME RE-READ THE LEGISLATION. ALSO, I KIND OF WONDER ABOUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF WHO IS MEASURING KIDS’ BEHAVIORAL PERCENTAGES, AND ACCORDING TO WHAT, AND SUPPOSE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT EXAGGERATED? GOOD GRIEF! “MY KID WAS 10% BETTER, THE OCSE SHOULD KNOW….”

Twenty-five percent of both parents reported an improved relationship in the 12 months after service provision. The rate was the same for all service types.

Another way of stating this is that “75% of parents reported it didn’t make a damn bit of difference as to their relationship, high-conflict, violent, or casually friendly.

Seventy percent of parents who mediated a visitation/custody agreement reached agreement.

If some of these cases were anything like mine, a good deal of threat was involved in the process. For example, when my kids went missing, I wasn’t about to be allowed in front of a judge unless I went through the gatekeeper, the mediator. I requested another one, but no one available for over month. So what would you do? Let the kids stay MIA or try to get it to court? That’s called extortion! it’s not a real choice!

Nearly all of the parents who received parent education were satisfied by the education.

(or so they said, supposedly).

Ninety percent of parents who participated in supervised visitation characterized this service as a safe place to conduct visits.

Applying the findings in this study should help states design, fund and measure better programs. For additional copies of this report, please contact OCSE’s National Reference Center at 202-401-9383 or OCSENationalReferenceCenter@acf.hhs.gov

Sincerely,

Margot Bean
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement

(whatever. YOu see about the level of reporting).

That’s all I have time for today, but i have been meaning to bring up this topic again. So I just did.

Again, the financial picture is $10million/year to compromise due process in the courts and force the above programs on parents trying to divorce. This is NOT mentioned in the court facilitators offices (at least for Moms, that I knew of). As many times as I was in that child support office, also, not a whiff of it. All I could smell was the dysfunction. I just didn’t know where it was coming from.

2008, summarized, on this site;

Office of Child Support Enforcement
State Access and Visitation Grants – FY 2008
State/Jurisdiction	Federal Allocation	State Match	Total Funding
Alabama	$142,379	$15,819.89	$158,199
Alaska	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Arizona	$169,198	$18,799.78	$187,998
Arkansas	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
California	$957,600	$106,400	$1,064,000
Colorado	$125,800	$13,977.78	$139,778
Connecticut	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Delaware	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
District of Columbia	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Florida	$497,059	$55,228.78	$552,288
Georgia	$295,222	$32,802.44	$328,024
Guam	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Hawaii	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Idaho	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Illinois	$344,357	$38,261.89	$382,619
Indiana	$191,496	$21,277.33	$212,773
Iowa	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Kansas	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Kentucky	$122,440	$13,604.44	$136,044
Louisiana	$139,592	$15,510.22	$155,102
Maine	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Maryland	$166,481	$18,497.89	$184,979
Massachusetts	$161,374	$17,930.44	$179,304
Michigan	$292,451	$32,494.56	$324,946
Minnesota	$133,277	$14,808.56	$148,086
Mississippi	$109,483	$12,164.78	$121,648
Missouri	$171,561	$19,062.33	$190,623
Montana	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Nebraska	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Nevada	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
New Hampshire	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
New Jersey	$217,801	$24,200	$242,001
New Mexico	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
New York	$549,720	$61,080	$610,800
North Carolina	$271,792	$30,199.11	$301,991
North Dakota	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Ohio	$349,127	$38,791.89	$387,919
Oklahoma	$108,016	$12,001.78	$120,018
Oregon	$100,213	$11,134.78	$111,348
Pennsylvania	$327,030	$36,336.67	$363,367
Puerto Rico	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Rhode Island	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
South Carolina	$142,115	$15,790.56	$157,906
South Dakota	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Tennessee	$188,867	$20,985.22	$209,852
Texas	$687,405	$76,378.33	$763,783
Utah	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Vermont	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Virgin Islands	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Virginia	$207,722	$23,080.22	$230,802
Washington	$175,056	$19,450.67	$194,507
West Virginia	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Wisconsin	$155,366	$17,262.89	$172,629
Wyoming	$100,000	$11,111	$111,111
Total	$10,000,000	$1,111,108.34	$11,111,108

How this translates elsewhere, CFDA Code 93597.

