Archive for the ‘Mandatory Mediation’ Category
A Radical Idea — Enforce Existing Custody Laws . . and the rest…
(and, “HOW MUCH TIME AND HOW MANY EXPERTS WILL IT TAKE TO FIGURE THIS OUT?”)
This post is in response to, gradually, retroactively, discovering what was published, conferenced, said, explicated, implicated, rationalized, demonstrated, and nationalized during the past ten (or so) years since I filed a domestic violence restraining order, and found out that this person was NOT an isolated, deeply disturbed, person, but was in fact living out a systematic creed, which thrived better in certain types of schizoid linguistic neighborhoods than others — such as, faith institutions and family court.
It is not one of my better posts, except for a few graphics. HOWEVER, I do feel it’s truthful.
What one wants, in the field of Domestic Violence, is STOPPING it. Not theory, but results.
However, unlike in, say music, where there is a range of audiences, many of them who pay, in THIS field, there is a fountain of funding for theorists. Not content to actually work on getting laws enforced, and saving lives, there is constant, constant tinkering, reframing, training, talking and (you get the picture). Well, if you don’t, here’s one:
This pie chart shows Federal Spending by Federal Department:
FEDERAL SPENDING FY 2009 YTD
(legend at the link). PURPLE is Health and Human Services. RUST– is Education
RUST is what we were supposed to learn from “Zero to 5” and from “K-12” (and beyond) but didn’t about behavior ethics and character, as well as the usual academic whatnot (reading, writing, counting, obeying rules, doing homework, working hard, and not joining gangs or impregnating/getting impregnated before one is, say at least 16 or 17 years old….)
PURPLE — that’s primarily catchup, at this point -_ healthy families, responsible fatherhood, early heard start, child development, and many many more things (Including some fantastic funding for more scientific research, medical, and so forth).
Despite the majority of federal spending going there, we are behind in education, and people are still killing spouses and/or children after divorce, or over the issue of child support, even. Children are kidnapped over these issues, traumatizing them and burdening society further.
Grants, once established, are like the energizer battery, and just keep on going, going, going for the most part. WHO is reporting WHAT as to the results?
Are results measured by people who go through the programs (a headcount) or by the headlines? As finances are a major predictor and risk factor in otherwise stressed relationships, perhaps we ought to find out what’s happening to these finances.
SO, I put it this way,. . . .
If a “lightbulb” going off signifies “Aha!” — understanding, my question is, . . .
How many social science, legal, and
court-associated experts does it take
to UNscrew a lightbulb?
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/light-bulb-ban.jpg
and
My experience, and others’, and the headlines, show that frequent contact with a batterer, including frequent visitation
(however supervised, however accessed, however negotiated) can be hazardous to your physical and mental health.
I never got supervised. As a consequence, I consistently was traumatized, stalked, harrassed, and lost work — and eventually children around this. Because I knew this to be a NOT safe situation, I had to choose between seeing my children, ever (even when court had ordered it), and working steadily, EVER, basically. The exchange was not a 15 minute exchange with court orders poorly written as mine, and going to court to fix this had never resulted in anything (in my case) but significant loss.
It was a traumatic and awful experience every time except for THE first time, when I finally got domestic violence restraining order with kickout and had a little space to begin repairing and rebuilding every area of life this battering thing had knocked out of kilter, including work, relationships, and physically, aspects of the house (not to mention my health).
Now, to find out later, how MANY experts had been practicing how MANY ideas in which areas of the United States (and the funding they got to do this), and how LITTLE actual input from litigants seems to have been sought — a typical list of what are called “stakeholders” doesn’t include the people affected MOST directly: Moms, Dads, and Children. No, the stakeholders, in some people’s view, are the professionals — well it’s saddening they need SO much training to figure out what I (and others) could have easily told them — and what’s already on the rules of court, samples of which I link to below.
BUT, now,
Here comes yet another federal grant to explicate, reframe, and contextualize what the rest of us know needs to be simply STOPPED:
BWJP has been invited to apply for a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women for (1) a demonstration project to develop (2) a framework to guide custody and visitation decisions in cases involving domestic violence. Research on custody and visitation determinations provide(3)troubling evidence that procedures currently in use in family courts often fail to(4) identify, contextualize and account for the occurrence of domestic violence in these cases, and if identified, (5) its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.(My numbers, and color coding, added for commentary, below)….
Let me translate:
(1)
First of all “Demonstration project” means that a few areas around the country will be targeted for experimentation with some new policies (the litigants are generally not going to be told, incidentally). Then, apart again from LITIGANT feedback, as in “we are running a demonstration project and would like your feedback”, but rather, taken from things such as mediation, evaluation, and other statistical reports-from-the-courts (etc.), someone you have never heard of will (without your input) describe, evaluate, and report on this grant. (sometimes there is an uncomfortably close relationship between people GETTING the grants and people EVALUATING the grants).
After that, depending on how that reporting went, it will be expanded nationwide, at government expense, usually.
ONE THING GETS OMITTED: Lots of poor people don’t have internet access, or time to research who’s doing what about them. One aspect of violence is isolation and intentional breakdown of infrastructure. Trust me, (or don’t), most women don’t stick around for abuse, given other viable ways to get out of it. At some point, one figures out the abuser ain’t going to change, and the question then, if not at survival level yet, becomes safest exit. If it is sensed that this exit is about to happen, the controls tighten. TRUST ME, they do.
(2)
“A framework to guide custody and visitation decisions.”
? ? ?
There already IS a framework in place: Laws, and rules of court.
A). Laws. These laws were passed by elected representatives in legislatures, and as such, that’s a fairly FAIR process. When it comes to domestic violence, SOME of these include the word “rebuttable presumption against” and are followed by phrases such as “custody” or “joint custody” and the word “batterer.”
HALFWAY or less through family court process, I figured I’d get smart and look up the pertinent LAWS. Silly me, I didn’t know about the system of federal grants, policies, and that I lived in a nation with a national religion called “Designer Families.”
My point is: There is NOT a need to continue doing this. The framework exists. The only reason to continue conferring more and more is, I can only deduce, to further undermine and restructure it. OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING. . . .. .
Here’s one law(among many) that was deliberately ignored in my case:
278. Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,or conceals a child andmaliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody,or a person of a right to visitation, shall bepunished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt power. (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a defense to a crime charged under this section.This single law was the framework that crumbled about 1-1/2 years prior to my starting this blog.
Along with the pre-existing (to that crime) employment. I guess someone had been explicating andtraining court personnel out of remembering this, and instead to reward this (criminal) endeavorwith a custody switch.The law is fairly reasonable in certain areas pertaining to domestic violence. For example, it’s either a misdemeanor or a felony.I’m not sure whether child abuse could EVER be less than a felony, but in some venues it’s getting a little hard to tell. Probably, as I say,they are conferencing about how to figure out which is which, and whether they should report, intervene, or ignore. Or apply“therapeutic jurisprudence” to the entire family unit because ONE of them committed a bunch of misdemeanor or felony crimes.
B) Rules of court. Although I was clueless that these existed for most of my case, someone was kind eventually and sent me the list of the local ones, so I KNEW what had been done wrong in my case from start to finish. Now I’m so smart, I even know who makes these rules. There are rules to insure due process, and there ARE rules directed TO mediators about the quality of orders coming out of this.
I was shocked when I read mine. The california ones are at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules
HECK, if you scroll down, you can even read the Code of Judicial Ethics, too.
| California Rules of Court | |
| Title One. Rules Applicable to All Courts (Rules 1.1 – 1.200) | HTML | PDF(190 KB) |
| Title Two. Trial Court Rules (Rules 2.1 – 2.1100) | HTML | PDF(952 KB) |
| Title Three. Civil Rules (Rules 3.1 – 3.2120) | HTML | PDF(1832 KB) |
| Title Four. Criminal Rules (Rules 4.1 – 4.601) | HTML | PDF(5819 KB) |
| Title Five. Family and Juvenile Rules (Rules 5.1 – 5.830) | HTML | PDF(3518 KB) |
| Title Six. [Reserved] | PDF (84 KB) |
| Title Seven. Probate Rules (Rules 7.1 – 7.1101) | HTML | PDF(5978 KB) |
| Title Eight. Appellate Rules (Rules 8.1 – 8.1125) | HTML | PDF(3208 KB) |
| Title Nine. Rules on Law Practice, Attorneys, and Judges (Rules 9.1 – 9.61) | HTML | PDF(549 KB) |
| Title Ten. Judicial Administration Rules (Rules 10.1 – 10.1030) | HTML | PDF(2113 KB) |
| Standards of Judicial Administration (Standards 2.1 – 10.80) | HTML | PDF(775 KB) |
| Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration | PDF (101 KB) |
| Appendix A: Judicial Council Legal Forms List | PDF (510 KB) |
| Appendix B: Liability Limits of a Parent or Guardian Having Custody and Control of a Minor for the Torts of a Minor | PDF (14 KB) |
| Appendix C: Guidelines for the Operation of Family Law Information Centers and Family Law Facilitator Offices | PDF (27 KB) |
| Alternative Format: Complete California Rules of Court in PDF format, compressed into a single .ZIP file. | ZIP of PDF Files (updated: 7/1/2009, 6.79 MB) |
| Code of Judicial Ethics Formal standards of conduct for judges and candidates for judicial office. |
(3)
“procedures currently in use in family court”
Does this mean procedures, as in those that the rules of court mandate, or procedures, as in what actually takes place?
(4)
“identify, contextualize and account for”
Excuse me, “contextualize”??? Maybe the new rules of court will explain this a little better. Does that mean, did the little child see it or not see it, or were they hit in the process? Does this mean, “in context” it was justifiable, I.e., “the devil made me do it!,” or “temporary insanity,” whereas, say, in a criminal or civil court, it would be the mundane misdemeanor worthy of some court action?
(5)
its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.
I’d have to say that’s false. Reporting and identifying this appears to have the result that custody is often switched, according to a document (which I BELIEVE I linked to from BWJP’s site, although I would have to track back on this one).
Family courts traumatize battered women and hand custody to their abusers 37 percent of the time, finds a report released today (5/2008) by the Voices of Women Organizing Project. Latest story in our “Dangerous Trends, Innovative Responses” series.
“The courts’ own rules and regulations are often not followed,” Lob said. “Those kinds of things just seem so blatantly unfair and unreasonable.”
Eighty percent said their abusers used the courts to follow through on a threat to gain sole custody of the children and prevent the children from being in contact with their mothers.
Women were advised, sometimes by lawyers, not to mention domestic violence in one-quarter of cases, and not to challenge custody for fear of worsening the situation.
“To me, that’s the shocking thing,” Lob said. “We’re in a position where it’s actually sound advice for a woman not to raise these issues.”
Fifty-eight percent of women said that asking for child support triggered retaliation from their abusers.
I have personally talked myself into two conferences which were ABOUT people like me, but not FOR people like me. While these were tremendously validating and exciting (plus I spoke some informally at one of them), I was in the heat of the battle at the time (and losing total contact with my kids, but — barely — retaining the remaining single job that had survived the last round) – – BUT, I repeat, they weren’t typically inviting people like me. You have to research, knock, call, send away and beg (generally speaking, after a certain point in the family law process, someone is going to be destitute. it is simply not possible to stay in that system, be stripped of protection, and maintain a livelihood, without some extreme support or ingenious ways of getting basic needs handled.
Add to this that some of the long, drawn-out custody battles come after leaving a systematic abuser, which before separation can really wear out a person, it gets kinda interesting maintaining some work momentum.
ANYHOW, now, being a little better networked (referring to internet access AND knowing other people), I have found many of the:
- foundations
- publications
- organizations
- websites
- key authors
- key concepts
. . . . . and so forth, that like to talk about what I call “us,” meaning, Mothers Determined to Leave Domestic Violence (WITH kids).
It’s like any other life skill, or professional skill — after say 10 years of extensive exposure (immersion style), networking, reading, and so forth, one gets a little bit of fluency. I mean, that’s how I learned math, music, langauges, other things. Same deal here.
But unlike some other fields, for example music — I don’t think people at the top of this field typically are tone-deaf or unable to play a single instrument. If they compose, often they can play many. What one wants in this field is SOUND.
