Archive for the ‘Split Personality Court Orders’ Category
Alienation Ain’t Going Anywhere —
NOTE: This continues my last post. Curious about Lauren v. Ted, I went and fetched it.
The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement,” Ross wrote in Lauren R. v. Ted R., 203699-02.
To review, the reporter, reviewing the ruling:
Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.” (cite, below)
Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father
I SAID, INCREDULOUS:
Let’s look at ” willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating“:
Did the court order mention not alienating — or was the court order about visitation? One is clear-cut. The other is a psychological assessment, less clear-cut, and gives judges a free license to call in the obedience-training authorities. Whether or not it is “deliberate” or as a consequence of moving on in life, is a matter for a mind-reader. Excuse me, “mental health professional,” a field I no longer respect (and this is probably why).
What kind of world do we (as a culture) want? One of action crimes, or thought (intent-) crimes ?? Guess which one you have here?
Only if the court order specifically SAID “don’t alienate” (which is too broadly worded to be enforceable, anyhow) is “deliberately alienating” a violation of it. However, this appears to be referring to failing to comply with visitation/vacation schedule, but doing it in a mean way. I believe that a Law Journal, of all places, should keep those issues separate. So should stipulations and custody orders, but often they don’t, setting the parents up for repeat litigation.
I wanted to know, was “not alienating” built into the court order (incredible as it seems, the answer is YES, this time. I say, “Houston, we have a problem!”)
Seeing this ruling, I felt readers should see how this is done, and who the judge quoted, and in general pick up on the practice of (OPINION ALERT. The rest of this paragraph is my feelings. Of course, much of this blog is — excepting the data research, charts, dockets posted, and news articles, etc…. But especially this next “rant” is a sound-off)
making custodial mothers (physical custodial/joint-legal) — apparently because they are women — responsible for relationship, even if they’re in a new one. This means, that somehow, any new man in the life, can’t “father” a children if it would, say, jeopardize their previous father. Put this in the pot and see how this blends with the fatherhood crisis. The biological Dad (presumably) is out of the home, and a remarriage has taken place. The systems of laws clearly influential in this ruling, were originally (Or, as slid through Congress) aimed at low-income fathers (which the “access/Visitation” policy literature, not to mention the “fatherhood” literature, assures us is the real problem. If it’s not the REAL Dad in the home, (even if there’s another father figure), those kids are screwed for life. Also, it’s important to encourage LOW-income fathers to be persuaded to pay their child support; and the way to do this has been declared, in policy brief after policy brief, is to use the children as a carrot, removing the child support enforcement as a stick, but keeping it there just in case. Theoretically.
This example is “replete with” language and references exhibiting this policy. While Lauren R. may or may not be a nice person — for all we know, she’s a B _ _ _ ch — the practices stand, and she has been threatened with weekends in jail for her behavior.
My CMA:
LINKING, COPYRIGHTs, Etc. – — the link to this opinion is on yesterday’s post, and here is:
Lauren R. v. Ted R.
NASSAU COUNTY
Family LawNew York Law Journal
June 07, 2010
Copyright © 2010, ALM Properties, Inc.
ALM = “American Lawyer Media”
Let me COMPLETELY CMA (that’s CYA with a pronoun change) on posting so much of this opinion here:
Disclaimers: I believe that posting this is legal and within the copyright use (general, limited) as my link on this blog states. My purpose in posting here is to illustrate, for general purposes and information:
- HOW this judge reasoned,
- how the stipulation was written, and
- who this judge cited, in jailing [or threatening to] an alienating EX, which court personnel were called in — and for how much*** — to get their piece of the action BEFORE she was threatened with jail and/or custody switch (?) (the ultimate threat) and
- What “remedies” are considered available (in NY, here) for Bad Moms (and presumably Bad Dads) in violation of DIVORCE-RELATED CIVIL DECREES
- how GENDER-NEUTRAL, mostly, the “parental alienation” is in theory, but gender-specific, in practice, it seems (my challenge to readers yesterday stands — find me a man treated this way by any court for the same reasons) — and in short,
- HOW our country moved from the “rule of thumb” (diameter of switch with which one could beat one’s wife, hear tell) to the Judiciary rules and case precedents, etc. (remedies for, rather than beating, just emotionally terrorizing into compliance, or making it clear that the authority of the bench could indeed throw more weight around if compliance isn’t good enough for any woman/slut who remarries (or, doesn’t) with kids and doesn’t do it well, etc. . . . . to demonstrate, and set an example (per HIS attorney) of how very few inches forward we have moved in the past century, vis-a-vis mothers who don’t retain their men… . .
(pause to remember the originally intended VERB of this supremely compound subject sentence…..)(oh yeah, it’s coming…)
ARE RELEVANT TO OTHER PARENTS. IT IS VALUABLE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC… As such, I hope I don’t get put in jail for putting this information up.
***“defendant’s counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children’s fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees,”
To obtain the access so as to answer my initial questions (how could “not alienating” be in a court order?? and why wasn’t the custody interference sufficient?), I had to subscribe to this New York Law Journal. So will you, for pay, or as I did “Free Limited Access,” which means that in exchange for free, they collect data from me and can potential send me marketing material. Being in a good mood, I allowed this. “Free” anything, on-line,” is kind of like a FREE lunch, Food Stamps, Free Legal Services, or Free Restraining Order Clinics. Either you pay, or, you fork over some of your data for the privilege of accessing these things. So, I’m not linking the title today — see yesterday’s post — ,because who knows if my particular link leads to my particular self, which I don’t feel like putting on-line today, particularly after some commentary on the judge’s commentary that reading it inspires (like, “causes to well up”) within my soul.
My CMA, ct’d.
From what I can tell on the Permissions page, my purpose here is not any of those listed: I am not republishing it in a book/ebook for educational or promotional use. I am not republishing it in a print or electronic PUBLICATION for informational or promotional use. I am obviously not photocopying it (don’t you, either!) I am not sending it in an email. I am not republishing it in a marketing MATERIAL because I am not marketing anything. I am advised to click HERE for any other potential use, and that “HERE” says that about 3 different entitites (Rightslink(r), Incisive Media, and Copyright Clearance Center.com) are all in on the action of protecting Judicial opinions from being too widespread without someone being paid for this, and able to trace it.
Speaking of DIGITAL CLEARANCE ISSUES . . . Consider this an ALERT. I make it maroon, as it’s a “parenthetical” to this post.
While I am on this topic of DIGITAL CASE INFORMATION (although this is an ALM publication, and the New York Law Journal, something else — opinions are published in it, I gather — and case dockets, caes information totally another category, today, I ran across THIS concern, expressed by a man in Los Angeles. The fine print here is supplemented from some REAL detailed research, related, on the Justice System [All of it, including enforcement Sheriffs, etc.] in Los Angeles County, which he has called an “Extra Constitutional Zone,” while wryly commenting that the similar behavior is found in courts across the country. However, this article is about digital storage of case information, and compromises in the system as a human rights crisis. Read the fine print, he’s right, I bet:
THIS is a VERY brief, readable summary of the situation, which I am still mentally processing, of automated court systems, beginning in the 1980s, 1990s: “COMPUTERIZED or CON-PUTERIZED” (8/18/2010) — thank you, Janet Phelan, and Dr. Zernik. This is momentous — and a separate post…Here’s a clue to the extent of the problem:
Amidst the rumblings that “equal justice under the law” is being applied selectively and unequally, a new charge is now being levied against the courts, coming from an unlikely source. Joseph Zernik, 54, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and former college professor. Born in Israel, Zernik came over to the US in 1983, to attend the University of Connecticut where he subsequently received his Ph.D. in molecular biology He was later to work as a professor –first at the University of Connecticut and later at the University of Southern California. Along the way, he also studied computer systems and orthodontics.
By the way, this is the kind of background — more than social scientists and psychologists (or attorneys) that is likely — when attention is given to the legal processes — and systems — in the courts — that can help us. The analytic and systems expertise (logic, in other words) beats rhetoric and reframing every time. I feel… Marshall McLuhan {1911-1980…hover cursor for descr.}warned us that the MEDIUM was the MASSAGE {hover cursor for descr.}(long ago) — this talks about the impact of the MEDIUM (of digital case records) on our legal process.
Beginning in 2002, Zernik began to scrutinize government and corporate data base systems, first in schools and later in banks and in courts. In 2007, he began researching how court computer systems, such as “Sustain,” installed at the Los Angeles Superior Court and PACER/CM/ECF, installed at the federal courts, have circumvented some of the basic and fundamental processes which we have previously taken as sacrosanct.
Around 1985, the Los Angeles Superior court installed “Sustain” as its first civil case management system, to replace the previous paper-based operations. The federal courts began computerizing their systems around the early nineties, according to a spokesperson for PACER, which is the Public Access system of the federal courts, developed under the guidance of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Actually, the federal court installed TWO systems. One, called PACER, was for general public access. The other system, CM/ECF, is accessible only for the court itself and for court authorized attorneys. However, even on such attorneys restrictions of access were placed and authorization was granted only to view certain records.
In other words, alleges Zernik, there are now two separate systems in place –one for the public and one for the elite tier of lawyers and officers of the court. The courts therefore created two docketing systems, separate and unequal, and asserted the right to segregate persons into one system or the other. As a result, the public right to inspect public documents was severely mitigated. The spokesperson for PACER stated that there were indeed two systems in place, one for public access and one for filing.
Apart from the obvious issues raised by two separate systems which are apparently functioning for different tiers of individuals—the public on one hand and the lawyers and court officers on the other– Zernik uncovered further cause for alarm. When the court systems became computerized, the common law practices also altered, subtly and nearly undetectably. . .
BACK TO NASSAU COUNTY, NY a.k.a.,
How an ANTI-ALIENATION DIVORCE STIPULATION led to a Mom ordered to jail for violating it.
Justice Robert A. Ross
Decided: May 25; 203699-02
The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the “best interest of the child,” when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.
Roughly translated, these two courts’ authority to mess with (alter) either parent’s life continues until all children reach majority, or some other worse event intervenes, which we hope it doesn’t. Think about this when conceiving children. Er– guess that advice is not too practical, how about BEFORE conceiving children.
Parental access, commonly referred to as “visitation,” is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170.
Roughly translated — the word “parent” and “noncustodial parent” obscures the purpose of these rights (rights?) — as seen by why women like me have to write blogs like this. The switch from mother and father to “parent” is not straightforward — it’s obscuring gender bias. Even the Wikipedia definiton of “noncustodial parent” forwards reader to the US Dept. of HHS site, “Fatherhood.hhs.gov” where, after the TOP left square, which reads
2006 Initiative / TANF Reauthorization
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 {{See 1996 for where this originated}} provides funding of $150 million each year for healthy marriage promotion and fatherhood. Up to $50 million each year may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.
{{well, treating ex-wives like this may send a message to women not to, ever, become an ex-wife. Your life may not survive marriage, but it’s equally unlikely to survive leaving a marriage, at least emotionally intact. So in SOME sense, pushing this, nationwide, can — like threat therapy — warn married women not to mess up..This policy, essentially, is the welfare state mentality’s answer to the welfare state mentality, if you can follow the logic there.}}
one can scroll down to
Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support
About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father. The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but
Yeah, a BIG BUTT…
(Bighorn sheep charging) . . . The LAWS. . .. BUT . . . . (in contrast with the LAWS, we have a new concept, FEDERAL FUNDING to STATES to help them develop PROGRAMS….to “help.” They just want to “help”….
the Federal Government does provide states with fundingto assist in the development ofprograms that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.
{{note — though found on “fatherrhood.hhs.gov” this refers to funding to help noncustodial PARENTS. See Dombrowski. See “rightsformothers.com.”. . . I never did see why so many people (women, in particular) fail to acknowledge that these A/V programs are related to the child support system. The federal government says they are….