TAGGS, interactive search, year 2008 only. First, you can click on the Grant #. This will then show you this year, and a particular designated state agency. Then click on that agency, and see what else it’s doing.

What you will see is centralization, I believe, and a whole panorama of events and activities you were possibly aware of (or, I was just a babe in the woods in this category, DNK):

Number of rows returned: 54
Rows 1 through 54 displayed.
Records Searched: 147753

Award Number	Award Title	OPDIV	Program Office	Sum of Actions
0801GUSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801VISAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801AKSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801ALSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 142,379
0801ARSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801AZSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 169,198
0810CASAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 957,600
0801COSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 125,800
0801CTSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801DCSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801DESAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801FLSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 497,059
0801GASAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 295,222
0801HISAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801IASAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801IDSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801ILSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 344,357
0801INSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 191,496
0801KSSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801KYSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 122,440
0801LASAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 139,592
0801MASAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 161,374
0801MDSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 166,481
0801MESAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801MISAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 292,451
0801MNSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 133,277
0801MOSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 171,561
0801MSSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 109,483
0801MTSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801NCSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 271,792
0801NDSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801NESAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801NHSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801NJSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 217,801
0801NMSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801NVSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801NYSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 549,720
0801OHSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 349,127
0801OKSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 108,016
0801ORSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,213
0801PASAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 327,030
0801PRSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801RISAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801SCSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 142,115
0801SDSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801TNSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 188,867
0801TXSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 687,405
0801UTSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801VASAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 207,722
0801VTSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801WASAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 175,056
0801WISAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 155,366
0801WVSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000
0801WYSAVP	2008 SAVP	ACF	OCSE	$ 100,000

NOW, the THEORY behind “access visitation” includes the concept that doing this will help the deadbeat NCP (Noncustodial parent) to be more warmly inclined, or able, or less discouraged, or have incentive, to pay up. This is why it’s related also to welfare reduction. So, basically, it’s a project about reducing outstanding deficits, and is of course administered by the OCSE. So we should presume that its purpose is somewhat related to the OCSE, which is child support collection.

SO, at $10/million/year for (so far about 12) years, is this enough? NO, there is still more unexplored territory when it comes to Child SUpport Demonstration projects. Even after they reported on a whole 970 cases nationwide in 2007.

I just looked under a different code (see chart) and here are the new explorers:

WELL, the first one below, Center for Policy Research isn’t exactly new, in fact Jessica Pearson is behind a whole lot more in these matters, and in the family law field, than meets the average eye. (See website). She most definitely qualifies as a heavyweight, along with her (and six other’s) “Center for Policy Research” and an apparently? related “Policy-Studies.com which (I have to double-check, but it’s already posted recently) got a whopping $4 million (one year) recently for abstinence education too. Coincidentally, both organizations out of Denver. When you click on the site, it reads (on the URL address frame, at least on my computer): “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”

POINT BEING, if we already have all these other Child Support, Child Welfare, and other special demo projects going on, why all the extra, extra funds for Access Visitation?

About PSI

PSI improves the lives of people every day by helping health and human services

organizations reach out to the people they serve; qualify them for essential services; and

manage caseloads with precision, speed, and superior customer service. With more than

1,400 employees spanning 57 programs in 28 states and the District of Columbia, we help

our clients significantly improve program performance. For more information, please visit

http://www.policy-studies.com.

Policy Studies Inc. (PSI) provides outsourcing, consulting, and information technology services to government clients. PSI also supports private sector health organizations in their efforts to strengthen strategic performance and growth. Headquartered in Denver, Colorado, the company has more than 1,200 employees in over 40 sites nationwide. In 2003, PSI was named the sixth fastest growing private company in Colorado by the Denver Business Journal. For more information about PSI’s products and services please visit
http://www.policy-studies.com.