There are already laws about domestic violence as it pertains to custody.
There are already rules of court about mediation, not that I am in favor of mandated mediation at any point in time.
There are rules of court about what can go in in court. For example, a judge should not be taking testimony — and making decisions based on it — from someone who is not under oath, which happened in my case.
A judge should not make a critical decision (for example, switching custody) following criminal behavior regarding custody. There should not be partiality, and in particular, when threatening behavior clearly intended to obstruct justice has been reported, that took place outside the courtroom, this should raise an eyebrow. I had reported stalking, and submitted a signed eyewitness account. It was filed and ignored.
A judge should also give the legal and factual basis on which a decision is made when directly (in writing) requested to by an attorney, which the one in my case did not.
A mediator should take a few minutes to actually ascertain readily available (and relevant) facts before spouting off.
Now, as to the niceties of IS it domestic violence, or is it NOT domestic violence, and was THAT assault, THAT court order violation, THAT threat, or THAT child abuse as reported by CPS, a D.A., or anyone else, REALLY harmful to the child? – – – why, exactly, are all these volumes of press, books, conferences, etc. being written?
I see it as simple. Don’t HIT, don’t STALK, don’t THREATEN, don’t HARASS, don’t Destroy property of, and (whatever else the protective order reads in the particular case). It’s REALLY in basic, high school English, and doesn’t require extensive interpretation, does it, REALLY?
Another one should be obvious — don’t lie in court, or on the record, then when caught in a BIG one, make up a new one. If this goes on repeatedly, do judges need to attend institutes and conferences in order to be trained how to notice this?
SO JUST ASK ME — I’ll explain it real clear to any attorney, judge, mediator, or any one else who is still unclear that the 3-letter word “law” means “law,” and that the 5-letter word “order” means “order,” and the 7-letter word “custody” means “custody.” I have been a parent, and a teacher, and I”m not TOO confused on this generally speaking. I don’t wing it constantly, veer radically back and forth between whether I actually expect a standard to count, or not count. When learning a new skill, I focus on that one and “call” it consistently (speaking in group situations) til the point gets home.
The skill someone who has been systematically been engaging in domestic violence, which is the word VIOLENCE in it, and which includes a pattern of coercive behavior that violates boundaries (and law), and generally in “order” to give “orders” to the victim. The physical attacks (threats, intimidation, property destruction, punishments, animal abuse, isolation, and a whole other array of possible intentionally humiliating and dependency-inducing behavior towards another adult — OR child) have been compared to “POW” techniques. They are not consistent, so the person is kept on edge as to what may provoke what. Sometimes, a person can’t handle this, and provokes an explosion intentionally rather than live in the tense buildup, anticipation, and fear. It may be the one thing they CAN control in the situation. BUT, overall, what it’s “ABOUT” is giving orders. Period. Hapazardly. Basically, it’s tyranny.
I never was unclear about this for long. Not the first or second time one gets hit in the home — the dynamic is basically clear.
NOW — here we are “out” and this pattern of attempting to give orders, on the part of the former batterer, continues. WHAT is the obvious safe solution? The obvious need is to send a clear, clear message to this individual that he (or she) is now NOT in control and allowed to manipulate and give orders, instead he (or she), is now in the position of TAKING orders from a higher authority — the courts, backed up by police and the threat of arrest/jail. This is THE primary need at this time.
How does family law handle it instead? I found out, the exact opposite way. So, I found myself, during exchanges, repeatedly explaining to the various personnel involved (including police officers, who failed to get it) that the any ORDERS I was now under were the existing court orders, and I expected them to be adhered to so I could live a sane life. Between me, and the father of the girls, there was never any lack of clarity in the situation. Observed over a period of years (in family law), a court order would be obtained, and violated the FIRST weekend (or day) after its issuance. He was acting like a two-year old, testing boundaries, and getting his right to violate every time.
When a woman then puts her foot down in this manner, SHE is labeled, and the whole “thing” is labeled as “high-conflict.”
Well of course it’s high-conflict! Did we expect such a batterer to lie down and play passive easily? When someone is not looking?
Someone who’s gotten away with mayhem, which brings attention and benefits (compliance), and this is confronted, there is going to be conflict. That doesn’t mean it’s a two-way conflict. If the courts would simply pay attention to the situation instead of trying to be so “smart” all the time, more people would survive. IN plain English, this means, fewer would die. NO ONE should have to die for leaving a violent or abusive marriage, and expecting their children to be protected – – and their rights respected — also.
But they do.
Domestic violence per se can be and often is, lethal. It often escalates without warning, and without intervention (including separation)
basically ONLY escalates. Mediation is inadvisable in these cases, and joint custody is a recipe for societal trauma, and debt upon debt.
Mediation is MANDATORY in my area. I can document (now) how our particular mediator violated the rules of court at every opportunity.
SOMEWHERE (i read it) it says that a “spousal batterer” IS a clear and present danger to the physical AND mental health of the citizens of (this state, although technically we are US Citizens, not State citizens).
Study after study — including of substance abusers of various sorts (i refer to Acestudy.org, again), of prostitutes, of adult abusers or victims, and people with significant difficulties later in life (including in forming healthy relationships) – – shows that a violent, battering parent is NOT a good role model. The light bulb is already screwed in for the real stakeholders — those whose lives are at stake.
But the experts are not done yet . . . . . Even though things are already in the law.
FINALLY, the lightbulbs are going off in MY understanding as to why they won’t go off in people’s understanding whose children and lives are NOT at risk in a volatile situation, and who can (safe from the hearing of litigants or custodial mothers, in particular, or domestic violence survivors — or the children who are being molested on regular exchanges with a noncustodial parent — and so forth) : If the light bulb went off, where would they publish? Who would pay them to train the advocates, the judges, the attorneys, the mediators, and the psychologists? WHO would travel around the country and the world to discuss, well people that sometimes have trouble traveling 5-10 miles down the road to see their own kids on a weekend? (case in point).
WHAT’S THE EXCUSE FOR NOT ACTING CONSISTENTLY ON THESE BASICALLY SENSIBLE LAWS?
Here’s another reference I ran across researching something else:
IT DATES BACK TO THE YEAR 2006
{{EDITING NOTE: LINKS DIDN’T COME THROUGH — I WILL RETURN AND FIX}}
The 37-page original is downloadable. These pages have footnotes. It is well worth a read. Here is the cover page:
There are organizations (and the author here is on the board of one of them) who appear — I’ll take responsibility and qualify “to me,” although I am certainly not the only person of this opinion — to be HIGHLY invested in reframing the issue of Domestic Violence (and joint custody after it) from being a terrible role model for children, and experience for either parent, into something that people can be “counseled” out of. Supervised visitation is touted as a “solution” to this problem. People have been killed around supervised visitation, and the literature on this acknowledges it. Still, it’s ordered, and sometimes used as penalties for parents reporting their fears, or hurt to their children.
One has to ask why/ The ONLY reason i can come up with, primarily, is it’s a GREAT profession talking (and publishing) about what to do, and it’s also a great profession, “parenting classes.” There is little to no substantial evidence that even domestic violence (batterers intervention) classes change a spouse highly invested in the coercive control dynamic. Newspapers OFTEN report murders occuring shortly after someone was cleared from a DV class — or had violated a restraining order multiple times, without incarceration. The latest high-profile one I can think of (in California) was Danielle Keller and “Porn King” Mitchell (which I’ve blogged about recently). One in about 2005 that absolutely frightened me was a stalker — just a boyfriend relationship — the woman he was stalking, her body was found in the car trunk a few days after passing with flying colors the latest set of “classes.”
That’s playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives. I object, on behalf of my life, and my kids, and others, to this policy, of trying to “ascertain” who could and who could not benefit from counseling. I counsel strict consequences for domestic violence, which is a lesson in itself.
Regarding Expert Conferences (this, and others, and others, and others) – – – MOST domestic violence victims simply can’t afford to attend them! We can’t afford to subscribe to their publications, and our opinions are NOT asked — in a truly collaborative sense — in these matters. If they were, we’d say, probably to a woman, as mothers: “JUST SAY NO!”
Domestic violence includes economic abuse, and often access to the internet, or internet skills CAN be an ongoing issue. I know that in my situation, I was discouraged from using the PC unless it contributed directly to family income (his), and even in one case, I had to turn down a stable source of income from home to accommodate his desire to keep me without electronic contact with the outside world. When I finally obtained it, at around $8, or was it $18 (DNR)/month, I remember shuddering with fear as the vehicle pulled into the driveway, and praying that my internet would be turned off before he got in the front door. I had at this time worked substantial office support jobs and was internet fluent.
Another reason our voices are often not heard — not really — is that we do not have sufficient funding to take the time and write, post, publish, and attend conferences. If we have children, we are taking care of them, and ourselves. If we do NOT have children, the priority is getting back to them. And if we are domestic violence survivors of any substantial length (OR are in court with such an ex-partner or ex-spouse), it is pretty well guaranteed sheer economic survival is an ongoing issue.
Currently, I am reaching an overload on some of these topics, emotionally — and also have the situation to handle, which is not yet final, either. Support systems are constantly eroded til one begins to wonder what the prime identity is. We may trust people we know individually and personally, but after a certain point, one gets very jaundiced about organizations, ESPECIALLY nonprofit organizations promising help.
One of the best primers I am aware of on custody issues with batterers is called “The Batterer As Parent” (Bancroft/Silverman, Sage, Thousand Oaks 2002). It’s coming up on 7 years since it was published. I’ve personally heard a domestic violence expert, whose job it was to testify in criminal cases, say that this is a classic. I have this book, and my copy is dog-eared. It talks about ALL the things that the family law system as a whole absolutely REFUSES to do — support the nonabusive parent in her — or his — relationship with the children. Be wary of the risk of kidnapping (in my case, the court literally not only failed to act to protect my kids from this, after I requested it, but also failed to acknowledge it — WHEN IT HAPPENED! It talks about being aware that batterers are often chronic and convincing liars, and also of the overlap with incest perpetration.
Here are some of the ‘Scholarly” cites of this book:
Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in four cities: Diversity and dichotomies
EW Gondolf – Violence Against Women, 1999 – vaw.sagepub.com
… 1283 TABLE 2 Family Status and Parents’ Behavior of Batterers in Four Cities (in
percentages) Batterer Program Pittsburgh Denver Houston Dallas Total …
Cited by 63 – Related articles – All 3 versions
Men who batter: some pertinent characteristics.
FJMS FITCH, A Papantonio – Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 1983 – jonmd.com
… The authors report statistics on five major correlates of such men: violence between
the batterer’s parents, abuse of the batterer when he was a child, alcohol …
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 3 versions
HERE IT IS IN ALL ITS 1999 GLORY AND INSIGHT, EXPERTS BACK THEN KNEW THE RISKS:
Supervised visitation in cases of domestic violence
– ►ouhsc.edu [PDF]
M Sheeran, S Hampton – Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1999 – HeinOnline
… remain: visitation centers are not a guarantee of safety for vulnerable family members;
they do little to improve the ability of a batterer to parent in a …
Cited by 23 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions
Legal and policy responses to children exposed to domestic violence: The need to …
PG Jaffe, CV Crooks, DA Wolfe – Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2003 – Springer
… REFERENCES Bancroft, L., & Silverman, JG (2002). The batterer as parent.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, T. (2000). Charging and …
Cited by 19 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions
Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor …
– ►wa.gov [PDF]
L Bensley, J Van Eenwyk, K Wynkoop … – American journal of preventive medicine, 2003 – Elsevier
… 14. L. Bancroft and JG Silverman. The batterer as parent: addressing the impact
of domestic violence on family dynamics, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA (2002). 15. …
Cited by 71 – Related articles – All 11 versions
[BOOK] Children of alcoholics: A guidebook for educators, therapists, and parents
RJ Ackerman – 1983 – Learning Publications
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 2 versions
[CITATION] The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics ( …
L Bancroft, JG Silverman – Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, Problems and …
Cited by 2 – Related articles
Batterers‘reports of recidivism after counseling
A DeMaris, JK Jackson – Social Casework, 1987 – ncjrs.gov
… had problems with alcohol, and had witnessed violence between their parents. The
small sample size, the limited credibility of batterers‘ self-reports, and the
WELL, what to do? TALK some more? Out of the hearing of women and children?
I’ve managed to talk myself into a few conferences — I couldn’t afford the entrance fees for the most part. In one, I passed as a professional, up to a point. In another, I spoke about my story, and the PTSD it triggered (I was inbetween court hearings about whether or not I’d ever see my kids again) caused me to misplace the car (and house) keys and almost have to spend a night on the streets, as I’d just lost contact with the last round of professional colleagues locally. This MIGHT have cost me the last remaining job, but a very recent contact (and a current client) pulled off a “rescue.” FYI, abuse runs in families, and families are not always there to assist in the buffer zone.
About two years later, I learned that this particlar domestic violence organization (which I mistakenly — it’s a common mistake — confused with a group that was intent in stopping violence against women, i.e., saving our lives, helping us leave situations like that — has a linguistic profile similar to the whitehouse.gov “virtually invisible in public agenda” absence of the word “mother” in its website. A glance at the funding (more than a glance, actually) showed WHY.
It’s easy to make a declaration if it’s a closed -corporation discussion. It’s not that these groups don’t ACKNOWLEDGE the problems, but that they do not acknowledge how their SOLUTIONS exacerbate the already existing problems, of a parent with a REALLY bad attitude, and some REALLy serious problems that a few classes, or even a years’ worth, may or may NOT address.
And if these classes are concurrent with a typical course of action ina faith-based institution, the effects PROBABLY will cancel each other out, when it comes to protection of women.
That’s about all the time I have to post today. I hope this is proving informative.
You cannot have fatherhood and feminists in the same government grants gene pool and expect to get further down the road. The effects will cancel each other out, and leave yet larger and larger debt.
Currently, stipulations MANDATED by the VAWA act on Supervised Visitation (safe havens) contradict — categorically — with stipulations from the Health and Human Services “access visitation” grants. There’s a history (and a financial profile) to this, and I’m reading it these days. It took a while to grasp the “why.” I had to apply a rule I thought I’d mastered earlier — don’t take ANYTHING at face value, and do your background research on who’s who and doing what with whom. It’s a pain in the neck, but wise to do. As I used to learn the field of my profession (music), the terminology, to distinguish good from excellent, and know who’s who in general in my field (and as to the organizations also), it can be done in these fields also.
Again, I am still getting nationwide and intercontinental visitors — any of you are welcome to comment, particularly if you have checked any of the links and agree, or disagree. And remember — if you’re a parent, try to stay AWAY from the child support agency and work it out some other way, especially if you begin divorce or separation as a custodial mother.
Caveat emptor. (“Buyer beware”) There is no free lunch — the bill comes in later. You pay in your freedom, and you may very well pay with your future, and your children’s.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California
After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:
TITLE OF REPORT:
CALIFORNIA’S ACCESS TO VISITATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING RESPONSIBILITY AND
OPPORTUNITY** FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENTS
2001-2003
WHO THIS REPORT WAS ADDRESSED TO:
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
WHO SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ON THE ABOVE TOPICS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
(The) Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature
pursuant to Assembly Bill 673.
Copyright © 2003 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the
Courts. All rights reserved.
This report is also available on the California Courts Web site:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v.htm
I HAVE A QUESTION:
HOW COME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR CHILD SUPPORT LITIGANTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THIS SITE
or INFORMED OF THIS PROGRAM
SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE BEING
FORCED THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS?
(FYI: “mandatory mediation” is the one of many way to achieve the grant-mandated “required outcomes”attached to this particular program funding. The “required outcome” is more hours, more time, more “accesss” going to the noncustodial parent. While “parent” is said, “father” is basically meant. Any legal process (with “due process”) that has a “required outcome” is by definition going to be, in some fashion, “rigged.”)
(It’s a rhetorical question.)
most of us are not checking up on the California Legislature while in an abusive relationship. . . . .
MANY of us cannot afford attorneys, and have come to this place through nonprofits. . . . . not police. . . .
Most of us are not rolling in extra time to do this research.
DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, I was dealing with transition from domestic violence.
It would’ve been helpful to know these processes and intents!
Brief Quote (I am running out of time to post today. . . . . )
Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded
a total of $50 million in block grants to states to promote access and visitation programs
to increase noncustodial parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. The federal
allocation to each state is based on the number of single-parent households. California
has the largest number of single heads of households (1,127,062) in the United States.3
California receives the maximum amount of possible federal funds (approximately
$1 million per year), representing 10 percent of the national funding. Federal regulations
earmark grant funds for such activities as mediation (both voluntary and mandatory),
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including
monitoring, supervision, and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines
for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of
California be further limited to the following three types of programs:
q Supervised visitation and exchange services;
q Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
q Group counseling services for parents and children
NOW, FRIENDS, FOES, AND VISITORS: HERE’S YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
READ THIS DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT (FROM OTHER YEARS, FROM YOUR STATES — I’M SURE THERE’S SOMETHING SIMILAR). “RESPONSIBLE CITIZENHOOD.”
And take a GOOD look at the “Fathers Rights” languages it’s laced with, and references to publications in footnotes on these matters.
This is social sciences through the courts. . . .
. . .
A recent study by Amato and Booth (1997), who
looked at several trends in family life and their effects on children, found divorce of all
factors considered, to have the most negative effect on the well-being of children.7
The trends of separation, divorce, and unmarried parents, have potentially adverse effects
on the financial, social, emotional, and academic well-being of America’s children.
Noncustodial parents, generally fathers, struggle to maintain healthy and meaningful
relationships with their children. A recent report by Arendell (1995) illustrates the
gradual disengagement of noncustodial parents. Contact with separated dads is often
minimal, with 30 percent of divorced fathers seeing their children less than once a year
and only 25 percent having weekly contact.8
Or, on page 6, Footnote 17:
K. Sylvester and K. Reich, Making Fathers Count, Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood
Efforts, (Social Action Network, 2002), p. 2.
In a nation where 23 million children do not live with their biological
fathers and 20 million live in single-parent homes (most of them lacking fathers)
AMONG REASONS, POSSIBLY, WHY, MIGHT BE”
(intake forms to screen and assess for safety risks; separate
orientations and interviews with parents; written child abduction procedures; policies to
respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior;
copies of protective orders, protocols for declining unsafe or high-risk cases).
(POST TO BE CONTINUED)….
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Golden State’s Gold Rush, 1998-2009, Healing Families, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
FYI: In re budget crisis……
For your viewing pleasure and information.
http://www.taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm
This unbelievably patronizing budget, focused on healthy marriages, head starts, responsible fatherhood, parenting classes, and forcing adults who separated — often for the woman’s, or the man’s own safety and sanity — to stay joined at the hip (through “access/visitation grants — more on this below), and thereafter trying to manage “high-conflict relationships” — through the court system – is (collectively) the truly most IRresponsible father(land) I have yet met.
Most irresponsible fathers will affect a family line, and those individuals who come into contact with members of that family line, through work or otherwise. This, however, respresents an unbelievably presumptuous and dishonest treatment of the portion of the American public that, by maintaining taxpaying employement or employEES, including many who populate and staff its institutions, pays its bills.
At some point it is simply responsible to admit that a relationship has failed, and separate. ESPECIALLY in cases involving battering, domestic violence, or other forms of abuse. Or even, say, ongoing promiscuity — or refusal to participate in supporting the household — on the part of one or both partners. Generally speaking it’s one more than another. One person has been “used.” This is a horrible example for any children involved, and a real drain on the community, which often has to make up the gap. But the principle of cutting one’s losses can come to the rescue, and stop the process before another family is dead, or homeless, or traumatized out of social functionality.
When it comes to hazardous JOBS, if there is an alternative, a person is allowed to of his or her own free will, QUIT.
I admit that some people take relationships casually, and perhaps when these people are identified, their LOCAL communities should address the issue. But good grief — to try to force this on an entire NATION, and bill the entire nation (those who pay taxes) to fund the concept that there should be a chicken in every pot (yet we have vegetarians), and a biologically related FATHER in every child’s life, no matter whether this is good for the kid, or the mother or not — that’s budget suicide, and sometimes suicide for him, and death for the Moms too, or children. This is the story the headlines are telling us. Some people don’t handle stress and relationships well, and are better off kept away from the person they hate to the point of having committed crimes against their partner. Rather than face their personal demons, they externalize, blame (“demonize”) someone else, and then attack and attempt to destroy them, and people associated with them.
I am sorry to say this, but this at times includes the children. When a situation has become dangerous to a parent, then to suddenly proclaim “Kids need their Dads no matter what!” is social insanity. And, presently, policy.
Why not when it comes to hazardous marriages? WHY?? oh WHY??? is the Federal Government encouraging the States encouraging the Courts (with help from “faith-based” organizations and “Community Action Organizations” and other nonprofits of dubious parentage) to rake divorcing families over the coals in order to recreate a United States in which EVERY child has a Dad in his or her life, and EVERY mother has either a MAN in her life (if he’s alive), OR the Government telling her how to raise her children and educate her children (and by virtue of this, her lifestyle? To be permanently punished for a poor choice of spouse or partner, when one has otherwise behaved in an upright and responsible citizenhood fashion, is abusive, and a sign Federal Government In Loco Parentis having totally forgotten its own origins: “of, by for the people” and “consent of the governed.” It has lost its mind — or, has NOT lost its mind, and is of a mind to leech a living off its own people by creating a constant source of conflict, between the courts, promoting this “fatherhood” thing (alongside most fundamentalist religions) and the nationwide school curriculum saying “It’s Elementary” (etc.) that some families have two parents of the same sex, and anyone who disagrees is committing a hate crime.
It seems to me that in both institutions – courts, and schools — a habitual undermining of basic civil rights, as well as promotion of a certain “religion” (in one place, the nuclear family, in the other, the dismantling of the traditional nuclear family [if indeed this ever existed], both practically and as to teaching), and at the other end — as people come of age to procreate, which appears to be a more engaging activity than the studies in many public schools — as if an afterthought, now that some of these parents are on welfare, this same government then wants to now teach them how to be parents, especially Dads. Moms are taught by default how to make babies for government studies and programs; the fodder for Ph.D. “Child Development Scholars” and other therapists.
OK, now that that’s out of my system, how this relates to
the “Gold Rush” in the “Golden State,”. . . .
I’ve posted below, for only ONE state, and only TWO “Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance” (“CFDA”), and from only ONE major U.S. Exeuctive Branch Department, “Health and Human Services.” These are (some of) the many types of grants given for redesigning the U.S. family. Apparently the also significant U.S. Dept. of Education didn’t do a good enough job the first time through (either that, or it’s them “foreigners” (meaning, any group whose feet hit these shores en masse after your particular ethnic group did, except Native Americans…). We need to constantly make and remake the family til we get it right one of these days.
Again, this is only SOME of where your funding for the local public schools, homeless assistance, or law enforcement, or other social services went. It went in large part into social engineering programs.
OH, by the way, these programs are also compromising due process in the courts ~~even in the family courts which exist primarily to compromise evidence for conciliation to start with!~~ so they are affecting civil and legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. That we let this happen is probably a factor of the educational system (and NOT accidental over the decades….), which teaches us neither, really, how government NOR the economy actually operate. Nor is it real good at uncensored history, especially the history of its own self (dating to a little while after the Civil War, and before women got the vote).
So, this time, I searched:
- CFDA #s: 93086 (healthy marriage), 93597 (Access Visitation Grants to states)
- California Only (California has largest court system)
- All Years, All Recipients, All etc..
I usually cannot get the chart to confine itself to the margins of this post — it goes off into the “blogroll” area and becomes unreadable.
It’s better to view the original site; to this end, welcome to a research tool. Don’t you want to know WHY some fathers are committing homicide/suicide in desparation over the economy, or (overentitled?) outrage at being ousted, or because they have been publically humiliated in some fashion their psyches could not or would not handle. Why a decade after this started, can’t we keep up with the family fatalities before the next generation of irresponsible (because, and ONLY because, according to this viewpoint, they were) fatherless Dads is born?
(Present CEO of the nation that styles itself as leader of the ostensibly Free World excepted).