OK, one more grammar review before i move back to this ruling: This program, the ACCESS VISITATIOn NONCUSTODIAL PARENT and CHILD language, as cited (years ago) on FATHERHOOD.HHS. GOV says it this way. The STATES’ LAWS . . . . BUT the Federal Funding to STates to develop programs. Laws – – — BUT, . . . . Federal Funding. Laws — BUT — Federal Funding (to counteract the laws, to “help” the laws. Well, if the Feds are helping with existing Laws, why then is the word “BUT-T-T-T-T needed to describe the system?? . . . Also, (convenientlly for this end), motherhood.gov doesn’t mention to mothers going into the courts to look here for the 2nd half of the States Laws (which they focus on), BUT > T > T > T…
I’m driving this in, because what follows here is full of legal cites, and precedent, to justify the situation. But his language will soon reveal, alienation, alienation, alienation . . . .
In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:
1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;
2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law 750,753;
3. Tort action for custodial interference;
4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240
While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.
Note. I’m not checking the cites. Any attorney should. What the heck is “Judiciary law?” (above). And I’ve never heard of a TORT for custodial interference, I thought family law was out of the realm of torts. Maybe NY is different than the other coast, where I live. But, if it was the same, it would still take an indignant judge to sign an order.
I love the ‘While . . . . physical danger [See, “Girl, Interrupted” Kristin Stillman] [“phsyical danger might cause a child to die, or suffer injury, (by contrast, this language says, a far , far worse) ALIENATING A CHILD is NEFARIOUS!! and requires immediate, comprehensive remediation. {{see “DastardlyDads.blogspot.com” for what is NOT “nefarious conduct,” per judges}} I also have to “love” the judge’s dismissal of “most factually apparent ground” in favor of “punishing a recalcitrant parent.” So much for “best interests of the child” — the motived is to punish a recalcitrant parent…. I’ve never heard “recalcitrant” used of an adult before. It means, literally, to “kick back.” Merriam-Webster definition give an Antonym (opposite) as the desirable state of women in this culture, this world, and with the help of judges, precedents, Federal programs, and rulings like this, surely they will return to this Edenic state:
Good grief!!! Recalcitrant has been used (in this example) of an employee, and a youth. Well, welcome, parents, to that category! The problem with recalcitrance is, a parent becomes:
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….
Any sentence starting with “While” followed by data, or a statement of a situation, etc., is setting up the reader to consider that data LESS important than what follows, while declaring to the reader that this author at least weighed the pros and cons, but feels that the “while” side is less important than what’s upcoming. For a great example of this, look above, and the 2006 Access Visitation program blurb doing essentiall the same thing, only in a “This BUT that format.” “access/visitation is a matter of State & family law, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT funds programs. . . . . etc.” Here, since the part in the while section is going to be overcome, it is vaguely worded and only gets one cite, prob ably someone suing the City of NY over a disastrous custody situation result. Maybe I’ll look it up. If this was a death, and this judge referred to that death as “the consequential future effect of this determination,” what does that say about this judge’s decision-making process?
Check out this case — and how UNrelated it is , on the surface, to the divorce case here: My cites (I’m not an attorney) are not 95 NY2d 95,100 (which sounds like an opinion), but show which case was cited. The divorce here resulted from a NY Medical Examiner’s initial diagnosis as an infant death as homicide by blunt instrument head trauma. At the time, the couple was married, and put through hell, particularly the father, who was fingered for this. Later, a re-examination of the child’s brain showed a brain aneurysm. Lauer v. City of NY sued over this. At the very high risk of losing reader’s attention here, I’m going to cite the (UNpublished) opinion on-line, so we see what the 10 words preceding a Supreme Court judge’s proclamation that willful interference with a custody order raises a strong probablility of parental unfitness:
2 No. 59
Edward G. Lauer,
Respondent,
v.
City of New York, et al.,
Appellants.
2000 NY Int. 62
May 16, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
Julian L. Kalkstein, for appellants.
Peter James Johnson, Jr., for respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
On this appeal we revisit a familiar subject: whether a member of the public can recover damages against a municipality for its employee’s negligence. Here we answer that question in the negative.
The Facts
Three-year-old Andrew Lauer died on August 7, 1993. That same day, Dr. Eddy Lilavois, a New York City Medical Examiner, performed an autopsy and prepared a report stating that the child’s death was a homicide caused by “blunt injuries” to the neck and brain. Although the report indicated that the brain was being preserved for further examination, the following day a death certificate was issued stating that Andrew’s death was a homicide. Based on the Medical Examiner’s conclusion, the police began investigating what they thought was a homicide, focusing primarily on plaintiff, Andrew’s father. Weeks later, on August 31, 1993, the Medical Examiner and a neuropathologist conducted a more detailed study of Andrew’s brain. The report, prepared in October 1993, indicated that a ruptured brain aneurysm caused the child’s death, thus contradicting the earlier conclusion. The Medical Examiner, however, failed to correct the autopsy report or death certificate, and failed to notify law enforcement authorities.
Meanwhile, the police department’s investigation into Andrew’s death continued. Some 17 months later, in March 1995, after a newspaper exposé, the autopsy findings were revised, the police investigation ceased and an amended death certificate was prepared. As a result of this incident, the City Medical Examiner who had conducted the examination resigned.
Plaintiff and his estranged wife subsequently commenced separate actions. Lisa Lauer’s action against the City of New York and Dr. Lilavois, seeking damages for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, was dismissed. In affirming the dismissal, the Appellate Division held that her allegations failed to establish “that she fell within any recognized orbit of duty upon which liability may be based” (see, Lauer v City of New York, 240 AD2d 543, 544, lv denied , 91 NY2d 807). {{ALWAYS RECOGNIZE THAT “ORBIT OF DUTY ON WHICH LIBABILITY MAY BE BASED.”}}
In the present action seeking $10 million in damages against the City of New York, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lilavois and the Police Department, plaintiff alleges defamation, violation of his civil rights, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claims that defendants’ conduct–including the Medical Examiner’s negligent performance of the autopsy, failure to correct the erroneous report and death certificate, and failure to disclose that Andrew’s death was not a homicide–“precipitated the destruction of [his] marriage * * * forced him to sell his home and leave his neighborhood, and caused him to become the object of public scorn, humiliation, ridicule, embarrassment, harassment and contempt throughout the City of New York.” He further alleges that he “sustained severe and debilitating emotional distress, emotional anguish, anxiety and mental suffering.”
On defendants’ motion, Supreme Court dismissed the defamation and civil rights causes of action, but allowed plaintiff to pursue his emotional distress claims. A divided Appellate Division modified Supreme Court’s order (see, 258 AD2d 92). All of the Justices agreed that the defamation and civil rights claims were properly dismissed. They also unanimously concluded that plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim warranted dismissal; that any causes of action based on performance of the initial autopsy were immunized as a governmental exercise of discretion; and that the Medical Examiner’s failure to correct the reports and accurately inform the authorities were “ministerial” acts. The Appellate Division divided, however, as to whether plaintiff could maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on those ministerial acts, a majority concluding that he could.
I don’t know if this was a custodial-father case, but the judge citing it here is TWO parents suing the city for damages on the basis of a Medical Examiner’s mistake, and failure to inform them of it. Wife was estranged at the time her appeal was she in 1993? Certainly there are more relevant cases in NY since then, however this judge cites one referring to an infant’s death, bad enough, being deemed a homicide, and tearing up the family’s subsequent decade as “consequential effect” before getting down to business, which is going to be ordering a recalcitrant, alienating ex-wife to jail. Here’s the sentence, again:
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….
inasmuch as a Court’s finding of willful interference “per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit” (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), whena pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conductmust [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.
Apparently 4 cites re: alienation are given. 4 to 1, weighing in on the nefariousness of alienation, and it as a basis for action in subsequent custody/parent access proceedings. Wonder if any of those involved a woman as the injured party..
I too think that parents unable to comply with custody orders EXCEPT for good cause (like, death threats — google “Judge Lemkau,” in California, or similar cases in almost any of the 50 states). However, in my case, it meant nothing, even though I’d been repeatedly bringing this up, and myself as a custodial parent (sole physical only) was fit, and never deemed unfit, til — when complying with a court order, my kids disappeared — overnight. And no court or law enforcement (or anyone else) did anything about it. That principle haveing been now thoroughly established, no subsequent court orders were obeyed more than coincidentally, including custody/visitation. At this time, I knew nothing of these programs to help with “Access/visitation” although I specifically (a year before kids were taken) asked a judge for a safer exchange alternative. . . .. However LAUREN & TED’s court order/Stip. is so vague and overbroad as to be ridiculous. At least the part cited here.
The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O’ bdoherty@chat.nyc.amlaw.corp Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. {{HOWEVER}} Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be “an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding – – the “strong likelihood of unfitness” becomes a “factor” that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.
Parental alienation is tied with UNFITNESS as a factor, although res judicata on alienation cannot be an issue in this custody change (as I get it). I tried to llok up “Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d (etc.) but so far, it’s mostly this case, a slap in the face that lists the wife as the “Ex-Wife from hell” and is featured on “Parental Alienation Canada.” Father’s Rights groups are rejoicing, and someone even took out a “laurenlippe.com” website where you can see the collateral press damage. Maybe I jumped on the wrong bandwagon here, but I am reading that divorce stipulation, and it just doesn’t look fair.
Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006;
{{At least this is honest, and says “Father” and not just “parent”}}
Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769. Under the circumstances of this case, this Court’s finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children’s best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.
J.R. Johnston is probably Janet Johnston. I have a post (older) of Lundy Bancroft debating some of her assessments as failing to identify potential abuse — on this blog.
So much to say, so little time. Well, I told you, “Alienation” ain’t going anywhere!
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties’ children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. {{Parts A 7 Parts B}} The Court granted defendant’s motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.
If she dished out hell, surely this scheduled was some of it back. How could a single hearing occupy so many days? Because someone can pay an attorney to be there, constantly? or two attorneys? And they put the rest of us through hell/mediation because the courts are clogged? 12 hearings in 4 months, summer 2008, then a year break (no summer vacation for THIS custodial mother with her kids), a ruling Sept. 2008 ordering a hearing and a year break. A hearing Sept. 2009, a season off court and 10 hearings in TWO months…Poor people don’t get this, but this is affecting poor people.
The parties’ Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from “alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant,” or to “hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so.” Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children’s education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to “exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact,” “to foster a feeling of affection,” and not to “do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children’s opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children’s love and affection for the [Defendant].”
I think most cases are set up for failure from the start. Mine was. Domestic violence precipitated the separation (no divorce action even involved. Despite this, frequent visitation (more than frequent), and so vaguely written a visitation order as to guarantee difficulties around exchanges. Joint legal custody — one cannot do “joint legal custody” with an abuser; there is no “we” anywhere in there. Case in point, the DV. Even before divorce was ever initiated we were handled as though it was just a family squabble, even though a restraining order AND kickout was granted.
Here, Ted apparently was fore-armed to protect any “emotional abuse” by how it was worded. Her own divorce stipulation had a strict prohibition on it, worded in very similar terms to a restraining order; in fact, it in effect was one. The phrase “or cause otehrs to do so,” is in protective orders. If we were a fly on the wall, and read the whole stipulation, would there be ANY prohibitions on the father? The admonition to “both” parents not to estrange the children’s opinion of the Father” is a contradiction. Why would the Father estrange his own children? That makes no sense. The stipulation “not to do ANYTHING which MAY estrange the children from (Dad) or injure their opinion of the Fatehr” — good grief. A woman is to predict their possible response to anything she does or says, at all? How can a court order a party to “foster a feeling of affection.” Define, please !!!
To sustain the defendant’s application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party’s rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both.