View Jobs for Policy Studies I

http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Policy-Studies-Inc-Reviews-E22614.htm

(Funny review from two employees:

“Its not just a job, its only a job!”

Pros

A stable paycheck and the coworkers are usually pleasant. A great place for people looking for just a job and who don’t want to work too hard.

Cons

Some of the technical folks seemed hesitant to make changes or use newer technologies. Bureaucracy was rampant and individuals could not make changes or improvements. Communication was completely lacking, and senior management would decide what they though was best rather than listen to the folks who were doing the job.

Advice to Senior Management

Be more open to the experience of the people in the remote offices. Discuss ideas before making broad policy and business practice changes.

“Proceed with caution”

Pros

Work with human services agencies, the people at the project level are usually very talented

Cons

Sr. Management has driven off key staff, few opportunities for advancement, poor communication about important events, high spend on initiatives that are risky

Advice to Senior Management

Get back to the basics of what made PSI successful.

Fiscal Year

OPDIV

Grantee Name

City

State

Award Number

Award Title

CFDA Number

CFDA Program Name

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

2008

ACF

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH

DENVER

90FI0085

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

JESSICA PEARSON

$ 124,829

2008

ACF

CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH

DENVER

90FI0098

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

JESSICA PEARSON

$ 99,908

2008

ACF

CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL

GRAND RAPIDS

90FI0087

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

CANDACE COWLING

$ 124,674

2008

ACF

Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office

CLEVELAND

90FI0093

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

FRANCINE B GOLDBERG

$ 25,000

2008

ACF

DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS

DENVER

90FI0094

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

BEN LEVEK

$ 99,800

2008

ACF

Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.

SAN ANTONIO

90FI0086

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

RICHARD M DAVIDSON

$ 125,000

2008

ACF

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

DES MOINES

90FI0095

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

MARIE THEISEN

$ 100,000

2008

ACF

Kern County Department of Child Support Services

BAKERSFIELD

90FI0088

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

PHYLLIS NANCE

$ 25,000

2008

ACF

Kern County Department of Child Support Services

BAKERSFIELD

90FI0097

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

PHYLLIS NANCE

$ 100,000

2008

ACF

NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

RALEIGH

90FI0099

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

KRISTIN RUTH

$ 78,842

2008

ACF

NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM

NEW YORK

90FI0092

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

MICHAEL MAGNANI

$ 24,325

2008

ACF

OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

OKLAHOMA CITY

90FI0100

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

KATHERINE MCRAE

$ 100,000

2008

ACF

SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

SAN JOSE

90FI0101

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

RALPH MILLER

$ 100,000

2008

ACF

SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE

TOKELAND

90FI0089

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

DEB DUNITHAN

$ 49,934

2008

ACF

Sagamore Institute, Inc.

INDIANAPOLIS

90FI0090

DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL

$ 24,995

2008

ACF

TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

AUSTIN

90FI0091

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION

MICHAEL HAYES

$ 25,000

2008

ACF

URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)

WASHINGTON

90FI0096

SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

93601

Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

RENEE HENDLEY

$ 68,355

Search on “Center Policy Research” (modest results, really).

Fiscal Year	Grantee Name	City	State	Award Title	CFDA Program Name	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2009	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$ 50,000
2008	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$ 124,829
2008	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$ 99,908
2007	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$ 124,820
2006	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$ 24,730
2006	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$ 198,664
2005	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$ 100,000
2004	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DR JESSICA PEARSON	$ 99,926
1996	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	SYRACUSE	NY	HOW POOR HEALTH INFLUENCES WORK AND RETIREMENT	Aging Research	SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS)	NEW	DWYER, DEBRA S	$ 35,910

And here, FY 2000-2009, is a cute little chart showing the top 10 states for receiving these Access/Visitation grants from USASPENDING.GOV. IN 2002, apparently someone was very enthusiastic or reported differently, whereas in 2006, the data (or its reporting) took a nosedive. However, it’s at least a resource for CFDA 93597, “Grants to States (again, to designated agency in each state, and then distributed locally to get the PROGRAM GOAL OF MORE TIME FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS WITH THEIR KIDS.”