NOTE: Mothers are used to being put down, humiliated, forced to beg, and treated like second class citizens for so long, we are not typically going off the deep end over loss of social status by murdering our kids, our spouses, or if they’re not available, someone else associated with them will do. Women as a whole or men as a whole are not culprits. We come in different colors, income levels, temperaments, and psyches. ON THE OTHER HAND, given this, a governmental attempt to define us, our relationships, and our children, is going to be resisted. It’s a recipe for ongoing conflict, and economic drain. I suggest ALL U.S. Citizens take a serious look at this. Here’s ONE underestimated tool.
In almost seven years in the system, I didn’t find ONE entity apart from this site, point me to this federal department. One humble but FULL website did. http://www.nafcj.net. The site didn’t get my attention (no gov’t grants helped its design, or press), but what it said did.
MOST organizations that say “prevention of violence” in them or “stop abuse” or “battered women” or even “family court reform” or something similar, don’t even mention this TAGGS site or point us to investigate its activities. Father’s groups naturally wouldn’t, or they could no longer claim that concerns about certain social epidemics just “emerged.” They did nothing of the sort — they were urged, publicized, promoted, and proclaimed, from Top Down, in typical government style. I have now gotten to the point of finding out UP FRONT before I deal with any nonprofit or “let us help you” group, who is funding them. You should too. Ignorance ain’t bliss. And it’s got to be a sin (faith-community or no faith-community) to fail to inform women in trauma filing protective orders about all the cooks in the kitchen.
SO . . . ..
ARE YOU A U.S. CITIZEN OR RESIDENT? THEN
THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED
IT IS A RHETORIC RADAR. IT IS A DOGMA DETECTOR.
IT IS A GULLIBILITY REDUCER**
EDUCATE THYSELF!
http://taggs.hhs.gov
**
For example, when Glenn Sacks, Jeffrey Leving, Esq. Sen. Evan Bayh, or President Obama — or any noble-sounding nonprofit (or government agency) such as “American Coalition for Fathers and Children“ [Doesn’t THAT sound worthy, and united and concerned about, well, FAMILIES??] — writes, blogs, or receives high-profile press coverage stating that we need MORE money to stop the woefully underfunded fatherhood movement (as if this was a new crisis the U.S. (i.e., taxes) hadn’t already poured millions into, without addressing, for example, how the US being the world’s largest jailer MIGHT relate to why SOME kids are fatherless) you will realize when they are simply lying.
Or, whether they are actually quoting each other and playing Good Cop, Bad Cop {{pretending to fight with each other and be more separate in intent than they actually are}} to confuse the viewers (see ACFC link above). Broad allegations and statements are made without links or cites, such as this, (date, 2007):
AUTHORS: Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick:
The biggest problem with the Responsible Fatherhood Act, however, is that it reflects its authors’ misunderstanding of fatherlessness. Obama says he seeks to “make it easier” for men who choose to be responsible fathers, but his bill ignores the biggest roadblock fathers face—CLAIM: a family law system which does little to protect the loving bonds these dads share with their children.
FACT: The duty of any COURT system [[HINT: JUDICIAL branch, not LEGISLATIVE — remember this??]] is to protect the existing laws, not re-write them. To determine and allocate consequences for people who violate laws, especially intentionally and repeatedly.
To make sure that due process happens and evidence is considered as to whether the EXISTING laws have been (a) observed or (b) violated. There are also RULES for many courts, to aid in the process.
FACT: The primary characteristic of the “family law SYSTEM” is the prominent use of outside the courtroom decision making. Even the Acronym of this organization “ACFC” is modeled after another organization “AFCC” which title means “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” an international organization of dubious tax-compliance history until someone caught them operating out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse without a separate EIN (IRS Tax) # — i.e., until they got caught in an audit — and drenched with psychologists, mediators, & custody evaluators holding international!! conferences, with judges and attorneys (conflict of interest there, anyone?) publishing, promoting, and proclaiming all kinds of theories (and making alliances) that the average low-income litigant is naively unaware of, not invited to, and not encouraged to know about. All of this is patronizingly, ostensibly, for the greater good, or the country, the families, and I suppose apple pie, too. As such, these experts don’t trouble to tell ignorant litigants about their alliances, or how much profit is made from the conferences, books, trainings, and publications.
IRONICALLY, IN 1992, per this source, the courts are drenched with:
2.Due Process Violations
a. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1994.
b. Attorneys quit prematurely in violation of procedural and ethical laws.
c. Orders issued after ex parte hearings an/or in chambers meetings or upon
the judge’s discretion without proper notice and evidentiary hearing.
d. Removal of testimony from the court (where it should be) under the guise
of mediation and evaluation.There is no control over the mediation and
evaluation processes, no public debate of the issues, and no record of evi-
dence. Once an evaluation report is issued, the court makes few discre-
tionary decisions and rubber stamps the report.
e. Presumption that the parents are “equal” upon dissolution in spite of evi-
dence to the contrary
Or, whether (possibly) having used one of themselves for a specific purpose, they then turn and backstab the same person. Kind of like a high-conflict, divorcing bitter spouse might.
Now you, too (I ALREADY DID), can have a catharsis (SHOCK) of understanding of WHY there is “Disorder in the Courts” and certain systems appear broken, when they aren’t really. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do — create a cash flow and ongoing transfer of wealth from the taxpaying public into the hands of the “experts” and away from two working parents (whether cohabiting, married, or not) to children, their offspring.
Here’s the “TAGGS” site.
Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System
(You didn’t expect to pass Big Brother 101 without learning a few acronyms, did you?)
Welcome!
The Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) is an extensive tool developed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Grants. The TAGGS database is a central repository for grants awarded by the twelve {{12, count’em, 12}} HHS Operating Divisions (OPDIVs). TAGGS tracks obligated grant funds at the transaction level.
NOTE: To actually find out what those transactions were used for will take a little more legwork, locally.
What’s New
Several new search pages have been added and grouped under the new Search menu.
TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report – The TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report is now available on the Annual Reports Page. The annual report contains summary information about the HHS Grants Programs tracked by TAGGS. The annual report is available in Microsoft Word format. TAGGS Advanced Search – The new TAGGS Advanced Search enables a very refined search through more than 500,000 grant awards. Criteria include keyword, award title, recipient name, agency, type, title, recipient name, and many other selections in a variety of combinations. Search results can be output and downloaded in Microsoft Excel format. Abstracts Search by Keyword and Advanced Search – The two new Award Abstract Searches provide a search through more than 85,000 Grant Award Abstracts by keyword or by using the Advanced Search. The TAGGS Abstracts Search by Keyword search performs a full-text search of each available abstract based on the entered keywork. The TAGGS Abstracts Advanced Search enables search criteria such as keyword, agency, type, year, and state to be used in many combinations.
A search of all states resulted in nearly 1,500 results, which I doubt wordpress could handle the pageload.
I find the pattern below (try this link for a better view — OR, select the CFDA #s 93597 & 93086 ONLY, for California, and with the column titles you see below (scroll to bottom of the Advanced Search page to select) and it should come out the same).
Before you actually LOOK at this, consider yet another Fatherhood “whine,” dating to (originally) 06/30/2007 — after Father’s Day THAT year…):
“Yet most child custody arrangements provide fathers only a few days a month to spend with their children, and fighting for shared parenting is expensive and difficult. Custodial mothers frequently fail to honor visitation orders, and while the United States spends nearly $5 billion a year enforcing child support, there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders. {{False}} In such cases, fathers must scrape together money for an attorney so they can go to court , and even then courts enforce visitation orders indifferently.
According to the Children’s Rights Council, a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents {{male, or female?}} interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.”
WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS?
This is from:
|
|
| ACFC Washington Office 1718 M St. NW. #187 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 800-978-3237 |
@@@
Results 1 to 81 of 81 matches.
@@@
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | County | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0910CASAVP | FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 942,497 | |
| 2009 | OFA | Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul | ORANGE | ORANGE | 90FR0003 | THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | OTHER REVISION | EDWARD C HARTMANN | $- 148,172 |
| 2008 | ACF | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 243,469 |
| 2008 | ACF | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | REGINA LINDNER | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHARLES GREENE | $ 481,554 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | VICKIE KROPENSKE | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE M COLEGROVE | $ 146,750 |
| 2008 | ACF | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY CAMACHO | $ 515,615 |
| 2008 | ACF | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,349 |
| 2008 | ACF | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA MCDONALD | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | FRANCES GREENE | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | M.P. P WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2008 | ACF | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CATHERINE M REED | $ 550,000 | |
| 2008 | ACF | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0810CASAVP | 2008 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 957,600 | |
| 2007 | ACF | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 243,469 |
| 2007 | ACF | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | REGINA LINDNER | $ 378,020 |
| 2007 | ACF | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARRY ZACK | $ 474,555 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | RICHARD N HUME | $ 174,034 |
| 2007 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents | EAGLE ROCK | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0085 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DR DENISE JOHNSTON | $ 384,951 |
| 2007 | ACF | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE M COLEGROVE | $ 146,750 |
| 2007 | ACF | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY CAMACHO | $ 399,253 |
| 2007 | ACF | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,349 |
| 2007 | ACF | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA MCDONALD | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | FRANCES GREENE | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | M.P. P WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2007 | ACF | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CATHERINE M REED | $ 550,000 | |
| 2007 | ACF | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0710CASAVP | 2007 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 950,190 | |
| 2006 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0610CASAVP | 2006 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 987,973 | |
| 2006 | OFA | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 207,469 |
| 2006 | OFA | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | REGINA LINDNER | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARRY ZACK | $ 481,555 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | RICHARD N HUME | $ 249,034 |
| 2006 | OFA | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,342,080 |
| 2006 | OFA | Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents | EAGLE ROCK | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0085 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DR DENISE JOHNSTON | $ 461,186 |
| 2006 | OFA | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul | ORANGE | ORANGE | 90FR0003 | THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | EDWARD C HARTMANN | $ 388,193 |
| 2006 | OFA | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PL | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | NORMA MCADAMS | $ 146,750 |
| 2006 | OFA | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MARY CAMACHO | $ 479,031 |
| 2006 | OFA | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,449 |
| 2006 | OFA | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BENJAMIN HARDWICK | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | FRANCES GREENE | $ 527,664 |
| 2006 | OFA | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | M>P> WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2006 | OFA | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CATHERINE M REED | $ 549,999 | |
| 2006 | OFA | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2005 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0510CASAVP | 2005 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 988,710 | |
| 2004 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0410CASAVP | 2004 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 988,710 | |
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9801CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 250,805 | ||
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9901CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 139,812 | ||
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0310CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 970,431 | ||
| 2002 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0210CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 970,431 | ||
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | RANCHO CORDOVA | SACRAMENTO | 0001CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 987,501 | |
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0010CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0110CASAVP | SAVP 2001 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 2000 | OCSE | CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | RANCHO CORDOVA | SACRAMENTO | 0001CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 1999 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9901CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | ||
| 1998 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9701CASAVP | SAVP 1997 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 1,113,750 | |
| 1998 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9801CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 1,113,750 |
Does the word “Demonstration” raise an eyebrow for you? Are you curious what a “Demonstration Priority Area” is, and whether your residing (if so) in one either aided or compromised due process in your particular family law case (if such be), or exercise of your civic duty of fatherhood (if such be).
I wonder why a subset (Program Office OCSE) of a subset (OPDIV “ACF” — and ALL of these grants were ACF grants) of a subset (HHS) of the Executive Branch of the United States Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial)– which the “OCSE” (Office of Child Support Enforcement) indeed IS — it IS in the Executive Branch of the US Government — is doing distributin cl
I wonder whether this information is posted at courthouses, or child support offices, like an “under Construction” would be at other sites? I didn’t realize til, well, recently, that the last X years I spent in the family law system were part of someone else’s Demonstration Grant. This is what we get for minding our own business, and failing to secure enough excess time in our daily schedules to ALSO mind the business of our elected representative governments, both Federal and State.
We farmed out government to the government have ended up (our children, basically, and incomes) becoming someone else’s family farm.
Suggestion:
If fewer categories (column titles) are chosen, a search will produce interactive recipient names, or grant #s, and this will tell more about
the individual activities. And gets pretty interesting . . . . .