In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties’ stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.
. . . .
THE COURT’S ROLE IN ADDRESSING ALIENATION
Differing “alienation” theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent’s relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a “parent’s ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child,” a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the “interference with the non-custodial parent and child’s relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent.” See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793.
Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent’s right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009].
. . .
“In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007”
This is approximately one month and some weeks. It is NOTHING compared to what mothers have suffered, often for years, and often without remedy. While it’s wrong, I note that the father filed an OSC by December 14th, and got action on it quickly. I wonder, in those many, many hearings, whether Mom got to testify at all.
Here’s a paragraph of the judge judging her by her emotional affect in the courtroom, and interpreting it:
Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant’s role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant – – notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance – – hesitating and defensive – – with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. ***The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant’s joint custodial arrangement into farce.<+> The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible.<*>
She is wrong for being off-balance, hesitating, defensive (this is a hearing of a contempt, and protesting it is her proper stance as a litigant! Being “defensive” isn’t wrong in this situation! And anyone might hesitate in giving an answer in court! Particularly a mother being grilled…
However, a judge throwing around psychological interpretations and language, as if they were FACT (“answers that dovetailed to narcissism or a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct.”) — this is testimony outside his expertise. (Unless he switched “effects” to “affects”). He’s trying to sound psychological, and misused the words: “Affects” characterize people, not conduct. He’s over-reaching, and over-interpreting. Here’s yet another evidence of “interpretation” of effect (results) as per se being evidence of a single cause, when most effects of any sort can have more than one, or multiple contributing causes:
The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet “their” demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother’s therapist
Is it possible that they were angry because they could not attend F.A. or wanted to participate in therapy? While as minors, they do not get to “demand” anything of their father as a condition of visitation, this judge states that their anger is evidence per se of efforts to alienate.
I’d be sullen too, in any such hearing. But this judge holds it against her. The sentence between *** and <+> makes no sense. The litany was from the father. So, if the “litany” turned (repression of joint custody) into something, then the “litany” was the agent of making a farce. A litany is a religious term, and involves recitation.
“The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein was daunting” — i.e., Poor, brave, Dad, enduring severe emotional pain by having to recount how many times his rights were disregarded.
Poor brave Dad brought the custody action; someone helped this hearing on — and on, but recounting facts is innate to bringing any action. Also, I wonder why these facts weren’t simply written out in a Declaration supporting the OSC. Why the courtroom drama? No kudos to him for having to recount his own emotional pain. The grammar goes like this, of that sentence: “The endurance . . . . . was indefensible.” Endurance is good. The situation requiring this endurance is what the judge considers indefensible. ENDURANCE — good. INDEFENSIBLE — bad. Basically, the judge is offended.
In this paragraph “reading” the mother, the judge has mis-used “affects” and “litany,” diagnosed “narcissism” (without quoting the counselors in the case, assuming one was actually qualified to diagnose, and had done so, but based on HIS reading of it) and is starting to get his words mixed up. Maybe that’s one of his “affects.” Selfishness is a character trait. “Narcissism” is a different, more extreme term so over-used, it’s almost become meaningless except to reveal a speaker who thinks him- or herself a psychiatrist. DSM has become mainstreamed in MSM (mainstream media) and shows up in legal opinions. to lend an air of expertise or authority.
These kids will probably do OK, relative to others in similar predicaments. I bet they are fed, and they are well-educated. Consider (evidence of a contempt):
Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that “it was not her responsibility to make plans for T.”
Daughter “D.” is in a youth orchestra which performed in Alice Tulley Hall/Lincoln Center. Whatever else goes on between her parents (and stepdad) she has exposure to some other youth musicians, concertizing, and probably is able to talk with these kids as well. She will likely go to college and have a good shot at life as an adult. The “parental alienation” promotion was (ostensibly!) not aimed at families of this income level, though clearly emotional abuse affects everyone. I have seen worse behavior among rich people than poor, it seems, and the specialty can be forms of emotional abuse. . . . . In this particular incident, it seems to me that as a joint legal custodial parent, the father, being aware of this concert, might have texted the Mom — I’d like to see her afterwards, rather than just assumed he would, although certainly that was a reasonable assumption, that kids would stay. However, as these are elementary aged kids (or were, at some point in time, there may have been any number of reasons for leaving before it was out, even despite staff instructions.).
I omitted the central narrative, including accusations of breast-fondling and CPS involvement, which was met with retaliation for reporting by CPS.
From “Parental Alienation Canada” – the ex-wife from hell
Lippe [ALLEGEDLY] often went nuclear,
launching foul-mouthed tirades at Ted Rubin in front of the girls
— calling him a “deadbeat,” “loser,” “scumbag” and “f – – – ing asshole.”
Just wanted to note: what was the standard of proof in these hearings? Because when facts are quoted minus the attribution, by a judge (i.e., who said them) they become facts, in effect. Interpreting the word “deadbeat” was brought up — who paid for music lessons? Was this a stay-at-home Mom, or a working one?
In the relationships between people to psychologize without reference to what actually happened, in its larger context, is definitely tricky ground. In a custody switch to this Dad, is he working FT and remarried? Who would care for them during the week if not? Would they then lose any child support he was paying, or is she capable of putting in for it? Did any of this make the hearing (I’d bet not).
AGAIN, my blogging here is not to say this was a nice Mom or he was a bad Dad. She has plenty of hate mail, all over the internet, and I haven’t actually found a single positive word anywhere. So, I took the opposing side, and wanted to know how the jail thing happened to this women, but men who do worse, and go on to murder, are sprung from jail. Let’s get real about this system. The reality of their initial stipulation is, it was outrageous. that’s where the damage occurred.
Well, this is a 7,000 word post, and that’s enough for one post. Again — plenty of mothers are no longer seeing their kids, court order or no court order. What are our bankrupt options?
SHARE THIS POST on...
“PC278.5” Arresting Moms, at least, for Felony Child-Stealing…
http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htm
Parental Child Abduction
is Child Abuseby Nancy Faulkner, Ph.D
Presented to the
United Nations Convention on Child Rights
in Special Session, June 9, 1999,
on behalf of P.A.R.E.N.T.
and victims of parental child abduction.© Nancy Faulkner 1999-2006
Interesting: The NCJRS 
Seems to sort “child-stealing” under two main headings:
| Search results for: child-stealing | ||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
This would be coherent with the recent Click-Hill case, as the girl disappeared after allegations of child abuse. The other reason for child-stealing (see “Garrido,” and others) might be for personal sexual abuse by strangers, or prostituting kids.
Two reasons I can think of might be to protect a child, or to punish the other parent. Authorities ought to get which is which straight… (More on the NCJRS info towards end of this post)
pc 278.5 IS (California) Penal Code 278.5.
I have come to believe this law was written for men, not women, to get their kids back. I would like to hear of any California woman whose children of around that age were actually returned to her under this code.
We already know of women in this and other states who have been incarcerated for much lesser custodial interference (see Oconto, WI blog, and “Lorraine.” Or, Joyce Murphy.
http://custodyscam.blogspot.com/2009/06/joyce-murphy-accused-of-kidnapping-her.html
SO WHEN IS THIS LAW TAKEN SERIOUSLY, AND WHEN NOT?
It reads as follows:
http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/278.5.html
(a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,
or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a
right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be
punished 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.
Do you see the word “SHALL” in there?
Here’s 287.7, which indicates circumstances — unbelievably, it seems – -in which a parent or someone COULD take, entice, or conceal a child. It is to handle possible abuse or imminent harm to the child. (Child, FYI, is defined as under 18 in this law).
(a) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
(b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
“Emotional harm” includes having a parent who has committed domestic violence against the parent who is taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing the child.
(c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child shall do all of the following:
(1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of the district attorney of the county where the child resided before the action.
In other words, such a person shall, as an adult, give an account to the authorities of his or her reasons for the devastating action of removing a child from a parent.
NOW HERE WE ARE IN THE CLICK-HILL CASE, and a mother disappears with a daughter (mid-1990s, right when VAWA and NFI had gotten started), having accused the father of child molestation, after which he got (apparently) unsupervised time with the girl, again, then disappears.
Here’s an article by Robert Salonga:
Resurfacing of Walnut Creek girl highlights strains of parental abductions
By Robert Salonga
Contra Costa TimesPosted: 03/05/2010 04:45:10 PM PSTUpdated: 03/05/2010 05:35:35 PM PSTWALNUT CREEK — The arrest this week of a woman who took off with her 8-year-old daughter in 1995 during a child custody dispute is being lauded by police and missing child experts as an exceptional event.
In some ways, it wasn’t an exception at all.
Parental and family abductions account for nearly 97 percent of child abduction reports in the state. In Contra Costa County, all 29 abductions reported in 2008 involved family, and just one of the 64 reported in Alameda County that year was committed by a nonrelative.
Click said Friday that he divorced Wendy Hill in the early 1990s, and their relationship became estranged after he was granted primary custody of their daughter. When he went to pick her up from his ex-wife’s Redlands home in the summer of 1995, they had moved out. He never saw Jessica again, he said.
This sounds to me like a custody-switch; another version (below) says he got unsupervised visitation… There were allegations of child molestation, which is every bit as much a crime as child-stealing, but is often not handled as such in family law system.
Here’s another one…
Man waits to reunite with daughter
found 14 years after being abducted
as a 7-year-old by her mother
March 5, 2010 | 4:26 pmA woman who vanished 14 years ago with her 7-year-old daughter was arrested Tuesday in Monrovia and her daughter was located unharmed, authorities said Friday.
Wendy Hill, 52, was spotted at a local Claim Jumper restaurant and arrested on suspicion of abducting her own daughter.
Jessica Click-Hill, now 22, was contacted by authorities after the arrest. She is believed to be living out of state.
“I’m just so excited that Jessica is found and well and that, physically, she’s fine,” said the girl’s father, Dean Click. “She’s got family who haven’t gotten to be with her, to spend Christmas or Thanksgiving together, so we’re looking forward to reconnecting with each other.”
Click said that since his daughter is an adult, authorities will not release her contact information. “At this point, she will have to come to me,” he said.
The father said he and his ex-wife were in a custody dispute when Hill cleaned out her Redlands apartment in the fall of 1995 and left with the girl.
Click said he lived in Walnut Creek in Northern California at the time and for years had not been able to visit his daughter without a mediator present. [[he probably means supervised visitation. Mediation is something different.]] He said at the time he’d been accused of molesting his daughter, a claim he denied.
He said he ultimately was exonerated and that his rights were restored for full, unsupervised visits. On his first visit, he said he celebrated by bringing his parents along and taking Jessica out to lunch.
On his second visit, he said he arrived at the apartment complex and found that his ex-wife and daughter had left.
Authorities said Hill changed her name to Gail Jackson and moved from state to state. She was sighted outside Tampa, Fla., and at one point lived in Boston, authorities said.
A warrant was issued for her arrest in 1996 out of Contra Costa County, and the FBI issued its own warrant a year later.
Click said he kept in touch with authorities, but leads were few and far between. Then a tip came in several months ago from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the mother’s alias and her location, said Sgt. Tom Cashion of the Walnut Creek Police Department .
Hill flew to Los Angeles, apparently for a business meeting, and was picked up Tuesday at the Monrovia restaurant, Cashion said.
She has since been taken to Northern California, where she was being held on $250,000 bail.
Click said he was asked by prosecutors if he wanted to press charges.
“I said ‘yes’ because she’s been a thief and she’s taken away those years that I did not get to spend with my daughter,” Click said.
— Amina Khan
Here’s another version, from a blog apparently local to the area she was stolen from. March 4, 2010: This isn’t quite current — the mother is now out on bail.
WALNUT CREEK GIRL MISSING SINCE 1995 FOUND HEAR L.A.: MOM ARRESTED FOR ABDUCTION.
![[found.jpg]](https://familycourtmatters.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/4e352-found.jpg?w=700)
8-year-old Walnut Creek resident Jessica Click-Hill was allegedly abducted by her mom in 1995, and today, the Walnut Creek Police announced they found the girl, who’s now 22-years-old, and arrested her mom for parental abduction.The following is from the Walnut Creek Police….
Walnut Creek Police Detectives took Wendy D. Hill into custody for the parental abduction of her eight year old daughter Jessica Click-Hill in Los Angeles.
This case started in 1995 when Jessica’s father Dean Click reported to Walnut Creek Police that he believed his wife had abducted their child, Jessica. Detectives worked the case and in 1996, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Wendy Hill and an arrest warrant was issued for her PC 278.5.
In 1997, the FBI issued an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution warrant (UFAP warrant). Recently, Walnut Creek Police and the FBI were alerted by NCMEC regarding a possible location for Wendy Hill and Jessica.
WCPD and the FBI followed up on the information and started their search. On March 2, the FBI located Wendy Hill in Monrovia (Los Angeles County) and arrested her on their UFAP warrant.
Walnut Creek Detectives were immediately sent to Los Angeles where they took custody of Wendy Hill.
The FBI has also located and made contact with Jessica.
Early this morning, detectives booked Wendy Hill into the Martinez Detention Facility in Martinez and she is being held on $250,000 bail.
(THIS WOMAN HAS SINCE BEEN RELEASED)..
The “California Family Institute” founder boasts (on the site) how he was one of the first to get a substantial reward under this law… Here’s the resume…(portions of it):
MICHAEL KELLY, ESQ. RESUME:Martindale Hubbell A.V. (VERACITY, Highest Possible Lawyer Rating by Judges and Peers, Preeminent National Lawyer Directory Listing):
California Divorce Attorney, Best interest of Child Advocate, Accomplished Victorious Lawyer:
I. Professional Leadership (42 Years Family Law Experience):
- Chairman of American Bar Custody Committee 2003
- Chairman of CA State Bar Custody & Visitation Comm., two terms
- Chairman of CA Trial Lawyers – Family Law Section Mem. Comm.
- Chairman of American Bar Association – Family Law, Law Practice Economics Committee
- Chairman of American Bar Interstate Custody Task Force Committee; UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act)
- Chairman of American Bar Association – Family Law, Practical Use of Computers Committee
- Chairman of California Family Law Institute
- Chairman of California Custody Commission
- Chairman of Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce – Legal Committee
- Chairman of Santa Monica Bar Association – Family Law Committee, Three Terms
- Judge Pro Tem in Los Angeles County Superior Family Law Courts 20-years
- Family Law Mediator in Santa Monica, Torrance & LA Central District Superior Courts, 24-years
- Executive Member of the American Bar Association – Continuing Education Committee
- Executive Member of the American Bar Association – Economics of Practice Committee
- Secretary of California State Bar – Custody & Visitation Committee, Two Terms
- Produced and Moderated a Course on Negotiations – 1988 Joint Meeting of California State Bar, Child Custody, Support and Division of Property Committees
II. Legal Achievements:
- First CA attorney to try a Grandparents’ rights suit (January 1970) (Petrikin)
- First CA attorney appointed by children to represent them as individuals (June 1984) (Ryan)
- First CA attorney to file suit against an abducting parent under Penal Code 278.5, for $2.5 Million (1985)
- Largest child abduction award litigated in the United States, $12.4 Million (July 1993) (Wang)
- Rewrote and expanded CA Civil Code 4606, “Children’s right to an attorney” (1985), expanding childrens rights to an attorney (Ryan)
III. Teacher:USC Law School, Advanced Family Law & Divorce Litigation classes. All courses have been certified and accredited by the California State Bar Family Law Specialization Committee for attorney certification as family law specialist since 1986 to present.
While I’m at it, let me point out this site was SPECIFICALLY called a site addressed to MEN on an information sheet at a law library near a courthouse in Northern California. Look at the connections this person has, and the functions he has worked, in the family law venue. It is unbelievably interwoven…
This is the same site, where, while women are being told that conflict is bad, and if they have “conflict” with their ex, their heads need to be examined (let us appoint someone official, that we have trained), while apart from this, sites friendly to fathers have pages like this one:
.
Evil unanswered, is evil supported. You cannot allow evil to exist, and you cannot fight it with evil. Evil resisted by evil means, contaminates the resistor. The end that justifies the means is an imperfect and flawed concept. No end justifies evil, hurtful, injurious and mean behavior to others or against innocence.
The very concept of mediation and supervised visitation, parenting plans, etc., in the family venue is a brainchild of increasing noncustodial parent visitation time, when due process, fact-gathering, and evidence wouldn’t. The Family Law venue IS a violation of due process, and it IS a venue where the end (“required outcome– more noncustodial parent time [[noncustodial parent being, “father,” as far as the intent of such programs]] justifies the means, and as such, might be characterized as “evil.” IF the concept is justice, and due process.
Evil flourishes by creating distraction, misdirection, trust, ease, inattention, enjoyment, false pride, etc. If one were asked, “What do you do?”, the answer could ask “I wage war against evil, in all of its myriad forms and colorations, at all times, places and at all costs.”
You cannot face evil on impulse; it thrives on such action. You cannot defeat evil with anger . . . anger makes evil burn brighter. You can only cut down evil with cold, fierce force driven by the vision of right, honor, truth, and godliness. Evil is so opposed to these forces that anything else simply exacerbates the evil.
Evil is heartless by necessity. Both it and the person possessed by it see circumstances and events with the view of a malignant narcissist. All things that do not agree with their view of the world are immediately labeled “Deadly Opponents” in an opposition to the self-appointed right of the evil person to their sole view of what is right and wrong, what is proper behavior and what is not, what should and should not be said, or done . . . how things should or should not be done.
Question:
SO when is a crime not a crime? Or a law against felony child-stealing not a felony or not applicable?
Answer:
When someone in authority says it’s not. And that’s up to whoever decides to prosecute, or, alternately, decides NOT to prosecute. This is NOT up to the parent, but to the reporting officers, and after that, the D.A.
When it is bounced to family law, and ends up as a check mark on a mediator’s report form.
I just searched the well-known “NCJRS” on “Child-stealing” and got these results. notice — they aren’t exactly “current,” for the most part (note years).
| Results in Publications (Abstracts Only) | ||
| Parental Child–Stealing | ||
| NCJ 078760, M W Agopian, 1981, (157 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Parental Child Stealing – California’s Legislative Response | ||
| NCJ 074911, M W Agopian, Canadian Criminology Forum, 3, 1, 1980, 37-43, (7 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Epidemic of Child–Stealing – What Can Be Done? | ||
| NCJ 080631, B W Most, Current, 194, 1977, 40-44, (5 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Problems in the Prosecution of Parental Child Stealing Offenses (From Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1979, S 105 – Addendum, P 76-87, 1980 – See NCJ-77752) | ||
| NCJ 077753, M W Agopian, 1980, (12 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Characteristics of Parental Child Stealing (From Crime and the Family, P 111-120, 1985, by Alan J Lincoln and Murray A Straus – See NCJ-98873) | ||
| NCJ 098879, M W Agopian; G L Anderson, 1985, (10 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| CHILD STEALING – A TYPOLOGY OF FEMALE OFFENDERS | ||
| NCJ 036248, P T D’ORBAN, BRITISH JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY, 16, 3, 1976, 275-281, (7 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Child Stealing by Cesarean Section: A Psychiatric Case Report and Review of the Child Stealing Literature | ||
| NCJ 140929, S H Yutzy; J K Wolfson; P J Resnick, Journal of Forensic Sciences, 38, 1, 1993, 192-196, (5 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
| Parental Child Stealing – Participants and the Victimization Process | ||
| NCJ 085267, M W Agopian, Victimology, 5, 2-4, 1982, 263-273, (11 pages). | ||
| NCJRS Abstract | ||
Here are Miscellaneous Abstracts and characterizations from these ties:
FROM “typology of Female Offenders.” Kinda reminds you of Chesler “Women & Madness…”
| Annotation: | CASE STUDIES ARE PRESENTED AND DISCUSSED FOR FOURTEEN ENGLISH CHILD–STEALING OFFENDERS – MOST OF WHOM ARE EITHER PSYCHOTIC, SUB-NORMALLY INTELLIGENT, OR SUFFERING FROM PERSONALITY DISORDERS. |
| Abstract: | ‘CHILD–STEALING‘ IS DEFINED UNDER ENGLISH LAW AS THE UNLAWFUL TAKING AWAY OR ENTICING OF A CHILD UNDER THE AGE OF 14 YEARS WITH INTENT TO DEPRIVE THE PARENT OR GUARDIAN OR ANY OTHER PERSON HAVING THE LAWFUL CARE OF THE CHILD, OR WITH INTENT TO STEAL ANY ARTICLE FROM THE CHILD. |
| Index Term(s): | Case studies; Child abuse; Crimes against children; England; Female offenders; Kidnapping; Mentally ill offenders |
(I beg your pardon, but due to internet access time, I’m simply copying and pasting. Better option — check the links yourself).
Language: English Annotation: Analysis of parental child–stealing cases in Los Angeles reveals that this crime occurs after a divorce action and following a period of compliance with court-ordered visitation privileges. Abstract: Study data came from cases screened for prosecution by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office between July 1977 and June 1978, the first year in which California law made this activity illegal. A total of 91 cases were examined. The crime generally involved young Caucasians, with fathers generally abducting children from mothers awarded custody. The crimes occurred equally throughout the seasons of the year, but took place more often on weekend days than during the week. The parents communicated after the child theft in almost half the cases. The communication usually involved announcing the offender’s intention to keep the child, trying to influence the severed relationship, or justifying the crime. Surprise abductions and use of force were rare. Although just over half the abductions took place within 18 months of the divorce, 37 percent occurred 2 or more years after the divorce. The child stealing reflected the offender’s desire to maintain a full-time relationship with the child and to help reestablish the marital relationship. Additional California and national data suggest that about 1 child theft occurs annually for every 22 divorces. Further research should focus on other jurisdictions and other aspects of child stealing. One note, data tables, and 22 references are supplied. Index Term(s): California; Child snatching; Crimes against children; Family offenses
IN OTHER WORDS, the young Caucasian fathers didn’t want their women to leave them, so to keep the mother attached, they stole the kids. Nice… It’s not necessarily that they loved the child, or were concerned about his or her welfare.
1980: Parental Child Stealing – California’s Legislative Response
. . . Prior to July 1, 1977, California law had provided that the father and mother of a legitimate unmarried minor child were equally entitled to custody, services, and earnings.
What is a “legitimate” unmarried minor child? One whose parents were married?
Because parents had equal rights, neither parent was in violation of the law, civil or criminal, by taking and concealing the child in the absence of a court order giving custody to a particular parent. On July 1, 1977 the California legislature transferred child stealing from the civil to the criminal jurisdication and toughened sanctions and legal procedures dealing with child stealing. This California legislation is a significant effort toward clarifying numerous legal discrepancies and oversights wich have prompted parents to employ child stealing as an extra-legal method of securing their children.
I find it interesting that child-stealing went from CIVIL to CRIMINAL.
Now, depending on the context, and the prosecutors, it appears to me to be going straight back to CIVIL where protective parents (typically but not always mothers) are involved…. This was my case. It was treated like a minor blip on the radar by a “mediator.” I put the word in quotes, because what happened to us wasn’t “mediation” in any sense of the word, but a bypass of the judicial process, which otherwise would have shown missing kids!