I’ve been noncustodial for some time now, and was in the court many times the first year, none of which visitation was happening as order, which I repeatedly brought up. I didn’t see anyone too concerned about this in the various courts (including custody & child support hearings) I was in, or the mediator’s office (see above, mediation was supposed to help). Hmmm.

WELL, this is enough for one post! And another long one, alas!

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

September 16, 2009 at 5:54 PM

	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	sandwich near Detroi… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Historic Day Today, and Week,…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on So, You Want Us To Speak Out A…

Archive for the ‘Mandatory Mediation’ Category

Now for today’s Main Feature:

Point Of View-1: The Voice of Professional Advocates

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 —

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 —

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).

TONE — STRONGER, and often less polished.

UPSIDES to this approach —

DOWNSIDES —

The voice of a Staff Consultant to a prominent California Nonprofit

Reinstate Accountability To Our Courts: Pass Assembly Bill 2521

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

SHARE THIS POST on...

In-breeding in Federal Programs to Examine Fatherhood….

Office of Child Support Enforcement, Responsible Fatherhood Programs

The Artificial Womb

SHARE THIS POST on...

We have to have a talk about the word “children” and “families” when it really means “fathers.”

So, here’s FVPF.org:

Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance

Assistance Type

Trend

Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located

Top 10 Recipients

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Guiding Principles of the Fathering After Violence Initiative

Public and Private Partnerships:

The National Institute has three core elements:

28.Feb.2010 Maryland Mother Fights to Change Law After Husband Killed Children

SHARE THIS POST on...

Some times, hard times, a little humor helps me. I seem to notice things that maybe others don’t (oft-burnt, twice as observant?)…

Can a parent who committed violence get “custody” or “visitation”?

Possession and Access / Visitation:

“Here Comes Da Judge!”

“THE INSCRUTABLE WORKINGS OF PROVIDENCE“

More, “HERE COME DA JUDGE” info:

Here comes the Judge!

Here comes the judge!

The court's in session!

The Funky Judge! Updated 8.28.02

ETHICS, TRANSFORMATIONS, and Dr. JUDITH REISMAN, Kinsey, etc….

SHARE THIS POST on...

(2) on FORCED ARBITRATION:

(A)

SHARE THIS POST on...

A Quick Post (not mine, except intro & comments)

summarizing the situation fairly well:

Police say emotional distress led man to kill estranged wife

Minn. officer reportedly killed with own gun (see video)

Little Carson Luke Strube is now thriving in the care of his maternal grandparents. But his other grandmother, Joanna Renea Hayes, was charged this week with killing his mother, her daughter-in-law.

Police Search For Motive In Fatal N.J. Shooting

Paterson Father Allegedly Shot Estranged Wife, 2 Children

Gunman kills estranged wife at Tualatin lab, injures two, kills self

By Bill Oram, The Oregonian

November 10, 2009, 8:49PM

Hans Reiser Admits to Murdering Nina Reiser, Pleads to Reduced Murder Sentence

The Trap Door They Don’t Tell Divorcing Mothers, or separating-from-abuse partners about — almost ANYwhere…

Forcing the Connection through “Access Visitation Funding” and social policy closing the exit door.

+/- $1/million/state/year for Access/Visitation grants (ongoing) can’t be all wrong, despite headlines, and despite reality of the consequences of frequent exchanges, more time, with resistant disgruntled fathers..

SHARE THIS POST on...

“Our Courts, Ourselves: how the Alternative Dispute Resolution Movement is Reshaping Our Legal System.”

SHARE THIS POST on...

{{FATHERING COURT, LAUNCHED 1998}}

Gag me with a spoon…..

SHARE THIS POST on...

SHARE THIS POST on...

Oh No!

JUNE 17,1999, Congressional Chronicle(tm)

Topic: National Fathers Return Day

2008:

2004:

2009, June 2: