California Commission on the Status of Women 2009

http://women.ca.gov/images/pdf/issues/1073.2009.2010publicpolicyagenda.pdf

Public Policy Agenda

and Proposals

to the

Governor and State

Legislature

2009 – 2010 Session

HERE is the list Family Law is 9th.

2009-2010 Priorities • 1
Child Care • 2
Civil Rights • 3
Economic Security • 4
CalWORKS • 5
Education • 6
Employment • 8
Family Law • 9
Health • 10
Substance Abuse and Mental Health • 13
Long Term Care & Aging • 14
Reproductive Health • 15
Crisis Pregnancy Centers • 16
Teen Pregnancy and Parenting • 17
Violence • 17
Sexually Exploited Minors • 19
Teen Dating Violence • 20
Women and Girls in the CriminalJustice System • 20
Women and Corrections • 20
Girls in the Juvenile Justice System • 22
Women Veterans • 23

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

This would be good reading, for sure…..

Family Law

 

California is failing to protect its most
vulnerable children.

 

[[Not that this is exactly breaking news…]]

 

Whether it is child support enforcement, the foster care system, or the family courts, the rights and safety of many women and
children are at risk.

 

[[In a masterful understatement, not mentioned here — many have also died, probably needlessly… Others remain in the custody of their abusers…In truth “at risk” is a diversionary phrase.  They have died.  What about THOSE?  So, as to the living ones, then…]]

 

Courts are overburdened and
court personnel often lack knowledge and
resources needed to address the complex issues
of domestic violence and child abuse. [*] Women
often suffer financially and emotionally as a result
of unjust rulings. In order to improve outcomes for
children and families, the Commission supports
the following agenda:

Legislative Proposals
1. Establish an independent state-level oversight
committee/commission to review child custody
proceedings to better inform public policy, with a
particular focus on cases with allegations of
child abuse or domestic violence (Priority)

2. Establish a multidisciplinary team of professionals
with expertise in assessing child abuse
and domestic violence to evaluate cases when
child custody is in dispute and such allegations
are made against one of the parties
3. Strengthen the right of custodial parents to
relocate without the risk of losing custody of
children
4.Support a State General Fund appropriation to
backfill lost federal matching incentive funds for
administrative costs in the child support program**
5. Require judges, mediators, custody evaluators,
law enforcement officers and social workers to
receive education on how to coordinate and
interface with all appropriate agencies in child
custody cases as a means of preventing
systems from failing to meet the needs of
families

If you know my blog, you know I’m not into this solution, because I don’t think that’s the problem. I think that if these personnel receive MOTIVATION (not “education”) to do the right thing, when evidence is on the record, that would be a nice gift for this season….

 

6. Allow children the opportunity to speak directly to the judge regarding their custody and visitation wishes and needs

 

And just hope that no undue influence has been applied outside the court…. (??? in a DV case??)

 

 

Administrative Proposals
7. Require judicial education regarding
• the dynamic of domestic violence and child
abuse, including the invalidity of the
“Parental Alienation Syndrome” (Priority)
• transgender individuals to prevent
discrimination in child custody matters due
to a parentʼs transgender status
8. Support a request for a Joint Legislative Audit
Committee to audit child custody cases involving
allegations of child abuse or domestic violence
9. Establish a judicial performance evaluation
system for appellate and trial court judges and
commissioners using American Bar Association
guidelines…

 

Study Proposals
10. An update of the 1987 “Senate Task Force On
Family Equity” report on family law
11. A study of gender fairness in the California
family courts

 

[added in 2011 commentary:]

[*]Viewing this post, over a year later, again (as then) phrases pop out, that somehow we, the public, are to understand ( believe) that Judges DON’T understand what we do —  behaving like an out of control kindergartner in a marriage (or after sex has produced a child, producing whats’ called a mother, and a father, if not a family) and asserting dominance over pregnant, nursing, or mothers of young children — is wrong and dangerous to others than just the pregnant, nursing or mother of young children.  Or, to fail to understand that real adult men, really do (and sometimes women, I fear & hear) molest children, and that’s a euphemism.  IN such case, to continue this, they have to get rid of any parent who would stop this.  The venue where this happens is “family” court.