When I search adding the word “parental kidnapping,” results differ:
Parental Abduction: A Review of the Literature NCJ 190074, Janet Chiancone, 2000, OJJDP, (13 pages). Overall, the research on parental abductions indicates that this type of crime can be traumatic for both children and left-behind parents and that the longer the separation continues the more damaging the experience becomes.
THAT would be an understatement!
(some reformatting added 2017Aug ,when I approved a comment that had mistakenly been overlooked. FYI, comments on this blog are few and far between, despite the number of views or followers showing on the front sidebar. I was working hard on current posts (this one now about 7 years old), which takes a lot of focus, and am less active on my own email. I’ll try and remember to check it more recently for submitted comments from now on… //LGH.).
SHARE THIS POST on...
When Judges Ignore Evidence, and Women’s Gut Instincts, Again…
I don’t know that reporting problems is going to change them. Our society is becoming immune, rapidly, but there is clearly a VIEWPOINT divide between the potential victims and those charged — at public expense — with protecting them.
MY common sense says, don’t lean on the broken posts to protect onesself. What the other legal options are is clearly up to each individual — or relative/friend of someone being stalked — to figure out.
WOMEN TARGETED BY STALKERS NEED MORE SELF-DEFENSE TRAINING AND EMPOWERMENT, if not some EQUIPMENT, too, and LESS TRAINING IN RISK-TAKING BEHAVIORS, SUCH AS SEEKING HELP THROUGH PROTECTION ORDERS.
Among the SELF-DEFENSE measures available — sometimes — can include, if possible — LEAVING THE AREA. Is it better to be totally uprooted, even poor — but alive? Or well-grounded and respected in the community, hoping the powers that be will do what they are supposed to do, and staying, until caught by a stalker who went over the edge, or got tired of playing cat and mouse, and went to endgame mode… Like in the incident reported below.
Again, an “ORDER” is a piece of paper issued by the judge. It does not possess magical powers.
When a piece of paper comes up against a person intent on stalking and making sure no one else gets a woman, no matter what, that person is going to get what (he) wants unless he is behind bars. Even from then, there’s the potential to incite others of similar mentality.
There’s a real backlash against assertive women in religious circles, at a minimum. Well, if we can’t be assertive in these situations, what is the option?
From the site Anne Caroline Drake.com
This site has organized commentary and detailed summaries on news events. These posts are worth checking regularly, particularly if my lack of spell-checking is a hard read.
Teacher Murdered by Stalker while Legislature Bickers
Friday morning, February 26, Jed Ryan Waits waited two hours outside Birney Elementary for Ms. Paulson to come to work at 7:30 AM. She was with a colleague. Without saying a word, he fired three shots and killed Ms. Paulson. The fire department arrived within seven minutes to find Ms. Paulson bleeding profusely, but there was nothing they could do to save her life.
Within a half hour, a deputy spotted Waits’ car and pulled him over. Ironically, it was at a day care parking lot in Frederickson. When Waits fired at the officer, the deputy returned fire and killed him.
Four hundred children go to Birney Elementary. The newspapers didn’t say how many kids were already at the daycare center.
What were the options?
Get her a bullet proof vest, and wear it daily?
MOVE, and change her identity, including name and social security #? Her stalker had military training, and was persistent. He’d met her in college!!
This isn’t even an intimate partner relationship. However, the theme of stalking IS family court matter, and so I find it relevant. Continuing, from this website:
Pierce County and Olympia: What if Jennifer Had Been YOUR Daughter?
Pierce County has a very long history of callous disregard toward domestic violence. They didn’t lock up domestic violence perpetrators Tacoma Chief of Police David Brame or the DC Sniper or Isaiah M.K. Kalebu or Maurice Clemmons or Darrel Street or David E. Crable or dozens of other people they knew or should have known would kill.
Judge Thomas Felnagle refused to grant bail to a couple of punks who savagely murdered a stray dog, but he let Maurice Clemmons go home to further terrorize his 12-year-old step-daughter, who he allegedly raped. Maurice Clemmons assassinated four cops in Lakewood while out on bail.
The legislature got all excited when David E. Crable, who had been abusing his 16-year-old daughter for years, killed a deputy sheriff and wounded his partner. Crable’s daughter Bryona had to rescue the cops {{SEE BELOW}} who were supposed to be protecting her.
Legislature Bickers and Keeps the Status Quo Firmly Entrenched
Did the legislators in Olympia focus on the domestic violence underlying these killing sprees? Hell, no! Did they try to pass a law to deny bail to domestic violence perpetrators? Hell no!
The law enforcement task force focused on protecting the cops rather than people experiencing domestic violence. Gov. Christine Gregoire, who perpetually evidences callous disregard for domestic violence, according to the Seattle Times:
The original bill proposed by Gov. Chris Gregoire would have let judges deny bail if they determined that the suspect posed a public safety risk, but in order to get enough support in the House, the criteria was narrowed to those who would face a maximum sentence of life without the possibility of parole and if the suspect is considered dangerous.
By the time the bill got to the state senate, Judiciary Committee Chairman Adam Kline, who also has his head up his ass, said:
A prediction of violence is a shot in the dark right now. We’re not going to have judges deny a consititutional right on a hunch.
(HERE”s MY rant on that). He happens to be right on the matter of PREDICTING violence. That’s what the experts do, and want us to participate in helping them do. Here’s a new one from Michigan I became aware of recently:
http://www.biscmi.org/thelethalityequation/index.html
And here’s the sales plug. Notice: WHO (to “whom”) is it addressed?
- Do you feel like there is more to evaluation than current assessment tools provide, but you’re not sure where to turn?
Are your current lethality assessments and abuse histories enough to adequately understand and predict future intimate partner violence and sexual assault?
Would you like to learn more about what to assess with individual perpetrators within your community? - If so, join us at this training and learn more about personality issues among those who are violent and abusive to others.
Not to minimize the research and expertise that went into exploring this, but WHY should I want to know more about personality issues among those who are violent and abusive to others. Isn’t this information already available by listening to their victims? What benefit will a new set of vocabulary to describe what we already know “dangerous” is? HUH?
What does a large cat predator do before the kill? It stalks!
So how much more does one need to fine-tune that, rather than get that woman protection, including if necessary OUT of there?
Yeah, Anne Caroline is right to be on a rant (and I’m out of time, also).
However, since constitutional rights aren’t going to be infringed upon (when it comes to certain profiles of people), we’ll just have to go back a little further than this Constitution, I guess, and remember some INALIENABLE RIGHTS, the FIRST one of which is to LIFE. That’s physical, breathing and not having that breathing stopped violently or suddenly by force. Then LIBERTY. Being stalked compromises one’s freedom to wander about at will, freedom that people NOT being stalked may take for granted but we (yes, I said “we”) can’t.
In this country, women attempting to leave violent relationships involving children for the most part CAN’T. They have to show up again and again and fork over either more funds for court-appointed professionals, or court-associated professionals, OR if they can’t afford this, they too often have to fork over their children to the batterer, or the state.
Just like the anti-harrassment orders in This case (resulting in one dead woman), that too is regardless of court orders.
This is where the “cult of the experts” leads to, logically speaking. IF “we” (collectively) are going to farm out the basic things of life:
- Thinking
- Self-Defense training for ALL
- Knowing how our legal and economic systems really work, for ALL (male & female, rich and poor)
- Raising our young and educating them
- Governing ourselves.
- Restraining people close to us from violence
- Also entertaining ourselves without pornography, excesses of drugs, alcohol, violence, or simply mind-numbing idiocy (sometimes I’m not sure which is worse)
- Respecting people of other faiths or no faith, by which I mean, not trying to press OUR views onto OTHERS’ kids — and this is going to require a hard look at the school system also. The message is in the system, not just the supposed content of it. These schools are war zones, and the response is too often to blame the parents. Parents then blame the schools. Well, come on folks, it’s an interactive system!
- Living moderately and requiring that our politicians and leaders ALSO do.
- Health, Welfare, and things pertaining to general HUMANITY
Then what kind of country is this?
Rep. Mike Hope and Rep. Chris Hurst, who are former cops, went ballistic. Rep. Hurst told the Seattle Times:
I can’t remember a time when a couple folks sat down behind closed doors and didn’t talk to their colleagues, didn’t talk to the law-enforcement community.
We will not leave this session without this legislation. This is the most important piece of criminal-justice legislation in decades.
Amen.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing a half hour after Ms. Paulson was gunned down. I’m willing to bet they still didn’t get it.
We the People get it. And, we’re mad as hell at your callous disregard for our safety and welfare.
Click on her links and learn how the abused daughter protected the cop.
Here’s a sample, as summarized on same website:
Deborah Horne onKIRO7 has just reported that Pierce County deputy sheriff Walter “Kent” Mundell passed away this evening at 5:04 p.m.
He had been on life support at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle since being gunned down during a domestic violence call near Eatonville in Pierce County, WA on December 21.
NOTE: shortly before the holidays…
Police officers had been keeping a 24/7 vigil at the hospital.
Last night there was a candlelight vigil at the LA Fitness outlet in Puyallup, WA where deputy Mundell worked out.
His partner, Sgt. Nick Hausner, visited him at Harborview after he was released last week from Madigan Army Medical Center at Ft. Lewis, WA.
Sgt. Hausner credited Bryona Crable, the 16 year-old daughter of David E. Crable (the perpetrator who gunned down the deputies), with saving his life.
Apparently, she courageously jumped her father during the close-range shoot-out and took his gun away before he was fatally wounded by deputy Mundell. Her aunt and uncle pulled Sgt. Hausner to safety.
HERE is a SEATTLE TIMES account of this incident, in which a pro-active teenager saved what could easily have been more lives, although her own father and eventually a police officer died. THIS FAMILY knew more about the “danger assessment” of their relative David Crable than, apparently, a Pierce County Superior Court judge, which shows up in prior sentencing to “parenting classes.” When in doubt, a parenting class will stop bullets, abuse, and change behavior for sure. Do you think the policy of assigning parenting classes to men who are terrorizing their family is going to change just because it resulted in deaths of a cop, and in essence, Suicide by cop, this time?
Bryona Crable, 16, whose dad shot 2 deputies, is a heroine, possibly saving Sgt. Nick Hausner’s life
December 27, 2009 – 16-year old Bryona Crable is being called a ‘herione’, {spelled like that?] according to The Seattle Times. She didn’t just stand by and watch as her father opened fire on two unsuspecting Pierce County Sheriff’s deputies who were at her home responding to a family violence call. Instead she grabbed her father, pushed him to the floor, possibly avoiding additional gunshots from being fired, and possibly saving Sgt. Nick Hausner’s life.
Deputy Kent Mundell, 44, was shot multiple times by Bryona’s father, David E. Crable, 35. Mundell was able to fire back and kill David Crable. According to Ed Troyer, Spokesman for Pierce County Sheriff’s, Mundell now remains in ‘grave’ critical condition. He is on life support at Harborview Medical Center.
During the shoot-out David Crable was hit. His daughter, Bryona, “jumped on her dad and fought him for his gun,” Troyer said. “He went down and never got up again.”
Bryona ran outside to get help from neighbors and to call 911. She and Jason’s girlfriend, Bridget Warren, protected Hausner by dragging him to another room, barring the door, and administering first aid, “while Bryona went for help.”
“She’s absolutely a hero, but she’s also a victim. She witnessed her dad being shot,” Troyer said. “She’s had a bad life at her dad’s hands. She saw her dad shoot two deputies and she stood up and did the right thing and tried to help our guys.”
The Seattle Times reported that Bryona has been in the middle of family fights involving her father whose life, according to court records, was plagued by alcohol and violence.
After the shooting Edward, David’s brother, Bryona, and Warren, were forced to leave their Eatonville home with ‘little more than their clothes’. The property has been ‘torn to pieces’ during the criminal investigation. According to Warren, it took more than two days for them to even retrieve their cell phones.