. . . Dang it, I just slipped into bureaucratic passive and Impassive; the language is like a pheronome, or like stale air, if you hang around it too long, you begin exhaling in the same manner: categories are chosen (I didn’t act), searches (not my choices) produced, just like a domestic dispute “arose” between two individuals, during a, er, ACF-facilitated “ACCESS” exchange between parents.
I find it interesting that the “OCSE” is administering these grants designed to help noncustodial parents get more time with their children.
OCSE is the “Office of Child Support Enforcement.” I thought it wasn’t about the money, but about the best interests of the children, who need both parents in constant contact with them. For example, nonpayment of child support is NOT a basis for withholding visitation of a child from the noncustodial parent. Women are certainly told that loud and clear when pursuing child support arrears.
Unfortunately, some parents can’t be trusted alone with their children. For example, some kids get killed or stolen on overnight visitations which are not supervised. On the other hands, some unsupervised parents (mostly Moms) also supposedly cause severe emotional distress to their children by actually following through when child abuse or other violence is reported, causing more “high conflict’ between the parties. Which is “bad.” “Bad” protective parent: Here, let us order some parenting classes for you….A common, but costly solution appears to be switching the custody to the other parent, and forcing the reporting parent to pay to see her offspring.
But one way to withhold visitation from a designated parent is if she (most likely) cannot afford to pay to see her own children in a supervised visitation situation that arose AFTER something else (such as child abuse, or other domestic violence-related issues) has been reported or investigated. I know mothers who cannot afford to see their children, after a custody switch. It does not seem to work both directions AFTER a custody switch (possibly enabled by some of these grants’ services). Where’s the “healthy families” in that scenario?
If these whole movements (Healthy Marriage, or Responsible Fatherhood & Access Visitation, meaning, it supposedly takes a Village to raise a Child and BOTH Parents (especially Dads) to also do this, which the taxpayers should then fund) are about the CHILDREN and our SOCIETY, then somehow it seems a little odd that the agency entrusted to do this is the CHILD SUPPORT branch, not another one.
The fact, and that history of the matter is that it went kind of like this, as to finances:
1. OOPS! Welfare roles are too high! (Personal Work and Responsibility welfare reform)
2. Let’s go Collect Child Support — get those paternity tests and those deadbeat Dads.
3. OOPS! A lot of them are in jail, and others just don’t want to pay, they’ve moved on in life? What can be done?
4. Enter “Access Visitation” grants, in hope that more time with kids will result in more child support collected. It’s all for the kids, after all. If they get more time with the children, we will (artificially) “flex” the amount of child support actually due.
4B. And the multiple assorted professionals all along the way, all of who are also of course in it for the kids and not the money.
5. Who picks up the tab, in the long run, and what is it? When custody switches are involved, then a parent who historically had been struggling or learning to manage a life (including a work life) around the children will then restructure the life differently, while the parent who just GOT the child will either restructure his (or her) work, or delegate the care of the child to someone else.
6. Did I mention Head Start yet?
By the way, a lot of the funding below is what i call “Designer Families,” i.e., the US Government is actually studying US families (at the expense of the same families) to determine what they DO look like, to run some tests (see “DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS” below) and then report back (not to the consumer — to the experts, of course) on what the tests showed, and then expand the scope of the practice. This, FYI, is business (perhaps not YOUR employer, but government) business as usual. Something you don’t learn in grade school, or often in high school, unless your parent was a Senator or a Sociologist.
Well, two can play that game. Who wants to come out and play?
Want some answers?
Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?
Let’s do it.
At least it would make some more interesting dinner conversation (assuming you still have dinner), or at a commuter bus stop (assuming you still have a job) than the latest office politics, or doom and gloom. You can say, “Did you know that I now spend one-quarter (one-tenth, etc. — adjust according to your payscale) of my work day, which keeps me away from spending quality time with my kids, earning money for the government to spend getting other people who won’t or can’t pay child support to spend more time with their kids, in hopes that they will? Or to keep them married when otherwise they’d divorce? Or just leave?”
Or you could say, “Where do you think the HIGHEST grant for reducing abuse, poverty, drug use, and other social ills (i.e., promoting healthy marriages) went to in our state?
They’ll probably name Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento (or other urban area known for its homicide rates, or radical agenda).
And then you can surprise them with your inside knowledge:
No: “Leucadia.”
“Leucadia? You’re kidding!”
“No, I’m not. California Healthy Marriage Coalition, out of Leucadia, California got $2,400,000 last year alone to, er, well — well, they’re not in favor of same-sex marriages, let’s put it that way. I don’t know where they stand on domestic violence, but they say — well, another group run by the same person says — he needs unconditional respect, and she needs unconditional love. And those dang feminists, you know, are putting CONDITIONS on how he expresses his love, or whether they continue respecting him, in the form of these anti-violence allegations, and so forth….”
“In 2006, The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received a five-year, $11.9 Million grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.
{{{FYI: “Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California. Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs. “}}
“As a result of these efforts, CHMC expects to see a decline in the divorce/marriage ratio, a reduction in child abuse, domestic violence, poverty, criminal behavior, and an improvement in physical, emotional, and mental health.”
HEY! IF I SAY I EXPECT TO SEE SOMETHING, CAN I GET A FEDERAL GRANT, TOO?
I WILL MAKE UP A NICE NAME, AND USE BIG WORDS, STARTING SMALL WITH A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, AND THEN EXPANDING NATIONWIDE. SEE BELOW FOR A TYPICAL PATTERN. . .
Now I’m curious. Let’s see where they are on the $11.9 million…. In 2006 I was definitely on the wrong side of the politically correct agenda, obviously, in that I was trying to get UNMarried, complete a safe separation begun years earlier…. and retain housing . . . . (Searched on “Principal Investigator,” pulled up an unrelated “Stoica”). Well, maybe not a relative…) (the name “Stoica” I picked out arbitrarily — well, actually because of the size of the grant — from the larger chart below).
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Grantee Type | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | NCI | GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | WASHINGTON | Junior College, College & University | R03CA117467 | AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER | 93394 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ADRIANA STOICA | $ 75,350 |
| 2006 | NCI | GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | WASHINGTON | Junior College, College & University | R03CA117467 | AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER | 93394 | NEW | ADRIANA STOICA | $ 77,600 |
| 2006 | OFA | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NEW | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,342,080 |
| 2005 | OCS | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90EJ0064 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM | 93009 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 583,475 |
| 2005 | OCS | Orange County Marriage Education and Training Institute | ANAHEIM | Other Special Interest Organization | 90IJ0201 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI | 93009 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 50,000 |
| 2004 | OCS | Orange County Marriage Resource Center | ANAHEIM | Other Social Services Organization | 90IJ0121 | CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE | 93647 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 50,000 |
The next RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN behavior then might be to ask, for example, what a particular grant recipient is doing with some of the funds, either on line, or hey, give them a call! Say, “Hey! $50,000 is more than I make per year, and a good part of this is being garnished to pay child support already. Can you tell me what your group did last year with YOUR $50,000 — and who’s on the payroll? I’d like to see a line item listing, or a few cancelled checks perhaps. I mean, I work hard (yes, I’m sure you do), and I’d just like to know where my taxes are going. Thanks! Send the printout to _________________).” (And then install a security camera….)
Note: In the example above (where I picked one of the larger grants in the big chart, and searched on Principal Investigator)
In the next post (or so), I will, possibly, show how well all this Healing Families and getting Dads responsible has reduced Violence Against women SO much (in the same time period) that we really don’t need (?) VAWA to keep funding shelters, and other things to help them stay alive, or in one piece. The momentum of the emerging (still???) Fatherhood movement and Responsibility Movement and Shared Parenting Movement, has really worked, and we now have significantly less separation violence, fewer family wipeouts, and children in the care of the other parent, with help in care of possibly a new girlfriend, or boyfriend, are faring better. Like the 7 year old boy who was just taken off life support in Massachusetts, after his Dad came back into his life, possibly under one of these programs (although I didn’t investigate further on that one, I admit), after only 8 weeks summertime fun with his father.
In the matter of Designer Families by Federal Fiat, I think we do need to take a closer look. How’s your state doing?
SHARE THIS POST on...
WHY Family Court (let’s get honest) “matters” to us all…
…Even if you’re not inside the doors. . .
…Even if you have your “act” together —
…Even if you’re not IN any marital or intimate partner act. Or relationship.
You are probably living with, next to, or in association with someone who has been. At least one of the people who go behind those doors into this family law / let’s mediate / co-parent / share custody / just get along (adversarial) system is going to be traumatized.
Another will be probably robbed. A third will be shocked. A fourth will be rewarded. A fifth will be back for more easy victories by hearsay accusations the next time he (or she) has a grudge. A sixth will be forced back to negotiate with the abusive partner she (OK, now you can argue: \”or he\”) was attempting to separate from — and will be lectured, after having worked up courage to do this — not to upset the children by showing anger, or conflict, because in this YOU-topia supposedly conflict never happens — or at LEAST never between parents.
This belief, along with Santa Claus, according to the same logic, is going to set your children on a good path for life.
A seventh will have been raised by one or more of the above. An eighth will be teaching (or in class next to) one of the above.
For a take on the intergenerational, societal transmission of trauma, see “www.sanctuaryweb.com“
Get real – – – and
Let’s Get Honest. Without hate.
Let’s look at the script (and playwrights) in family law.
Let’s look at the off-stage directions and who takes cues from whom. And let’s begin to understand that this is not a game, it is real people, real lives, and in some cases, physically “lost” in the drama.
Let’s ALL consider the profit/loss ratio in this endeavor, family law, family court services, custodyh evaluations, mediations, court-appointed guardians, and attempting to, through this process and under cover of “law”, force divorcing parties with enough anmosity they couldn’t work it out separately to come seeking a higher authority to punish the ex somehow, or extract children, or money from her or him, and on what basis. Personally, I (sarcastically) feel that both these words:
“FAMILY COURT“”
are accurate. The trick, like in any new culture, is to understand the idioms — usage — nuances. The “nuance” in this case is, assume the exact opposite is meant. Supposedly this is about “family,” and to help them. Supposedly courts, in the USA (and elsewhere) exist for the purpose of determining truth and dispensing justice. The words “public servant” possibly come to mind.
COURT: Go back a few hundred years, and think “court” again. Try Henry VIII or Louis XIV. Think about what takes place in the halls of a palace, and who gets to be there? How did one get an appointment at a palace? How did one, having obtained it, REtain it? There, that’s a little better, you’re getting warm… . . . Also, did you know that any attorney is considered an “officer of the court.” (not of you…) (I THINK).
FAMILY: The “Family” in question is less likely your own (which will be devastated, most likely, one way or another), but the true “FAMILY” here in are the professionals, and so-called experts that know they will be dealing with each other on an ongoing basis, referring business, exchanging pleasantries, and in some cases referring cases (translation: Jobs). “Good” for them actually could mean keeping a family IN the system. “Good” for the family biological generally means getting themselves OUT of the system and back to life as almost paranormal — or at least work, and sleep. Perhaps the words “fealty” or “feudal” are closer to the truth. I do not denigrate ethical, honest, overworked, and noble judges attorneys, or (well, I haven’t met such a mediator). I’m sure they exist, and among the approximately seven judges I’ve stood before in this case, some more than once, only the 3rd one would I characterize as ethical and having a reputation of actually having read the paperwork before him prior to ruling on it. Unfortunately, he quit family law, but I have been to date unable to.
The “COURT” does indeed hail back to royalty, and I think that is the most idealized among us that are going to lose in court. We have believed (prior to baptism by fire) that this system, while we weren’t in it, somehow existed, in ether, and would protect the innocent and help the falsely accused, if only the truth were at.
I tried that for many years with a man that, in about the 8th year of this “just trying to get along” (survive, from my standpoint), was offended, again, by a minor perceived provocation. I turned the music down, which was earsplitting and had just been turned up to make a point that the conversation was over. We had small children at this time. I reached over and turned a radio dial. Next thing you know, I had been grabbed, hurled, and landed on my chin in literally another room. Teeth were knocked loose.