All these people wanting to reform family court, and keep the professionals, while tossing off lives left and right (and some of the damage hit sthe community) and failing to account for usage of grants to the California Judicial Council/Administrative Office of the Courts / Center for Families & Children in the Courts (CFCC, or whatever the acronym) and from there, at a minimum, the “access/visitation” grants system spinning off of welfare reform, which criticizes women of color (primarily) for being poor, and determines to help men of color that have been made poor by the same type of mentality — and this system to supposedly reform welfare and help poor people, is being exploited by very RICH people, and a lot of powerful, white males, to keep their kids.  See Nassau County, (NY). wife jailed for ‘alienating” her children.  Nassau County, people….Different coast, same mentality.

Also (I learned in this 2010) the “fatherhood commissions” are legislated into various states.  Now it’s time for “You, the people” to figure that out.

Or, keep paying taxes without expecting ANY, and I mean ANY accountability in a timely fashion to what the hell they are being used for. YOU take one day a week out of spa, or whatever (or something — like church, if it applies? — and get on-line and fact-check organizations like “Kids’ Turn” or others that are being marketed worldwide (now, in other countries) and funded by U.S. Federal $$, then having parents ordered into counseling, education, and in essence becoming the permanent “infants” (no matter their ages) to the everpresent BigBrother/”fatherland.”

[end of, added in 2011 commentary]

Ah, well.

No, This is closer to my legislative proposal, taken from an email from the author of “Jurisdictionary [TR]”. He waxes eloquent, but he talks about loving JUSTICE in addition to the natural human love we have for each other. He is talking about getting ourselves educated on how the justice system works. Not paying taxes to hire experts to talk to experts about how it SHOULD work and why it doesn’t (only). There is something individuals can do; teach themselves how it works! (Should be required with the marriage certificate, probably).

Love is manifested in many strange and wonderful forms.

There is the unmistakable, mystical love of a mother for her offspring, incomparable, impossible for us men to ever comprehend.

There is the love of a soldier for his comrades at arms, a power deep within the heart that motivates the impossible and sometimes galantly gives the soldier’s final gift.

And, there are other forms of love too many to list here.

Yet, in that mix of many forms of love there is an adoration that dwells deep in the breast of every one of us: the love of honor, the love of peace, and the love of justice that has rules by which our peace and shared prosperity can be fashioned and preserved both for ourselves and those who follow after, justice that is not perverted by the persuasion of power nor undermined by the influence of base motives.

Justice is, perhaps, the greatest of our American ideals.

We must immediately decide for justice that has rules.

We must unquestioningly decide and seek every practical mechanism we can find to promote the ideal of justice that has rules … not for one or a few but for everyone.

. . .

The American Dream is an Holy Experiment, a Republic under law and not an oligarchy of powerful men free to do as they choose and justice be damned.

The American Dream is a Wise People.

• A People who care for those who are unjustly treated.
• A People United.
• A People united by a vision that puts honor first, with love, mercy, kindness, courage, and justice constrained by rules.
• Whatever your faith this Season, whatever your political persuasion, whatever notions you’ve picked up from others about the horrors we are threatened with at the hands of those who hold ideas contrary to our own, remember this:

We are One People United by Our Ideals!

We are one precisely because we share ideals, of which the chiefest is that justice must have rules, and those who judge must obey those rules to-the-letter!

Cling to those ideals as dearly as you embrace your own children, for they preserve your children more than anything that you alone can do, more than any army, more than any doctor, more than anything you can imagine … for those ideals we share as Americans are the very hope of the world!

…

Tell everyone about us, please, and do what you can to help us promote your ideals!

… Dr. Frederick D. Graves, JD

www.Jurisdictionary.com

www.AmericanJusticeFoundation.com

Yeah, it’s an item for sale. But it’s designed for the general public, not the experts, and it teaches principles.  I don’t have to share his faith to share the concept that there are rules we ALL should know and hold our appointed officials to by any means possible, and send a strong message that we are NOT their property, they are our paid servants, by law.

to do this, more people need to actually understand the financial systems also..

And a final thought for the evening — suppose Jesus had been born in a manger, and CPS had caught wind of it?  Oh my God, Mary would never see him again.

Plus, part of his childhood, it appears he went to sleep in a fatherless home.  Well, at least somewhere in there Joseph disappeared.

I think Jesus did all right, don’t you?  He had a Father figure, at least….

More irreverence later….

THESE are a START in understanding WHASSUP with “women and Children” — learn the origins of this CFDA, the promoters, what else they promoted, and how they have changed the face of litigation throughout this country.  Here’s TAGGS.hhs.gov, ALL I did was sort on “CFDA 93.597.”  I learned this at NAFCJ.net, talked to the site author, and fact-checked  Wake up!

S

tate = CALIFORNIA CFDA Number = 93597 Recipient: CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 95814 FY Award Number Budget Year of Support Agency Award Code Action Issue Date Amount This Action 1998 9701CASAVP 1 ACF 2 05-31-1998 $1,113,750.00 1998 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-01-1998 $1,113,750.00 1999 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-16-1999 $987,501.00 2003 9801CASAVP 1 ACF 7 02-24-2003 ($250,805.00) 2003 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 5 02-25-2003 ($139,812.00) 2009 9901CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($38,917.00) Award Subtotal: $2,785,467.00 Recipient: CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 95741 FY Award Number Budget Year of Support Agency Award Code Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2000 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 3 08-24-2000 $987,501.00 2001 0001CASAVP 1 ACF 4 10-06-2000 ($987,501.00) Award Subtotal: $0.00 Recipient: CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL Recipient ZIP Code: 94107 FY Award Number Budget Year of Support Agency Award Code Action Issue Date Amount This Action 2001 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 5 10-10-2000 $987,501.00 2001 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 1 08-23-2001 $987,501.00 2002 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 2 08-06-2002 $970,431.00 2003 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-11-2003 $970,431.00 2004 0410CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-15-2004 $988,710.00 2005 0510CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-14-2005 $988,710.00 2006 0610CASAVP 1 ACF 1 09-19-2006 $987,973.00 2007 0710CASAVP 1 ACF 1 07-20-2007 $950,190.00 2008 0810CASAVP 1 ACF 1 01-30-2008 $957,600.00 2009 0010CASAVP 1 ACF 8 09-14-2009 ($48,827.00) 2009 0110CASAVP 1 ACF 4 09-14-2009 ($26,938.00) 2009 0210CASAVP 1 ACF 6 09-14-2009 ($46,392.00) 2009 0310CASAVP 1 ACF 2 09-14-2009 ($15,092.00) 2009 0910CASAVP 1 ACF 1 12-23-2008 $942,497.00 2010 1010CASAVP 1 ACF 1 11-25-2009 $946,820.00 2011 1110CASAVP 1 ACF 1 10-08-2010 $928,087.00 Award Subtotal: $11,469,202.00 Total of all awards: $14,254,669.00

 

Recipient:	CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Address:	303 SECOND STREET, SOUTH TOWER SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	SAN FRANCISCO
DHHS Region:	9
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	State Government

Award Actions

FY	Award Number	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	1101CASCIP	1	1	ACF	12-10-2010	$ 799,429
2011	1110CASAVP	1	1	ACF	10-08-2010	$ 928,087
Fiscal Year 2011 Total:						$ 1,727,516

WONDER WHAT 1101CASCIP (court Improvement Program) is?  Well, so do I.