“We’re going minute by minute,” Warren said Thursday morning. “Obviously, we can’t go back to our house, so at this point, everything’s up in the air.”
The three have been staying with friends due to a lack of relatives in the area. They are trying to figure out what to do about a funeral for their troubled relative, David E. Crable.
Background of sentencing? (Maroon print, below, from HERE):
Callous Indifference to Domestic Violence Reigns in Pierce County
Gimme a break. Let’s review the myriad opportunities various government officials had to stop Crable:
- Spring, 2007: Crable was hospitalized after threatening suicide. He was arrested on domestic violence charges against his mother and daughter.
- June or July, 2007: Crable’s brother Jason sought a protection order against David because he had threatened “to kill my dogs and damage my car. .We started talking and he started to get upset then started yelling. . .he was going to ruin my life and do anything to possible to mess up my move.” This was a clear indication that Crable was a pit bull abuser.
- February, 2008: Crable was charged with DUI, fined $966, and sentenced to 24 hours of community service.
- May 18, 2009: Patsy Jo Crable (his 71 year-old mother) asked for a restraining order against her son David: “I am afraid in my own home with him because of the many guns he owns. . .before I left home, he was always threating suicide, and told his daughter he wanted to die. . .The altercations have escalated. This constant threat of what he’s going to do has caused me great stress. I have a heart condition, and he constantly gets in my face and tells me he wants me to die.” She described him as armed, suicidal, violent, and abusing drugs.
- May 28, 2009: Crable was arrested at his mother’s home after getting into a fight with his brother, choking his daughter, threatening to punch her in the face, and pointing a knife at her. All four of the tires on his brother’s car were slashed. This was the first police standoff.
- June 25, 2009: Crable pleaded guilty to a third-degree malicious mischief, to unlawful display of a weapon, and to unlawful carrying of weapons in Pierce County Superior Court. Judge Vicki Hogan suspended his sentence, put him on two years of probation, and ordered him to pay $800 in fines and court costs, to have no hostile contact with his brother Jason, and to take parenting classes.
OK — did you GET THAT? They finally arrest the suicidal, assaulting people, threatening people, property damage people who is totally out of control, and escalating, has access to weapons (which kill people, right?) and a (female, but that may not really be as relevant as the system that spawned judges that come up with “solutions” like this) says “be a good boy now, and take some nice, friendly, parenting classes.”
Should we fast forward to the latest AFCC conference about the REAL CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER is not enough funds for court-associated professionals to do MORE parenting classes and behavioral modification programs ??? Sure, yeah…
- June, 2009: Child Protective Services (CPS) received a complaint that Crable had assaulted his 15 year old daughter. The allegations were deemed to be “founded,” but nobody at CPS did anything to protect his daughter.
- November 14, 2009: Crable was arrested for a DUI.
- Pierce County prosecutor Mark Lindquist said multiple protection orders were issued against Crable: “They are a result of people saying this guy is a danger to me. I think you can reasonably infer from his history, he had an alcohol problem.”
Crable obviously had more than a problem with alcohol. But, Lindquist, Troyer, and the judges in Pierce County minimize and trivialize evidence in domestic violence cases. Perpetrators get a slap on the wrist. Crable, for example, was never charged with a felony despite abundant evidence that his long history of terrorizing his family was escalating. He was, therefore, allowed to own guns. His victims survived the best they could with nothing but a piece of paper to protect them.
Crable’s daughter wasn’t the only terrified teenager in Pierce County in 2009. Maurice Clemmons’ daughter was similarly left unprotected after her daddy raped her until her daddy assasinated four Lakewood cops. Then, the system pulled out all the stops to arrest him. The people who allegedly aided and abetted him before he was murdered by a Seattle cop are facing serious jail time.
THE QUESTION IS NOT, IS THIS NOW ROUTINE? THE QUESTION IS, WHAT ARE PEOPLE WHO CARE ABOUT THOSE CLOSE TO THEM GOING TO DO, IN LIGHT OF THIS INFORMATION?
Here’s from the Pierce County, WA, website (I went there and searched on “domestic violence.”) They have a Domestic Violence Diversion Coordinator . . . . This is about their Domestic Violence Unit 
The Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Domestic Violence Unit was established in 1995 in order to more effectively stem the tide of what is a very serious and harmful crime to society.
That’s apparently why, when it occurs, the perpetrator can get “parenting classes and probation…”
The Unit is comprised of detectives and deputies whose responsibility it is to investigate domestic violence related crimes including assaults, property damage, court order violations, rapes, threats, custodial interference, and others. Additionally, Unit members serve as liaison to health care providers, advocacy groups and social agencies to improve identification and reporting of existing instances of domestic violence and develop prevention strategies linking law enforcement and community efforts. We review cases to more quickly identify high rate offenders and high rate victims and direct coordinated intervention efforts toward these groups. We identify high rate locations for domestic violence, especially multi-family housing units. We work with patrol, crime-free multi-unit housing coordinators and social service agencies to focus on early, comprehensive attention to cases of domestic violence.
The Unit also serves arrest warrants and develops new, innovative programs to help deal with domestic violence.
Should you have any questions about the Pierce County Sheriff’s Department Domestic Violence Unit or wish to contact us for any reason, please call us at (253) 798-6516.
?? ??? ???
They also have one of those “family justice centers” that are now becoming commonplace.
 |
 |
|
The Crystal Judson Family Justice Center will work collaboratively to achieve the following objectives:
|
|
|
|
The Crystal Judson Family Justice Center (FJC) opened in December, 2005. Over 800 clients were served the first year of operation. Many of these clients have been to the FJC more than once. Our service providers handled 1200 client visits to the FJC during this time period. The FJC was created as a result of an interlocal agreement between the City of Tacoma and Pierce County. The City and the County jointly fund the FJC. An Executive Board oversees the operation of the FJC and is comprised of two County Council members and two City Council members and a fifth person of their choosing. The FJC was named in honor of Crystal Judson Brame. In addition to funding from the City and the County, the FJC has received financial contributions from the City of Lakewood, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the Tacoma/Pierce County Health Department, the City of University Place, the City of Gig Harbor, and the Federal Government. |
=================
Oh well . . . .
SHARE THIS POST on...
Don’t Box Me In…. or Shut Me Up…
Eve Ensler, as quoted by Anne Caroline Drake
We Silence Girl Power
When Ms. Ensler debuted her new idea at the TED India conference in November, 2009, she addressed how we silence girls’ authentic voices ~ tell them not to show their brilliance ~ tone it down ~ don’t be too intense. We sell them and objectify them and turn them into commodities to be bought and sold. In essence, we render them invisible.
She also shared how her violent father ordered her not to cry while she was being beaten because it exposed his brutality to him. He didn’t want to see it ~ didn’t want to be reminded.
Girl Power is silenced by patriarchy power.
Girls are initiated into society via a process intended to crush, eradicate, annihilate, humiliate, belittle, censor, reduce, and kill off their voices. [1]
Our compassion, empathy, passion, intensity, emotions, vulnerability, intuitive intelligence, and vision are silenced. We forget that compassion informs wisdom and vulnerability is our greatest strength.
Mandate to Please Girls are conditioned to please ~ to do what someone else wants them to do rather than to be authentic.
Ms. Ensler told CBS’ Early Show this morning that she believes girls stay in violent relationships because that’s what their boyfriends want: I think often when girls stay with boys, it isn’t always because they want to be beat up, it’s because they’re feeling their [boyfriend’s] sorrow, or they’re feeling their insecurity, or they’re feeling their grief, or they’re feeling something boys don’t feel. So they’re overcompensating for that.
One of the monologues, “Dear Rihanna,” is devoted to teenage girls’ reaction to the dating abuse Rihanna experienced from Chris Brown.
V-Girls Revolution Ms. Ensler is calling all girls to claim our emotions, break the silence, and unleash our feminine energy. She wants to shift the focus from a mandate to please to a mandate to educate, activate, engage, confront, defy, and create.
She believes girl power can save the world. In the book’s epilogue, she issues a Manifesta:
Everyone’s making everything up
There is no one in charge except for those
who pretend to be
No one is coming
No one is going to
Rescue you. . .
Always fight back
Ask for it
Say you want it. . .
Why am I waiting
Whining
Pining
Fitting in?
Ayaan Ali Hirsi.
The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam
Its Preface is short, and worth reading.
In response to ongoing abuses of women’s rights in the name of fundamentalist Islam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her supporters established the AHA Foundation in 2007 to help protect and defend the rights of women in the West against militant Islam.
Through education, outreach and the dissemination of knowledge, the Foundation aims to combat several types of crimes against women, including female genital mutilation, forced marriages, honor violence, and honor killings.
The Foundation is opposed to the adoption of dual legal systems to adjudicate family disputes in religious families and supports the separation of all religions and the State.
The AHA Foundation works to reinforce the following basic rights: the rights of women and girls to security and control of their own bodies, the rights of women and girls to an education, the rights of women to work outside the home and to control their own income, the rights of women and girls to freedom of expression and association, and the rights of women and girls to other basic civil rights of citizens and residents defined under the laws of Western democracies and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, regardless of sexual identification.
Founding member, Ayaan Hirsi Alli
As a 501(c)3 organization under the Internal Revenue Code of the U.S., the Foundation only accepts charitable and philanthropic contributions and does not sell products of any kind.
Click here to learn more about the AHA Foundation.
WHAT DO WE KNOW? Click here to download facts and figures on the circumstances affecting Muslim girls and women in the United States.
Where Fist, Feet and Faith Collide
Diego Sanchez before a bout in Memphis.
Mr. Renken’s ministry is one of a small but growing number of evangelical churches that have embraced mixed martial arts — a sport with a reputation for violence and blood that combines kickboxing, wrestling and other fighting styles — to reach and convert young men, whose church attendance has been persistently low. Mixed martial arts events have drawn millions of television viewers, and one was the top pay-per-view event in 2009.
Recruitment efforts at the churches, which are predominantly white, involve fight night television viewing parties and lecture series that use ultimate fighting to explain how Christ fought for what he believed in. Other ministers go further, hosting or participating in live events.
The goal, these pastors say, is to inject some machismo into their ministries — and into the image of Jesus — in the hope of making Christianity more appealing. “Compassion and love — we agree with all that stuff, too,” said Brandon Beals, 37, the lead pastor at Canyon Creek Church outside of Seattle. “But what led me to find Christ was that Jesus was a fighter.”
The outreach is part of a larger and more longstanding effort on the part of some ministers who fear that their churches have become too feminized, promoting kindness and compassion at the expense of strength and responsibility.
“The man should be the overall leader of the household,” said Ryan Dobson, 39, a pastor and fan of mixed martial arts who is the son of James C. Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, a prominent evangelical group. “We’ve raised a generation of little boys.”
These pastors say the marriage of faith and fighting is intended to promote Christian values, quoting verses like “fight the good fight of faith” from Timothy 6:12. Several put the number of churches taking up mixed martial arts at roughly 700 of an estimated 115,000 white evangelical churches in America. The sport is seen as a legitimate outreach tool by the youth ministry affiliate of the National Association of Evangelicals, which represents more than 45,000 churches.
The Church is segregated enough. Rich congregations, poor congregations. White and black. English, Spanish, Korean, et al. We shouldn’t have a schism over personality types. I know in the subconscious that we’re attracted to like-types, but the Body of Christ has many types and we all need to join together to work together.But aside from simply being offended by their derogatory language, there is great danger in redefining the Gospel of Peace. This happens by projecting certain personality traits onto Christ Jesus. In order to sell their case these men try to define our Savior as a rough-and-tumble character who liked fighting and pain. They say being sensitive is a feminine trait not fitting for men, so Jesus wasn’t sensitive. Gentleness is also excluded from Christ’s manly character. Driscoll has a slogan, “Meek. Mild. As if.” slamming the characterization of Christ as either of these things, regardless of Christ’s proclamation that “the meek shall inherit the earth.”