I didn’t learn til many, MANY years later, that this was felony level domestic violence (serious injury caused) or that even a difference existed between the civil and criminal system existed. Why would I? I had prior to then inhabited churches, schools, parks (raising kids) with playgroups, and concert halls. I did not think that a DETAILED awareness of how our criminal, civil, and other justice system works, let alone knowing the laws of my state (and federal) were important to my safety and wellbeing. NOW, I think that at least the ability to navigate them, including what is the flowchart of a basic lawsuit (which is not that complicated…), should be required for high school graduation. Unfortunately, it appears that in too many US schools, we are still working on the ability to read. Period.
In other places, this may be called “DOMESTIC RELATIONS” or something similar. The same interpretions apply. Get your head out of the clouds and understand who is cozy with whom, and that it’s relationships, not evidence (in practice) that counts, in most arenas. THAT is the problem, and like the beginning of our country, principles count and are worth fighting to preserve, or restore. However one may bash “Dead White Males who owned slaves, or that it took women even longer to get the vote, the fact remains that that Constitution exists, as do the Bill of Rights. Like laws, muscles, or any other talent, they mean nothing without application towards the goal, and where these count is, they are that ideal. Or, should I yet say “were”? – – Use it or lose it. . . ..
Let’s consider
what kind of emotion drives people even showing up, via an Order to Show Cause requesting a Motion to MAKE THAT WOMAN (or MAN) stop, pay, or give me (back) my children. Think about it, and about the logic of any authority (which these courts are, in fact that is primarily what they are, order-makers) then telling both parties — when only one initiated the motion — (this is now the script) that “conflict” is bad for kids, so pretend you don’t have any, or no more contact with your kids. And let’s compare that with things such as, the state laws, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and so forth.. . . . MANY of these families, with kids, ended up there precisely because of out of court conflicts that had almost gotten lethal, or had hurt someone. The basic premise of any legal motion is that some “wrong” happened ( “tort” = “wrong” — and believe me, I didn’t learn that term even 3 years into the system), and therefore the court should redress it. However, in entering the halls, when kids are involved, thinking goes haywire, and despite the system of “tort” “redress” (etc.) on which law is based, the judges, and associated employees of the court, or an affiliate of it, then all communicate clearly that BOTH parties are wrong, since they couldn’t settle their own differences without court help. They are presumed needing a sound lecture of some sort, and of course therapy, if possible. The general idea of the process is DUE process. However, the general idea of the family law system as it now exists is virtual behavioral modification, and through this, I say, social engineering — mass scale. JUST REMEMBER “COURTS” // “ROYALTY.” Where do the allegiances typically lie? It often gets down to simply the character of the individual judges.
The desired result of a hearing in court is called and “order.” Contempt of it can (doesn’t often, but CAN) end one in jail. In the mythic interpretation of the process, which those of us without prior connections probably held going in, the order comes from a judge who is more noble and neutral than either of you, will hear EVIDENCE impartially, and in a manner coherent with the rules of court for the jurisdictions, and judicial ethics, as listening to attorneys (if any) who also abide by their professional codes of ethics, etc.
Like I just said above, about Santa Claus — ––
It being a stressed, fragmented world, in general, I imagine that you figure it’s “not your business.”
How about if I said, it’s your money, though, as a taxpayer?
How about if I said, it MAY just relate to the statistical probability of someone you know being a bystander of an irate spouse that took the law into his (and yes, it primarily IS “his” so, or the major news media AND USDOJ are both run by radical feminists, and censor mothers wiping out fathers, kids, bystander and a cop or two, and themselves because they were publicly humiliated, or just bitter, and couldn’t help themselves — and knew how to use a gun, or a knife, or a club, or tie a knot, etc.).
I’m WAY newer to blogging than to Family Court.
On the other hand, unlike FC, my blog doesn\’t imply that it\’s saving families, or even serving them (as in \”Family Court Services.\” Nor do I hope that somehow this will orchestrate a brave, new world. In fact years ago, when I was hauled in (no, it wasn\’t voluntary), my venues were limited to, and my focus on: my immediate family, profession(s), colleagues (when I still had them), and the communities I lived and worked in. I got on-line to email some friends from time to time. I wasn\’t fighting to find out where my rights went, and (because I wasn\’t in the habit of breaking laws or court orders to get my way in life) I wasn\’t desperately trying to search what my state code called that last despicable act. Or how come it only took 20 minutes to change my kid\’s futures, that had been set since an early age towards college, with scholarships, ANY college they set their sites on, within reason.
I would like to talk about what some of these myths do, that allow decent upstanding law-abiding, non-wife-beating, hard-working parents (and individuals) to keep clear of these halls and not trouble their sleep about what happens inside them . Let’s Get Honest about what the myth that justice is happening in behind these closed doors is costing the country, and your communities, overall.
Recently (Spring 2009), the US closed lots of schools in a panic over swine flu. Clearly someone understands the concept of “quarantine” for the general public safety. Then they decided to open them again. How about opening some of the closed doors in courtrooms? The people’s changes and humiliations / /wins / losses //responses to these (trauma, or as it sometimes, I”m sorry to say, turns out, kidnappings // femicides/homicide/suicides // poverty afterwards is already in public view.
So, “general public,” gentle readers, the family court leper colony is not working — for the family, or for the general public. However, it IS working quite well, thank you, for the type of personnel who designed it to start with (primarily, in the USA, in Southern California). And YOU (if you are Joe common bloke, Ann single working woman, or Mrs. Joe & Ann Smith, gainfully employed. Or (I hear now Maine is the 5th state in the US), Mr. & Mr. Joe and Harry Blow and Ms. & Ms. Ann and Sydney BestFriends. It may not really be about gender, only, in the courts either. I was a Mr. & Mrs., and prior to separation, we paid too, unaware of others’ trauma.
Any effort to reform it, should this be the goal, will have to address for whom this venue IS working just fine. To track this, try some of my links, or do your own research. I wouldn’t suggest calling all men bad (OR good) or all women, and the culture in general, a bunch of femininazi, male-bashing, sex-deprived (or sex-crazed, as case may be) misfits. That’s generally speaking not helpful.
What may be more helpful is to realize that large sectors of populace do actually believe those things. Some of them say it with Ph.D. language (“fatherlessness” — a.k.a. single mothers, case in point — are to blame for society’s ills.). Can you recognize the same talk, said in “expert” language and footnoted with a bunch of experts who believe the same thing? Then you’re getting a handle on the picture.
NOTE on TONE: “Related Blogs,” to left, some of them have a different tone than I want here. But they ALSO still have facts (news reports, laws, cases, etc.) there too. And they have a right to respond as expressively as they want to. Many or all of the bloggers there typically, lost custody of children to a batterer or a child-moleester, and sometimes as a direct consequence for having reported it. Some of them, as I heard, have been in jail for failing to be able, after that, come up with enough child support (we’re talking women). Some of the women I’ve met recently have gone to international courts for safety, and they/we are also aware of other groups going to the same international courts for different purposes.
So they have a right to be pissed off and say “forget you” or “I’m pissed off” or THIS (see image) is what I think of that group of demagogues. The point of my blog is dialogue (hopefully) and taking a close look at the players who are laughing the way to the bank (metaphorically) while the cats and dogs are spitting, hissing, biting, and scratching in the dust. I hope to keep the intensity level just enough to keep you (meaning “us”) VERY uncomfortable with inaction, but not so lit up that only discharging emotion action takes place.
Speaking up IS action, and particularly if one has been subject to violence already for doing so.
Identifiable causes, and identifiable solutions exist to the problems of familycourtmatters. These solutions are emotionally painful and would require some businesses that profit from our pain to find another source of referral, or another line of work. I suggest they be required to work with tangible production, who have manipulated people as if they were putty to accept the dysfunction — but let’s hope do not require bloodshed. And bloodshed IS already happening as a direct consequence of the hostility, lack of personal restraint, and level of frustration (BUT, it’s still the lack of restraint, I say) that is stirred up in these venues. So, see some of the “related blogs” to left. These women have been at it longer than me, and they have done their homework and I believe lived it too. I’m talking being stripped down naked when they went in for help. The problem is international in scope.
I was a hardworking (female, single mother) bloke, too, until I attempted to renew a standing domestic violence restraining order, simply in order to participate better in the “hard-working parent” part. I held no personal animosity against my children’s father, I just was unreconciled to the battering, abuse thing. Other than that, he was allowed to see his children quite frequently, just not continue to assault me, in front of them. I’m no criminal, and wasn’t a bitter, etc., etc. Mom. However, I had recently and VERY belatedly gotten some legal help setting boundaries, obviously an issue where there has been violence, and there was a major amount of cleanup and rebuilding. I needed my personal space for sure. This is a little hard to establish when one’s partner is more focused on his “manhood” than your “person-hood.”
Now I have been in the courts, shortly here, ALMOST as many years as I was in in-home, upfront abuse. I think this perspective should be discussed. I also want to speak to some of the noble people who have kept their noses clean by leaving justice to the experts, and mythically believing that, even if it DOESN’T happen, it’s not going to affect them personally.
It already has.
BUT — can we talk, blog, comment, post links, favorite books, and simply converse, without the skip the hate talk, pompous vague assertions, and ex-spurt** opinions, but
just see if (or is it \”whether\”)? there are still a few good men, women,
– – and children (children can blog, right?) —
who can skillfully toss out some metaphors, paradigms, puns, and maybe whimsical analogies
for me (and y\’all) to juggle around, look at them from underneath,
see if they have some weight, or bounce, or whether they dissipate into thin air under
their own hot, gaseous contents. This might even be fun.
Venom is not welcome. Biting sarcasm is fine. Insults too (it’s hard to be sarcastic without insulting SOMEone), but no threats, no advocacy to violence OR any illegal activity (I LIKE my blog, thank you!). Name-calling should be fleeting, at least skillful, and only, if a tall, as a lead in to something worthwhile to say. Remember, I moderate the comments.
Get personal — and speak for yourself: I FEEL, I\’VE NOTICED, I BELIEVE, but not personally nasty. Don\’t behind behind the curtain of plurals, vague assertions that can\’t be disproved, pronounced with a finality. This is not the place for the Wizard of Oz, but a bunch of Totos. We will bark back and expose your backside. Take credit for having a genuine personal experience apart from the gang you happen to belong to. I\’ll do the same.
**Ex-spurts are known by that action — spurting forth publications, opinions, pronouncements (DVDs, Conferences, and more). Did a conference save a life? Maybe. I’m generally a little wary when the people pronouncing on families can afford the DVDs and conferences, and the subject families, after having been “fixed” by the same bunch, can’t. Where’s the due process in THAT?
Forming organizations, alliances, and nonprofits to stop what the other nonprofits are doing wrong, or compensate for whatever government isn\’t doing to their pleasing.
The real experts have had the experiences BEFORE they start publishing, promoting, and starting branches of study that didn\’t exist before a pet pre-occupation became a profession. I\’d rather SEE an expert (at his or her work) than HEAR one any day.
And I do music. . . . . or Did. My music survived only XX years parallel to lawsuits, accusations, family rifts, threats, stalking etc. I’m here still at XX + about 2 years post-music, and still sweeping up. Like any Mom who has better things to do with (what remains of) her time, and always did, I am interested in stopping the mess-making at its source.
I plan to do plenty of spurting forth of words here — but unlike those in family court (I mean, the denizens, not the nomads passing through),
I am not trying to use these words to separate you from your children — or your money. Just maybe some of your time. I have no style sheet. Remember the advice of Tim Ferriss — you can get ex-spurt status on any number of things in under 4 weeks — it\’s more a matter of credibility. On the other hand, you can say the same thing for a decade or two,
I have no outline. I simply intend to talk, promote my links and books, and see what\’s around the bend here. Don\’t be too rigid except where it counts — (no, fellas, not that part!) — on civil rights. On matters of law, and fair play. And on the facts. There are plenty of ways to skin a cat, but whose idea was that to start with?
There are also many ways to abuse – – very few, that I\’ve found, to stop it — but \”family court\” sure doesn\’t appear to be ONE of them.
Possibly removing the financial / emotional incentives for continued abuse.
What do you say?