 

THIS SITE CONTINUES TO EXPAND, AND PEDDLE THE “YOU MUST GET ALONG WITH YOUR PERP” MENTALITY; “HE WAS YOUR PURP, NOT YOUR CHILDREN’S, RIGHT?”

 

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/

HOW COME THE STATUS ON WOMEN DOESN’T REPORT ON THIS?

 

This is the “official” view:

Click to access Snapshot2008SummaryFindings.pdf

Key Findings

 The majority of mediation sessions involve clients who are self-represented. The proportion of cases involving at least one self-represented party has increased steadily over time, from 52 percent of cases in 1991 to 75 percent of cases in 2008.

 The population of mediation clients is ethnically diverse, the majority being non-White. The proportion of Hispanic/Latino clients has increased since the 1991 survey.

 The mediation population includes many non-English speaking clients who may be in need of special language services. Mediators reported that special language services were used in 10 percent of mediation sessions. Approximately one out of ten clients indicated that they would have benefitted from, but did not receive, this sort of language assistance—including more bilingual staff, and bilingual interpreters or mediators.

 Many families have been seen multiple times by family court services and are in mediation to try to reach agreement on more than one type of order and to discuss a wide range of concerns. The most frequent issues cited by mediation clients are problems with visitation arrangements not working, the other parent not following the order, and child emotional adjustment and behavioral concerns.

Not cited– threats to kidnap, actual kidnappings, and child abuse, stalking, or death threats from the other parent, which we are told happen, after a case becomes a “statistic.”  This report dates to 2008.  In 2008, in Contra Costa County, there was a triple-homicide/femicide, DV-& divorce-related.  In 2007 in Oakland, there was a church-parking lot gunning down of a woman who was trying to stay alive, on a mid-week morning with lots of witnesses.  In 2006, there was a woman who disappeared (mother of two young kids) on a routine exchange, when her ex was thousands behind on child support (Reiser).  In 2005, there was (I believe in SF), a man who’d been stalking just a temporary GIRLFRIEND (not even a parental situation) who was ‘diverted into” domestic violence counseling, like many fathers are.  Days after he got an A+ from that sesssion, her body shows up in a trunk.  (McAlpin).  We have had little girls show up in suitcases in ponds (Sandra Cantu), young women kept captive in back yards, giving birth to and raising children by their captor/rapists (Garrido) and all kinds of horrible events happen.  The treatment of women throughout this Bay Area has been horrific.  Meanwhile, many of the justice NONprofits (vs. “agencies”) are in it for themselves (see my “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys” post.  The CEO is a plum position, and the women needing the protection are at the bottom of the barrel.

These reports here are meaningless to many women in my situation.  We personally know mediators that regularly lie, fail to do intake forms, and break rules of court designed to protect children, in particular, when writing orders.  This creates chaos in their lives, and chaos in the community, and increases poverty — of the affected parites, and those helping them.  It creates “business as usual” for the court.    Look here — they say it, right up front:

 Family violence is a common issue among mediation clients. More than half of the families reported a history of physical violence between the parents.

THE FAMILY COURT paradigm is “Families” and “between the parents.”  When one is assaulting another, the only thing “between them” is not enough airspace, and not enough distance.  The blows are typically going ONE way, not both ways.  The word “family violence” is to replace the term “domestic violence” which is a misdemeanor, or felony, in this state.  It is no accident.  MORE THAN HALF the FAMILIES reported — means typically ONE parent reported first, and possibly obtained a civil, or criminal, order — at which time the other would be foolish to fail to acknowledge it.  That’s how the term “families …. reported… a history of physical violence.”  Moreover, if the children were not interviewed by this mediator, then it’s only adults reporting.  This phrase is a coverup of an ugly reality.

Approximately 15 percent of both mothers and fathers indicated that there was a current restraining order in place. Concern for future violence with the other parent was common, as was the concern for possible child abuse by the other parent.

 

Let’s see how oblique and indirect a “report” can get.  What does the  phrase of both mothers and fathers need to come in here for?  The very grants system that ensures lots and lots of mediation happens (see this same site, Access/Visitation programs) does NOT say “mother and fathers” much at all — but “parents” or “Noncustodial” etc.  Why stick it in here, haphazardly?  To show that Dads get restraining orders too now?  Well, they do, but why mention it here, and retain the same consistency of saying the word “mother” throughout, then?

 The length of the mediation session and time spent preparing for mediation varied. The median face-to-face service time was 90 minutes and the median preparation time was 15 minutes.

The words “physical violence, history of” equates to “domestic violence.”  There are lethality risks involved here, and there typically has been some serious physical injury, though not also.  MOreover, physical violence indicates other forms of intimidation and coercion, generally speaking.  And to resolve this potentially life-threatening (and childhood stultifying lifestyle of WHICH parent, primarily, against the other — or is fighting back to protect oneself also “mutual violence”?  — the litigants get a whopping 90 minutes (we didn’t — the one joint sessions, more like half that, and subsequent separate sessions I swear it was a half hour, at most, and a farce at that).  There are two ways to do this:  Jointly, in which case a woman sits with her batterer or abuser that she just confronted by filing a DV order, in the same room, and attempts to “negotiate” with the mediator, which I did.  Never again!  NO way can you keep those thoughts on target that early in the game after separation.  the other way — (all subsequent mediations), separate.  In which case, there is NO real recourse for a party whose mediation report has factual errors, material ones, or was out of compliance.  Why?  Because if that family court judge bases an order on that mediator’s report (which they will, typically), then the life goes through another immediate upheaval.  She (or he) has to deal with that upheaval FIRST, and appeal, if possible — second.

OK, stop, look, and listen.  HALF had domestic violence (excuse me, “a history of physical violence” .. “family violence.”)  Don’t think it’s an accident that the word “domestic violence” (which might point one to somewhere in the family, or criminal code, with defining terms…) is NOT used here.  But MORE than 50% had a history of physical violence, and of those, only 15% had a CURRENT restraining order.  So, who didn’t get restraining orders, or who took them off?

Family court judges, after these cases went through mediation, right? . . . . . Get it??…..

 Overall, parents reached agreement in slightly less than half of cases. Agreement rates were higher for parties who were working on initial orders than for those who were working on modified orders.

OK — over 50% had a history of physical violence “between” (i.e., two sets of attacks met mid-air, collided, and none hit another body?? That’s “between” — or, blows were equally exchanged, like in the movie Crouching Tiger, til both lay exhausted?? ??? I don’t think so.)  And UNDER 50% (“slighty less than half”) “reached agreement.”  In any classroom, this would be a definite fail-rate on the part of the mediator.  This means that in less than half the situations, one parent took a stand on some issue.

Reading further on this pdf report, it seems that mediators spent more time on the study than they did per client (15 minutes, average).

Clients rated their experiences in mediation very positively. For example, three-quarters or more of the clients provided favorable ratings on items related to procedural fairness.

What about other items?  Which 3/4 or more (which — was it?  75% or more than 75%?  Is this summary typical of how accurate a mediation report is?)

“

Parent Survey

This survey was completed by parents prior to their mediation session. The Parent Survey covered topics such as the purpose of the mediation session, issues to be discussed during the session, family violence history, legal representation, and parent demographics. Parent Surveys were completed by 3,176 clients representing 1,741 families. One or both parents completed a parent survey for 95 percent of sessions for which a mediator survey was completed.”

 

One OR Both parents in a litigation proceeding, lumped together, consisted in 95% of the sessions for which a survey was completed, which resulted in 75% satisfaction.