This isn’t the first time a masculine movement has tried to redefine the Church. When the Germanic barbarians controlled much of the Northern Holy Roman Empire, the (beer drinking) barbarians wouldn’t accept “a God I could beat up” because of their warrior culture. To “Christianize” the Germans, the Church adapted to this culture turning Jesus into a warrior, Heaven became Valhalla, and the disciples became Christ’s warriors. The Germanic tribes were indeed converted, but Christianity became a militarized religion as a result. Centuries later you will never guess who drew on this Jesus as a warrior model in the 1930s to create a masculine, nationalistic movement in Germany. If you guessed Adolf Hitler, you’d be right. He drew on the Germanic folklore, blended with Christ, to create the Aryan race. He called Jesus his “Lord and Savior” and “a fighter.” Jesus was a warrior punishing the Jews.
I don’t mean to invoke Godwin’s Law, it just happened to be a historic fact that the blending of tribal Germanic myth with Christianity lead to a “fighter” Jesus which just so happened to inspire Nazism, which was a decidedly masculine movement as well. (Is it any coincidence that our current masculine movements tend towards being nationalistic?)
As time went on, the rugged, pioneering American spirit brought another masculine movement opposing the traditional clergy who were viewed as wimps because of their refusal to fight, and their piety. This lead to more individual ministers instead of the traditional clergy with elders, deacons and the rest. Again, Jesus was redefined to fit this cultural model of man and he became muscular and militant.
Where I stand:
I think that this pendulum, this male/female argument isn’t going to be won one side or the other. Until the artificial womb is complete, and sperm cloned (don’t think there’s not work going on this… There is….), we are going to need each other. Besides, how’s about some variety?
Hate begets hate, and hate is a human spiritual/emotional quality. It’s just that some environments incubate it better than others. Like theater, the arts (including the “art” of war), drama, music, and building things like pyramids, cathedrals, and mosques, the dynamic, the resonance, the structure, the impact, is intensified (for better, or for worse) in crowds.
I think that basic human nature needs scapegoats, and if they can’t face their personal “demons,” they will continue to externalize them in someone or some group to “hate.” The central message of the cross (to me), is that they end up shooting themselves in the foot, or shooting (or crucifying) the messenger. At our best, and privately, I’m sure most of us are hypocrites. It’ s the “US/THEM” mentality, carried to extremes, that is the primary problem.
HOWEVER, that’s no excuse for shutting up women reporting abuse, or attempting to leave it, or attempting to get something better for their children. And this is going on to this date, don’t kid yourself.
I wish I’d known about the “muscular Christianity” while I was married. If this continues to be carried to extremes, women are going to be just as interested in it, as in doing the “feminine” thing, i.e., running around from agency to agency looking for someone to protect them. I’m beginning to hate myself for my own upbringing, in having done that — BUT, you live, and you learn.
For those who wonder where I may stand religiously, I can’t stomach church attendance any more, and believe that they cause more problems than they help with. I also have become much more skeptical over whether church and state can really be separated. Not with some of our present institutions.
Besides, it seems the national religion at this time is worship of money. Like any religions, it is just as prone to sacrifice men, women and children at its altar. In order to retain their “manhood,” SOME men lower on this totem pole appear to need to have some women lower than themselves, or children as property to bolster it up. Others have enough self-control not to do that.
=
HAITI, pre-Earthquake (2005)
Rewinding History: The Rights of Haitian Women
Let Haiti Live Women’s Rights Delegation
January 2005
Introduction
In a climate of deep insecurity and escalating violence, Haitian women, the backbone of Haitian society and economy, are facing insurmountable challenges. Although Haitian women support the majority of Haiti’s economic activities and hold families together throughout the country, they have historically occupied an inferior social position.
Under the regime of U.S.-backed Prime Minister Gerard Latortue, Haitian women are caught in the middle of what many Haitians are calling a “rewind” back to the time of the 1991-94 coup d’etat, a period characterized by random violence in poor neighborhoods, a terror campaign employing rape, murder and disappearance as tactics, and rapidly increasing insecurity undermining all economic activity of the informal sector.
. . .
- The most impoverished and overpopulated neighborhoods of Port-au-Prince, known as katyè popilè, have become war zones where feuding gangs, some of which are funded by political organizations, are victimizing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. While traveling to St. Catherine’s Hospital in Cite Soleil, an area that has been gripped by gang violence, the delegation observed the remains of arson attacks in the zone. Although the popular perception of the populations in these areas is that they support one or another of the gangs, the team heard repeated testimony that these armed groups are raping women and young girls, robbing families and burning homes.
Members of the national labor movement, Confederation des Travailleurs Haitienne (CTH) explained that due to the lack of economic opportunities in both formal and informal sectors women are having sex for money. A number of sources confided to the team that women and girls who cannot afford to attend school are having sex with older men to finance their educations.
When looked at in tandem with the rise in forced sex, the recent spike in politically motivated rapes is a clear indication that women’s bodies are being abused sexually as a result of increasing insecurity. The increase in frequency of rapes was confirmed by the director of the gynecology department at the General Hospital. Testimony from victims of rapes heard by the delegation highlighted several patterns in the attacks. Attackers beat their victims into submission, often striking their eyes so they will not be able to identify them. Attackers are often masked and heavily armed. Women are usually raped by more than one attacker, and the victims’ children are often witnesses to the rape. After the attack, most women have nowhere else to go and are forced to return to the location of their rape (their homes and the yards in front of their homes) to sleep at night.
Women accused armed bandits/gang members of committing the rapes, but most cannot identify their attacker(s) either because they were masked or because the victim was beaten and could not see the identity of her attacker(s). Most victims have been forced to find alternative places to stay and are afraid to go out during the day. Children conceived during rapes are deeply stigmatized in Haiti. One woman told the team that her daughter is taunted with the name “little rape” by the other children in her neighborhood.
One fifteen-year-old prisoner claims she was held for several days in the fire station before being transferred to the prison, and that while in custody there she was beaten and raped.
From the interviews at the women’s prison, the delegation unanimously concluded that justice is very much for sale in Haiti. Those who have the means to hire lawyers are able to see judges and have their cases dealt with swiftly and to their advantage. The poor suffer indefinite detention and are denied the right to see a judge because they cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
Although Haiti’s young democracy inherited problems from decades of dictatorships and little has been done to reform the system, it is not an overstatement to describe the system as a failure
Haitian women become crime targets after quake
From the interviews at the women’s prison, the delegation unanimously concluded that justice is very much for sale in Haiti. Those who have the means to hire lawyers are able to see judges and have their cases dealt with swiftly and to their advantage. The poor suffer indefinite detention and are denied the right to see a judge because they cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
Although Haiti’s young democracy inherited problems from decades of dictatorships and little has been done to reform the system, it is not an overstatement to describe the system as a failure
HAITI, post-earthquake, 2010
By PAISLEY DODDS – Associated Press WriterTags: CB Haiti EarthquakePORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Bernice Chamblain keeps a machete under her frayed mattress to ward off sexual predators and one leg wrapped around a bag of rice to stop nighttime thieves from stealing her daughters’ food.
She’s barely slept since Haiti’s catastrophic earthquake Jan. 12 forced her and other homeless women and children into tent camps, where they are easy targets for gangs of men.
Women have always had it bad in Haiti. Now things are worse.
. . .
Rape was only made a criminal offense in Haiti in 2005.
Reports of attacks are increasing: Women are robbed of coupons needed to obtain food at distribution points. Others relay rumors of rape and sexual intimidation at the outdoor camps, now home to more than a half million earthquake victims.
A curtain of darkness drops on most of the encampments at night. Only flickering candles or the glow of cell phones provide light. Families huddle under plastic tarps because there aren’t enough tents. With no showers and scant sanitation, men often lurk around places where women or young girls bathe out of buckets. Clusters of teenage girls sleep in the open streets while others wander the camps alone.
Out of all the things to take away from women who have been suffering, what a crime it is to attempt to take away, and re-phrase their own interpretations of their stories, their own reports of their own lives.
It has to be some kind of crime, these conferences ABOUT our families to which our families are not invited, nationwide. This is made possible by the digital divide, and economic constraints as well. It is an US/THEM mentality which is a poor/rich divide.
In the US, another family in Idaho was wiped out by court-ordered visitation.
Police: Father kills young son in Meridian murder-suicide
by Scott Evans
Idaho’s NewsChannel 7Posted on February 9, 2010 at 8:30 AM
Updated today at 11:09 AM
MERIDIAN — The Ada County coroner has identified a father and infant son in an apparent murder-suicide in a home on S. Pelican Way.
Meridian Police say it appears Nicholas Bacon, 20, shot his 8-month old boy Bekm, then turned the gun on himself.
According to police, Bacon’s estranged wife received a series of telephone calls from her husband Monday, the last of which she said he threatened violence.
“Her husband was making suicidal and homicidal threats; he had their baby with him,” said Meridian Police Deputy Chief Tracy Basterrechea.
The couple was going through a divorce, but because they had joint custody of their son, Bacon had the child for the afternoon and was supposed to return him that night. Bacon’s wife called police after her husband threatened to harm the baby and himself. Officers went to the home around 8:30 p.m.
“My oldest boy looked outside and saw all the cop cars and all the emergency vehicles out in front of the home,” said neighbor John Meyer.
Officers knocked on the door and called inside, but got no answer. They entered the home through the garage after Bacon’s wife gave them the code to open the door.
Officers found Bacon and his son on the floor of the living room, dead from gunshot wounds. A .40-caliber handgun was nearby. An exact time of death is not known, but Basterrachea says the shootings happened before officers arrived.
“We were surprised to see the (crime scene) tape out front,” said neighbor Frank Lane. “That’s what drew our attention.”
Basterrachea says the Meridian Police Department had no previous contact with the family. Bacon, who graduated from Mountain View High School in 2008, had no criminal record and no known history of domestic violence. Basterrachsa said Wednesday that Bacon got the gun from the home of a family member without that person’s knowledge.
“We probably will never be able to explain how somebody could do this, or why, but we’re trying to bring all of the pieces together to at least give us a little more clear idea of what happened there,” Basterrachea said.
Neighbors say the family, who moved into the rental house about one month ago, kept to themselves.
“I’m sorry to hear about it. It’s sad to hear something like that is going on in your neighborhood, you know,” Lane said.
WHEN will we just “get smart” and NO DEAL on that joint custody thing?
I can’t keep up with this, but if you’re not alarmed, sickened, or politically active, something is wrong upstairs — in the thinking.
These situations are not just dropping down out of the sky, they are the products of some truly very sick dogma, philosophies, and practices.
How could a 20 year old “man” do this to a son less than a year old?
Here’s another, December 2009 — this one was jealousy, not about kids, evidently:
IDAHO FALLS, Idaho — Idaho Falls School District 91 says it will have counselors and crisis teams available Monday for students and staff following what police describe as a murder-suicide involving an Idaho Falls High School instructor.
Police say 49-year-old math teacher Keith Matthias on Friday evening shot and killed a man having an affair with his wife and then shot and killed himself after police forced his vehicle to a stop a short time later.
Matthias’ wife, Jennifer Matthias, 41, is a sixth-grade teacher at A.H. Bush Elementary School in Idaho Falls.
The Post Register reports the couple have three children.
Police say Jack Purcell, 46, died about 8 p.m. Friday while sitting in his truck at a Wal-Mart parking lot after being shot in the head numerous times with a large-caliber revolver.
In 2003, Purcell was sentenced to 18 months in prison following convictions for grand theft and domestic violence in Kootenai County in northern Idaho.