Please make fun of some euphemisms. Speak in short words. Or long words. Just don\’t bore us with something we\’ve already been drenched in – – like \”alienation,\” or insult my intelligence by pronouncing a truth that is your personal truth only as if it were one of those universal ones, like (at least to date), water is essential to life. Having two parents in the home, I\’m sorry to say, is not, not always. I know plenty of very, very dysfunctional two-parent homes. I came from one, and so did my erst-while, ex-cohabitant spouse. I\’ll verify he\’s got some severe issues, and I\’ve read in my pleadings, this is also held to be true of me. So, one exception disproves a universal rule, let\’s get (real).
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Who’s actually TALKS with the REAL stakeholders when it comes to Stalking, Domestic Violence (not “abuse”), and Child Abuse??
leave a comment »
I have a question, after finding an unusually honest commentary on how the model code for stalking laws was developed. I’ve spent some years, in the process of seeking help, becoming acquainted with the standards for what makes sense, according to LOTS of organizations. I then tried to bring this common sense into actual practice in our own case after it hit the family law venue.
Yeah, right..
I have a question. As usual, thinking aloud (and posting as I go), the introduction gets longer and the original content that inspired the post, lower and lower. Presently, scroll down to just below all the graphics (logos) and there’s the question, and in primarily BLUE content, the quote that started today’s post.
Eventually, over the years, I got to the point of connecting more and more dots, including why would it take this amount of diligent searching by a woman with two college degrees and highly motivated to get some answers, to come to the inclusion that the tipping point is where the intent to publish hits the point to put it into practice. This is a fulcrum.
Eventually I stopped just reading only content, and started paying more attention to in which publication things were published (most of which I couldn’t afford to subscribe to). THEN I started connecting which nonprofit (or, some of these are almost exclusively the project of some government grants, and say so right on the websites) with which publication, which which professionals. This is what would in interpersonal interactions be called “body language.” Only, without warm bodies and live voices and actual interaction face to face, the next best substitute, especially for those without a travel fund, is sometimes a little background check. On-line. Free.
What I post here today was written a while back by a professional now involved in addressing some family court issues, and who I hope to meet someday soon. We appear to have been circling around geographically within a few miles of each other, but consistently in different venues. In other words, she has worked for and at organizations I’ve sought help from and whose halls I’ve sat in as a “client.”
It’s probably time to make a phone call. Meanwhile, today’s a difficult time for me, and I can’t quite say why without revealing which case. Please bare with some of the over-writing here, and understand why today (and I acknowledge, yesterday), sarcasm is pretty high. Fact is, I miss my daughters, and it’s the beginning of a school year. Instead, I get the back hand and the ugly side (or no side at all) of the parent and other adults in control of their lives. I can and have read law, and after looking, still don’t see that I’ve committed a crime in these matters, and I most certainly HAVE seen and identified several ones committed since the case switched from civil to family law, which I to this day believe is where batterers go to hide, and keep up the same pattern of behavior, only with more validation.
Oops, there I go again.
ANYHOW, as to the conferences and subscriptions, I have a suggestion: Instead of a grant to explicate the context of domestic violence in custody decisions (apparently a recent one) and the “Domestic Violence Conference of the Decade,” whose speakers and sponsoring organizations I did take a pretty good (on-line) look at — and got the general picture for sure — and ANOTHER one I just heard of today:
(boy, the logos, and PR, and branding, is getting more and more professional!):
(SEE: http://dvinstitute.org), which it appears just happened in Detroit. . ..
Here’s another one about to happen in San Diego:
http://dvinstitute.org/announces/files/Partial%20Brochure-5-18.pdf
The logo makes me think I’m back in grade school again (check it out — I couldn’t click & drag).
It has a wooden post with 3 pointers, “Future, Present, Past” all askew on a sky background.
I could suggest some more detailed logos. Perhaps the length of the line I stood in yesterday for $15.00 coupon to go get food, which allowed me to get some nonfoods, which Food Stamps program, onto which I’ve been forced back because of former failed systems, most of which interfered with My system called, working! and complying with court orders. Because we might also have a problem with drugs, alcohol or tobacco, or who knows, perhaps just for simplicity, and of course for the safety of those distributing (i.e., no cash), we could only go to ONE store (a few miles away, which is great for those without cars, with children, and poor enough to need help with food). I figure out the expense to time ratio of this, and between wait, and buses, it was approximately $4.00/food benefit per hour, four hours expended in getting coupon and food. Not including getting home with it. A far cry from a conference.
This line contained live people with real stories, and mostly people of color, different colors, sizes, and manners; most of them also, women, many with children, and each with a story, and their own method of dealing with the long wait. It was detailed and usually cheerful, this waiting is routine. I didn’t see anyone I recognized although I’d been there many times before.
Perhaps I should show some children crying, with a forensic child psychologist, or CPS worker. Perhaps I should show a woman crying. Perhaps I should show General Assistance being cut (as it is) to make way for some of the grants I’ve been blogging on, including yesterday.
If economic distress causes violence (I don’t believe it does) than perhaps this is partly why. But an inane signpost over these words? – –
(I dare site visitors here to look up each and every expert and determine where they are coming from, and who pays their organization’s bills.. . . . . . )
Would you like to see a similar brochure? OK, here. I found it (this search) at
http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/domestic-violence-conference-of-decade.html
THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONFERENCE OF THE DECADE!
From Ideology to Inclusion 2009:
Murray Straus, PhD
Deborah Capaldi, PhD
Don Duton, PhD {{NOTE: S/BE “DUTTON”}}
K. Daniel O’Leary, PhD
Sandra Stith, PhD
Richard Gelles, PhD
Los Angeles, CA
Sponsored by:
California Alliance for Families and Children
and
Family Violence Treatment & Education Association
WWW.CAFCUSA.ORG
Mail or fax in your order today!
DID I forget, in addition to any conference fees, there’s (like any good market niche) the collateral sales market too. Incidentally, downloading information is one of the lowest overhead, most profitable fields of direct selling around, once it’s in place. It’s a GREAT business model.
Is that enough Ph.D.’s? Surely I should just their judgments about my danger level, experience of domestic violence, and whether my kids are or are not at risk of — shall we say — parental abduction — better than my own. After all, look at the degrees!
I wonder whether it has occurred to any of these people that some women leaving abuse might prefer going for not just “job training” but more degrees themselves, rather than defending from the latest round of accusations through this system, or for that matter, the latests fads sweeping through it. . ..
Speaking for myself, I already had the degrees, I just wanted “permission to practice” what I was already trained in and couldn’t, formerly, because of the domestic violence situation.
Remind me to get another Piled Higher Deeper (then I won’t call it that any more…), it may pay better than blogging for nothing, if I’m in one of these fixing people fields. Which, however, I wasn’t. I was in music, which helps heal people many times. It changes them. But it doesn’t approach from the point of view, unilaterally: “You need fixing, and we will do it!” It’s more transformative than legislative in nature. Funding for the arts is in jeopardy, but not for family-fixing.
SO, who attended THIS conference?
Who attended this one? (Sorry folks, if you just missed it, this past June): In the words of one of the groups above:
Seems to me about the only people NOT there were: family court LITIGANTS, battered women, protective mothers, children who had aged out of the system, in the custody of an abusive parent (these young people DO exist and are now speaking out: Courageous Kids, Alanna Krause, others. I WONDER what my daughter will say, or realize, when she turns 18, soon.) I don’t see the category “shelter workers” there. I don’t see “domestic violence advocates” as a category, do you? Family law practitioners and treatment providers, You BETCHA!
Perhaps this next testimonial may explain why the D.A. was so resistant to allowing me to not lose, or help me regain, custody of my daughters when it was their FATHER, not their MOTHER who had taken them so long ago:
(The clear and blatant theme of this one appears to be that women are equally as violent as men. Hence, the publication “Partner” abuse (and “abuse” not “Violence’) Title: From “Ideology” to “Inclusion.”
Oops: http://www.cafcusa.org/2008%20conference.aspx
It appears these reviews are from the 2008 conference, which was merely “historic” and not “the conference of the decade.” Sorry in searching on the latter term a merely Grand conference got confused with the truly Grandiose, which is about how the language goes too. But it’s not truly likely that the same organizations, in alliance are likely to change directions themselves. They exist, many of them, to change directions of OTHER venues, and other people’s, well, court cases.
(Tell you what — this inclusion does not appear to work in reverse quite so well…)
But, who are the real stakeholders?
Why not instead just raise funds for subscriptions for women leaving abuse to some of the publications talking about us, and our children, and our batterers, and our stalkers, and our children’s abductors, and our options, and how to intervene.
If we could have some “supervised visitation” to some of these conferences, I’m sure we would be competent to stand up and dispel some illusions circulating around these topics. I have known for a long time what would and would not take this household towards safety and self-sufficiency and been asking for it from institutions that had it to offer, they said.
This has fallen mostly on deaf ears. So now I am more interested in talking to these people’s supervisors, and employers, which FYI, happens to be in many cases, the federal grants system.
(note: I talked myself into two such “Screening for Abuse (or, Domestic violence)” type conferences within recent years, AFTER I lost my kids, and while in PTSD, Poverty, dealing with stalking, and working one remaining job. I overcame the PTSD of speaking up, and was called “brave” for doing so, in front of many strangers. One was aimed at health professionals, and was nationwide. ANother was aimed at custody evaluators and was not, although I would characterize BOTH of them as having analyzed the problem of abuse pretty darn well.
It was extremely validating and didn’t make a damn bit of difference in the case, and I doubt will in a whole lot of others. Why?
Because INFORMATION is not MOTIVATION.
EDUCATION doesn’t produce behavior change unless the MOTIVATION to change exceeds the benefits of NOT changing.
Overcoming PTSD to speak in front of strangers, is not my definition of brave. My definition of “brave” entails facing potential death, which I have, not facing a strange audience. It entails facing down that man, with a loaded gun and crazy talk, in my own home, and not just once. The bravery THAT time related to the fact I was a mother, and young children were in the home. My definition of brave is, knowing the possible impact, telling my family to go take a hike and get a life, when they violated my boundaries post-restraining order, and made it consistently clear after this clear statement, that this was not on THEIR agenda.
Similarly SOME people need to start recognizing that surviving abuse may be luck, or it may show competence, and start getting a different attitude about who you are dealing with, when a person shows up not too coherent immediately after an incident. Or when they show up in court (repeatedly forced to, thanks to the family law venue, which specializes on hearsay vs. evidence) also not coherent enough, possibly because of who’s present, and because of the authoritatarian and “it could change on a dime” nature of the interchange.
At this public speaking at a conference for PROFESSIONALS in the FIELD time, I also almost spent a night on the street, because in the process of speaking up, I mislaid car keys, took a commute back home, and found out the keys were in another city. Getting them back took half a night, and more money (of the very little I’d gotten by chance the previous day, allowing me the commute to this conference), help from two friends by phone (my own cell being off) and it was cold, too. I then imposed on someone who was actually a music client (so to speak) to stay overnight so I might not, in the fatigue and stress, oversleep work the next mornign which at this point would’ve resulted in being dismissed.
About a year later (this being halfway through the court cases following child-stealing) I was indeed suddenly dismissed by this same group. Possibly they had what’s called “vicarious trauma” dealing year after year (and it was that) with my inability to get free from ONE abuser, and his friends, and the family law mishandling of a simple, simple restraining order renewal. Which I didn’t, FYI, get.)
I want to say something:
Since then, I have looked into the financing (funding, folks) of this same organization, and at its website. See my post on “the amazing, disappearing word “Mother.” (The group is not featured, but the principle applies). It is a premiere group in the war against violence, not against “women” but, well, “family violence.” I have to really question why in this same state, funds to shelters have been axed, but not to this group. I have to ALSO question why I couldn’t get simple help when I needed it (and that includes, to date) from any of the entities that exist to provide it, after some of the original ones made a few policy mistakes, major ones, in designing the original custody order.
So, why not just invite us to the conferences? Note: before, THAT, raise funds to make sure that their phone and internets stay on (and deal with on-line stalking as well). For example, the other year, had my phone been on, I trust I could’ve found a job and retained access to a moving vehicle through what’s called “work” — even though, through family law inanity, I lost custody on an overnight over a year earlier, all my profession in the aftermath (and buildup), and all hope of collecting any child support arrears in the process.