Well, in my case, the father was satisfied (and subsequently tried to derail my fact-finding in the courtroom to “the mediator’s report,” which recommended an overnight custody switch despite recently felony child-stealing, reported, by me, and obvious from the facts).  I was dissatisfied, obviously.  This is why I think vendor payments are more relevant than any organization receiving millions of $$ to increase noncustodial parenting time THROUGH mediation, in reporting on the results of Mediation.  Of course they are going to give a positive report — if not, they’ll have to go find some other nipple to nurse off, than these access/visitation grants program, administered through the OCSE to the State of California Judicial Council, etc.

From this 2008 pdf, still, look at what they are attempting to discuss in the FAMILY law venue:

Table 2: What Issues Are You Here to Discuss?

Parent Issues N %

Visitation arrangements not working3 717 41%

Other parent not following order 615 35%

Other parent should be supervised during visitation 294 17%

Other parent’s alcohol abuse 282 16%

Other parent’s drug abuse 279 16%

One person is moving 216 12%

Child abduction/taking child without permission 197 11%

THE ABOVE ARE “PARENT ISSUES” AND NOT “CHILD ISSUES”  — Except the first “visitation arrangements not working” which is too vague to mean much, and “should be supervised” which indicates (a) report of abuse of child during visitation, or threats to abduct OR (as equally possible) (b) Parental Alienation claims to counter (a)…an underlying criminal issues as to the first, and NOT as sto the second) and “is moving” (move-aways, which also will fall neatly under “parental alienation” claims) — ALL of these issues involved contempt of a court order (“not following is the degradation of the word “contempt of”) substance abuse — which is bad parenting — and the last one is either (a) a crime or (b) what sure looks like one, “taking child without permission.”.  These are not “parent issues” as so labeled.  They are contempt of court order issues.

ADD TO THIS — the court orders typically, when DV has been outed, or Child Abuse, are StiLL written so vaguely as to ensure constant negotiation needed by (when DV has occurred) a custodial parent with her (yeah, her) former abuser, which was my case.  I have never seen a more vaguely written court order, I had to go to court years later to even get a location written in.  Holiday exchanges had no location AND no time of exchange.  Summer Vacations had no stipulation and resulted in our children not being able to attend summer workshops and events which would’ve helped their college vacations, in areas of already identified interests.  I was able to do these while the RO was on, and had to stop once it hit family law, thanks to this mediator’s version of reality.  Basically, mediation is going to remove a safety boundary for the custodial parent.  Add to this, joint legal with sole physical means, there is no end of argument possible.  I cannot imagine any business, sports team, investment, or performance oriented group that would be able to operate under such circumstances, with no enforceable rules when a chaotic individual wants to pre-empt the field.  Add to this the impact of the child SUPPORT factor — which mediation refuses to address, although it’s a hot topic — and you have utter, complete, disorder — designed to bring business to the courts after one failed mediation session, to another.

Then, on the basis of “overburdened” and “overcrowded” they can ask for more grants.

 

Child Issues

Child emotional adjustment 513 29% Child behavior problems 355 20% School problems 331 19% Child refuses to visit 233 13% Child medical needs 213 12% Delay in child growth or development 99 6%

Violence/Abuse Issues

Domestic violence 318 18% Child neglect 306 18% My safety with other parent 304 17%

Child physical abuse Child sexual abuse. 159 9% 40 2%

Note: N = 1,741 families. Percentages sum to more than 100 because respondents were able to check more than one item.

I find that every single one of those items relates to children, and many of them are LEGAL issues and CRIMINAL issues.  Mediators should not be handling such matters, but they are.  These matters also should not be before family court judges, with their HUGE amount of discretion, but they are.

That said, District Attorneys have the discretion to not prosecute.  All in all, it’s a joke, basically.

And a “joint legislative audit” isn’t going to fix that.

This is where to look, for starters:

California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program (Fiscal Year 2009–2010)

REPORT TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE MARCH 2010

 

Then do the follow-up, whether in your state, or if you are California, here.

[I am in a real rambling, ranting mode today.  So be it! 01/2011]