You know what these conferences are to me, any more? They are like ambulance-chasers. They are carpet baggers.
They are like a person with a boat with room in it, and not too far to BOAT to shore, but too far for most people, particularly people in danger of shock, or fatigue, or not in top marathon shape — they drive by in the boat and wave. Sometimes they grab a kid in the process. They congregate in boats, and talk to each other about the shipwrecks. They even SOS — the shore — for more gas, and refreshments — and “technical support” — to converse — exclusively with each other — about “how to rescue shipwrecked sailors.” SOMETIMES some of them even pull out a child or two, or three, and give the child into the care of other people making a living off the shipwrecks — OR the other parent that helped cause it. That’s bright.
Then they have conferences about “shared parenting.” Or, even about “the context of custody-switch.” Or sometimes even about “the advisability of mediation in family law cases involving allegations of domestic violence or child abuse.” I’ve read many of these, and they are (unlike this blog) generally copyedited, slick, and even have nice charts, sometimes color coded bar graphs, and the whole nine yards.
But what they don’t have is the voices of the people in the water which might show where they missed the boat in these discussion.
NOW — do I think ALL the people in ALL the conferences have impure motives and self-interest in the forefront of their minds?
NO — I know that ALL people are imperfect and have impure motives and self-interest to some degree, including me.
That’s what the Constitution is about, and why any sitting President is sworn, under oath and in public, to preserve, protect, and defend it. It’s about putting some restraint on tyranny.
This includes tyranny by simple exclusion from policy-making conferences.
It should NOT be necessary for almost every mother (or father) who goes through divorce to switch professions and join one that might help him or herself defend herself in a family law custody action, and it PARTICULARLY is not fair where one partner (and it’s most likely to be the female one) has a life in the balance. Not just an emotional economic life, but also a physical life to her or her kids.
TRUTH has a lot of depth and nuances, but the underlying principles are basic, and basically, SIMPLE. When we are talking about human behavior. As a teacher of many years, and I have taught, coached, directed, co-taught, co-directed and/or performed with beginners (tone-deaf) to professionals (in 3 venues: piano/vocal/choral), I know that the same basics work every time, as much as how people sing and their particular voices differ. Certain basics HAVE to be there, including: Air, vocal cords, something to sing, and to do it well — a REASON to sing.
Same for offices, lifestyles, businesses. There is income, expenses, cash flow, overhead, etc. There is some basic math involved.
What the extended decades-long (I’m approaching 10 years, I know others who have been in longer) nonending family law venue DOES is simply divert cash flow. It STOPS what existed before, and recreates a NEW version according to its paradigm. Many times, it stops the process and incentive for either parent to work.
So, IF the actual desire is to STOP VIOLENCE, or CHILD ABUSE and SAVE LIVES: I recommend starting to pay parents, particularly those who are experiencing stalking, abuse, or other threats, for some of these subscriptions, so we can keep up with what’s being proclaimed about us and our kids and our lifestyles,
Or, alternately, we could stop the conferences and get back to something halfway reasonable, like our own businesses. Right now, this thing is really getting out of hand. . . . . After a few years of chasing around the experts, and being ever so happy they had “analyzed” a situation well, I began to realize this is about where it stops. With the talk. (Well, not really, the dynamic of the situation is changing, but the “you’re making it up” folk are cancelling out the “you’re minimizing abuse” folk. Even when they “collaborate.”)
I actually DO have a life (still — not the same one, but a life) to get back to, and it’s clear that this is going to go on, well, forever. I DO have some things I wish to do in life than stop people so intent on stopping domestic violence, they have kept it going a good long while, and people so intent on sharing custody that they are not about to, ever, acknowledge that this is getting too many people hurt. No, “supervised visitation” is NOT a good alternatives, that I can see. For one, I was not offered it once in many years, although it would have been very appropriate given where the problems were happening in our case. Most people I know that HAVE supervised visitation (at their own expense) are women who got it AFTER they reported abuse. They lost custody and have to pay to see their kids.
Do I want to spend the rest of my life fixing this problem? No. I don’t think it’s going away soon. On the other hand, do I accept what has happened and zero accountability for what was stolen from my daughters, and me, and the unnecessary destruction involved? No. Do I want to lose something more if I confront again? No. Would you?
So. why not let the real stakeholders in on the discussions with the “stakeholders” in these systems? Why should we have to run around studying the industry, and finding out about each new conference half of us can’t attend anyhow? And with speakers we have already been exposed to their work, and a sometimes (I speak for myself) even know which grant or grants program is funding the thing and the policy? Have we become a nation of actually employed experts whose very jobs are robbing from the unemployed, whom they are studying?
(I do apologize for my sarcasm here. But my phone is only on today because someone had a good hair day, as opposed to a bad hair day, and another dribble of child support arrears showed up, enough for phone and not much more. In order to get some nonfoods (which is illegal on Food Stamps) rather than ask someone I know for this (again), I waited 2 hours to get a single coupon unredeemable except at one store — not nearby. I waited til the next day to redeem it. On that day, which involved approximately SIX total bus trips, none of them involving more than 10 mile radius total, and after having walked 2 of those miles without proper shoes, I took the baggage home (involving a sack of potatoes and more) and looked for work, a lead on charity cars, and more. Then my phone went off (as happens when one doesn’t pay in time). THIS MORNING, I talked the bus driver into letting me on half price, because the feet wouldn’t make a similar distance this time. It just so happened (couldn’t have been planned around or predicted) that — just under the deadline, a deadbeat Dad paid again. I reflected at how similar this was to life when I LIVED with this man (particularly as to unpredictable access to any kind of cash, and having to dedicate half a day or more to something that would take 20 min to an hour in a car).
The primary difference being then that I had the joy of a little company with my daughters, who were growing up still. I wonder where they are and what they are thinking today.
So, let’s change the dynamics:
Benefits (from OUR point of view, at least):
Detriments (possibly from publishers, conferrers, model code designers, and a WHOLE lot more):
I think those would be the primary differences. The question is, HOW would America Survive without the economy of pathology? And the paradigm of the us/them; subject/object expertise heirarchy?
What year do you think this was written?
(Scroll to bottom for answer).
I have pasted an entire section from an article I found on-line today, as I was thinking about the mental segmentation and disconnect between different types of justice (courts), between courts & police, between police & prosecutors (from what I can tell), between “domestic violence” professionals and “child abuse professionals” (meaning, these professionals desire to STOP domestic violence and child abuse, by analyzing and, based on analyses, communicating their results and asking for policy changes. Then, if the policy changes, the matter comes up, is the PRACTICE changed. Again, the typical mentality is to “train” the professionals to practice what’s right.
Very few actually deal with the realities of human nature, namely, that there is no single branch of employment, business, and no profession, where most of the employees are altruistic, and none of them are dangerously self-serving, or motivated by, for example, basic human greed, denial, or lust for power.
This excerpt is a sample of what I’d call honest writing, which shows how even a “model” practice that is published — certain perspectives were omitted. I would imagine that in this case, the voices of the people with these perspectives (the victims the model code was hoping to help) were not present for the dialogue. THAT is indeed a problem, this gap.
it’s really a matter of language. You see, calling an intersection of court, law enforcement, and social services workers when discussing issues that affect people who come under the category victims (i.e., of crimes) without including the victims — IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS — is exclusionary.
It is a larger subset of a larger divide, called “service-providers” (including the “service” of JUSTICE) vs. Recipients/clients.
I’ve blogged on another post here about the effect of stalking on me, and including through other family members. It is a total life-changer (and illegal). I do not know how to sustain regular employment around the degree of it that has come into my life, and have totally switched goals in order to accommodate, if possible, the safety factor. I know other women who have done this. It’s NOT a game, and NOT a joke, but every law enforcement officer I reported to treated it as such, and added in some verbal abuse to go along with my attempt to report. I have reported it to almost every agency or type of individual involved in my case, as I also reported the risk of child-stealing (which happened) and my concerns about the lethality factor in our case, a combo. of gut instinct, only to then find literature that shows my gut was right.
It is an odd feeling to find out how much of one’s life had already been discussed and conferenced about, and how long ago, and relate this to how many women have been killed since because even this (in its own words) “flawed” model still isn’t being followed.
Nevertheless, here it is. It is in off-blue (not “link” color) italics. Any bold or underlining, or variations from italic blue, are my additions,or emphases, except obviously the bolded section headings:
MY SUMMARY:
(I only commented on top part of article, for a pattern of asking questions. ALL of it brings up good points, and I hope was read).
I COME BACK TO CONCEPT OF SELF-DEFENSE, AND a Survive! mentality for women. (See my Toms River, NJ post). Don’t break any laws, but do like the Boy Scouts, “Be Prepared.” AND, prepare to survive. I suggest that women pretty much be very pro-active in figuring this out themselves and with their own resources, until such day arrives where model codes are appropriate, or if appropriate, enforced, and if enforced, enforced seriously.
I deeply regret the years of my
(1) calling out for others to help me, while
(2) trying to maintain and help myself both, and immediately leave the situation.
I would have been BETTER engaged in time and energy not to have bothered with the first part. Unfortunately, like many women leaving abuse, economics was a huge issue, not just recovery and safety. This is why any effort to address DV issues not taking into account economic issues is simply unrealistic. At this point, i also believe that any discussion of domestic violence which does NOT discuss the negative impact that the realm of family law has had upon all the research, all the laws, and all the protective meaures in place, will not make a major difference. The efforts cancel each other out.
(Verbal Confrontation, or even taking protective action, on my part just brought greater escalations and punishments. In fact, this was typically where it got physical). I am talking about both IN the battering relationship (in my case, called “marriage, co-habiting years” AND in the afterwards years (taking a stand as a separate woman, with children in the household.). I remember one year of emotionally healthy, solvent, sanity — while a restraining order was in place. There was a storm brewing, but the majority of the situation was a sense of growing prosperity and strength, and — apart from the source of this — peace. This was BEFORE I’d had a few hearings in the family law venue.
The only benefit I can see from the whole process is that I now caution women to avoid absolutely every facet of it possible, and go about establishing their own: Safety, solvency and self-determination. It is also necessary to understand that doing so is not just a threat to one’s ex, potentially, but also to the entire “SYSTEM” if you don’t do it “their” way. Which means becoming dependent on aspects of this for safey, solvency, and forking over self-determination to a parenting plan (or something similar) obtained through a custody evaluator or mediator, who are influenced by forces one doesn’t normally have input to deal with, in part because one doesn’t know they exist to start with.
Now, as to my doing this myself, it may entail abandoning this blog, also. However, speaking out is part of a healing process also, and it’s a vital part.
While advocates from more than once side of the fence now dialogue and collaborate with each other (as women and thereafter sometimes men (including men who killed them) continue to die, and children continue to suffer abuse, and some go missing — the one side of the fence that is often not heard — IN the policymaking discussions, IN print IN the publications on these matters, IN the professional organizations that make a livelihood dealing with these matters, and basically on the IN, not the OUT, in these discussions — will continue to be the people with most at stake — their lives.
It is common sometimes to list the “stakeholders” in each new conference. I have looked at many of these lists. Rarely are the actual parents, targeted child, or targeted spouse (when it comes to child abduction or domestic violence or stalking, ALL of which are related, by the way) invited to confer. And if they did, and what such people said WAS published, or broadcast, what about retaliation? Ever think about that?
WHEN WAS THE EXCERPT WRITTEN?
About 15 years after Toms River, NJ – – 1994:
Found at:
http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/bwjp/stalking/stalking.html#id2355674
Domestic Violence & Stalking: A Comment on the Model Anti-Stalking Code Proposed by the National Institute of Justice
Nancy K. D. Lemon
Battered Women’s Justice Project
Publication Date: December 1994
(And the blank date in the excerpt was Oct. 1993).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 26, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Posted in After HE Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, in Studies, Lethality Indicators - in News, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Split Personality Court Orders, Vocabulary Lessons
Tagged with BWJP, CAFC, cafcusa, domestic violence, Due process, DV, Expert-itis, FAVTEA, Intimate partner violence, mincava, Model Codes, NIJ, Policy versus Practice, social commentary, Stalking, Studying Humans