The Idaho church folk that went to Haiti to rescue children should’ve been looking closer to home.. Here’s an Idaho “Silent Witness” initiative.
The figures before you represent the Idaho women killed in acts of domestic violence in 1996.
As you look at these figures be aware of the many women still being hurt. They are our mothers, daughters, sisters, and neighbors. STOP, LOOK, LISTEN!
These figures are blood red, life size wooden cutouts representing adult domestic violence victims that were murdered in Idaho last year. Each figure bears a shield with the victim’s name, dates and story of how the murder occurred.
go to: 2001 2000 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996
I keep coming back to POORMAGAZINE.Com (see my very first or second blog here).
The Un-just actions of Commissioner Marjorie Slabach continues -unchecked
Marlon Crump/PNN
Saturday, September 5, 2009;“What do we want?”
“JUSTICE!”
“Who do we want it for?”
“Poor mamas struggling!”
“With?” “When do we want it?”
“NOW!”. . .
the California Commission on Judicial Performance really that oblivious, ignorant, or even the least bit concerned of Slabach’s unethical judicial misconduct? A recent inductee was Jana Farrell, a single mother of an eleven-year old son. Miss Farrell arrived in the U.S from St. Petersburg, Russia in 1994, without any knowledge of English. In spite of that, she still wanted to contribute to this country’s work force. Jana worked one year in her current career in real estate, at Pacific Union and at Coldwell Banker for nearly three years.
In her native country, Jana earned a bachelor’s degree in Economic and Management from St. Petersburg’s University of Economics and Management, graduating with high honors. Her path of finding a job began with her enrollment at Heald Business College, where she received a science degree in accounting.
After Jana’s embrace of the United States as her second home, she attended Golden Gate University for a year and a half. While enrolled at Golden Gate, she took English as a second language program. Along the way, she met wonderful people teachers, and got married.
The marriage, however, became a failure, stating,
“It was due to his violent abuse towards me.†In 2006, Jana sought custody of their son in court.“My ex-husband’s lawyer would often submit an application for these types of motion hearings (ex-parte) and Judge Slabach would continuously grant these motions, sometimes even twice in one week without question. These motions also required me to appear at 8:45 a.m, and this conflicted with my work schedules.” Jana explained.
Jana is one of the masses of young women who are victims of these rights-robbing motions. As I mentioned in the previous “Silenced Mamas” article, these “motions” attack a person’s 5th and 14th Amendment of the U.S Constitution’s Right to Due Process of law, because there is no advanced notice to the other party, from the moving side.
“I cannot agree more. As a matter of fact, those ex parte motions were leading me to a bankruptcy, loss of my job and other hardship. I’m not mentioning the toll all this will take on my son in the future.” Jana explained, in response to an online petition that I personally implemented to ultimately have Judge Slabach removed from the bench.
AND:
Queennandi Xsheba/PoorNewzNetwork
Thursday, October 8, 2009; [[False report by Social Worker…]]“Yes, I called em’ (cps) and reported abuse and neglect, because I didn’t like her!” The voice of new SF resident Sherie Lewis still echos in my ears as she confessed to me her part in the separation of Christana Martel’s family. As we further spoke, she also admitted that she called the calworks department (Alameda county) and falsely reported that Christana sold all of her food stamp benefits on her EBT card for in exchange for marijuana, (that accusation resulted in Christana paying a HEFTY price) which according to (then) neighbors Mertis Bowden and Michelle Howell was a “f-ed up lie!”, and that Christana kept “plenty of food”- Michelle explained to me that she was a guest over for dinner often. Ms. Lewis boasted on with her vengeance against Ms. Martel, attacks ranging from “manipulating” Christana’s family members just to cause dissent, and too in one case, to win a frivilous lawsuit against a former landlord.I stood there in awe as I literally watch this sista take sadistic pleasure in tearing down another sista. When I asked Ms. Lewis why, the sad and simple answer was that Christana was a poor mama. Far as CPS goes, people like Ms.Lewis whom in this case overstepped her boundaries and abused it (the Sssystem) tend to do this to “get back” at someone who was either an adversary to them, or out of plain jealousy. Either way, what is more than always overlooked is the children and their feelings towards being torn apart from their families, for no ligitamate reason other than their mama wasn’t very well liked, or “crossed” by a certain individual. CPS “stands” for Child Protective Services, indicating that if a child is in immediate danger, or if the child is being abused, there is a hotline number to call and report such actions- granted. However, there are mamaz like myself, tiny, vivian and jewnbug who strongly believe in “Tribal Intervention” and the “It takes us to heal us” theory, which is unfortunately not practiced amongst all of the members of our tribes (communities), thus the results are tribal dissent, and definitely reasonable (understatement) mistrust for the outside Sssystem.The impact of being removed from the home affected baby girl Destiny a bit more than her brothers, Dalevon and Deshawn. She was depressed, withdrawn and suffered from massive hair loss, but has been improving since Christana was given more time to spend with the children, and to see about Destiny’s mental well-being. Why is this type of CPS abuse allowed to continue? The question remains in the “smokeblower”, while mamaz such as Christana and myself ponder on non-exsistent penalties for folks like Ms. Lewis who abuse the law and walk away laughing, taking high stride pride in helping to break up fellow black families. “Looking back at the Hassani case, in my opinion, placing the children in foster care isn’t always the best option.” Ms. Martel said. “If a mother is able- bodied, mind and willing, she should be given more access to resources that would enable us to become indpendent caretakers, rather than just snatch our children away from us.”Christana Martel is a single mother of four now, who loves her beautiful, talented children dearly. Fighting and overcoming a heartbreaking situation like hers took alot of strenght, and we @poormag call for others to press on, at the same time we commend Christana on her perserverance.
Social Workers Always Know Best?
Like this one? Around Thanksgiving, 2009?
Former State Official Charged With Phone Threats
Tamara T. Hoffman, newly-former chief of staff for the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services, has been charged in Springfield with making harassing phone calls and texts to a woman who is supposedly involved in a love triangle with a man that both her and Hoffman have been seeing. Police say Hoffman made the calls/texts from her state issued cell phone. Authorities also say Hoffman tried to throw her political weight around with the downstate woman, allegedly telling her, “If you see him again, something bad is going to happen to you. I work for the State of Illinois, and you don’t know who you’re messing with.”
Hoffman also allegedly threatened the officer when contacted about the incidents, and posted 2 photos of herself — one posed with Gov. Rod Blagojevich, and another with her and a man holding guns — on the victim’s daughter’s Facebook page.
Followers of the Blago impeachment hearings might remember Ms. Hoffman’s testimony in front of the Illinois House Impeachment Committee, when her and department director Barry Maram got legislators’ panties in a bunch when they played dumb in regards to Blago’s controversial health care program, All Kids. Lawmakers had rejected expansion of Family Care coverage, and claimed that since Blago continued with it anyway, he displayed an abuse of power.
Hoffman had resigned her $119,400-a-year job a day before the arrest.
Associated Press – November 25, 2009 5:44 PM ET
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) – A top official in a state social service agency is out of a job after allegedly using her state-issued telephone to harass another woman because the two were romantically involved with the same man.
Champaign County State’s Attorney Julia Rietz (REETZ) says Tamara T. Hoffman was arrested Saturday in McLean County and posted $2,500 bond. She will appear in court Dec. 11.
The 50-year-old Chicago woman left her $119,400 job as chief of staff for the Department of Healthcare and Family Services Friday. Agency officials would not comment further.
Rietz says Hoffman began calling a Rantoul woman about Aug. 14 threatening “something bad” if the woman continued to see the man. Hoffman did not return a message left at her home.
WELL, that’s enough for today, and not what I even came here to blog. But when you are dealing with this situation, it is thought-provoking.
SHARE THIS POST on...
War comes home: Waterboarding a 4 yr old
QUIZ:
Do you think it was a MOTHER or a FATHER that did this?
Was there an enabling 2nd woman around at the time?
As I say, there is approximately one a week coming to the press.
How cast iron is your stomach? Because if you can’t stomach what’s happening to this society and why, there may come a time when the blinkers must come off, and concerns worse than foreclosure, or inflation, become paramount in one’s life..
=====
This reference comes from a newspaper via Michael Moore website, and from this site referenced below. I hope you will take some time to read her comments 9n this case on the Michael Moore site (linked on the title to this article, below).
February 8th, 2010 2:54 PM
U.S. soldier Joshua Tabor waterboards his daughter, 4, because she couldn’t recite alphabet: police
By Brian Kates / New York Daily News
A GI waterboarded his 4-year-old daughter in their suburban Tacoma, Wash., home because she couldn’t recite the alphabet, police reported.
Joshua Tabor, 27, allegedly admitted to police he used the torture technique because his daughter was terrified of water and he was furious she didn’t know her ABCs.
Tabor was arrested Sunday and charged with assault of a child.
Tabor, a soldier at the Lewis-McChord base in Tacoma, Wash., told police he held the little girl’s head backward in a sink of water, Yelm Police Chief Todd Stancil told the the local newspaper, the Nisqually Valley News.
Stancil said Tabor had admitted to using this means of punishment three to four times.
Police found the little girl locked in a bathroom with bruises on her back and scratch marks on her neck and throat.
Asked how she got the bruises, the girl is said to have replied, “Daddy did it.”
Police did not release Tabor’s rank or the nature of his military service. His base is home to units that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The girl, who was not identified, had been in Tabor’s court-ordered custody for about a month and a half.
After his arrest, she was placed in the care of Child Protective services, Stancil said. She had moved to Yelm from Montana where she lived with her grandparents. Her mother lives in Kansas.
Cops arrested Tabor after neighborhood residents reported him walking around his neighborhood drunk, wearing a Kevlar Army helmet and threatening to break windows.
Tabor’s girlfriend told police that Tabor has an anger problem and beats his daughter, Stancil said.
Tabor reportedly said his girlfriend helped hold the girl down in the water. She had not been charged.
The couple has a 2-month-old child together, Stancil said
================
============
I’ve been speaking about this sad profit-making practice for few years now. [1], [2], [3] My latest speeches are posted at:
http://www.selfrepresentedfool.org/id79.html
References:
[1] Dr. Sidiakina, N.A. (2010) STOP Family Courts’ Torture And Abuse of Protective Parents And Self-Represented Parties:
http://www.selfrepresentedfool.org/id79.html
[2] Dr. Sidiakina, N.A. (2009) Family Courts’ Reliance on Parental Alienation Syndrome Theory Turns Normal Children Into Mental Retards:
http://www.selfrepresentedfool.org/id79.html
[3] Dr. Sidiakina, N.A. (2009) The Family Courts’ System in California Turns Children into Slaves:
http://www.selfrepresentedfool.org/id79.html
ANYONE want to track that case? Why did the mother of this 4 year old move to Kansas (or him to Washington)? When, where and why was this little girl in Montana, with “grandparents.”
For the uninformed, “grandparents” in custody battles, particularly any ones that involved domestic violence or child abuse, or allegations of it, come in TWO brands:
1. His (in which case, what kind of sense does it make putting a kid in the custody of the parents who raised a man that has been abusive? Or woman?)
2. Hers (another factor to consider is that SOME families respond to the breakup of their child’s relationship, or marriage, differently than others. Some families support their biological (adult) child, others turn on them. This becomes interesting when one figures that one generation of poor boundaries, and lack of understanding that it’s wrong to hit may produce an adult woman who doesn’t have the greatest boundaries in marriage. Or, other scenarios may include a young adult child needing so desperately to get away from an abusive (or simply emotionally bloodless/cold) family of origin she mistakes lust for love. Or doesn’t mistake it, but simply takes the closest apparent exit.
I don’t know about this case. I’m just providing the links.
Do you (“Gentle readers”) Understand the power of multiplication? Any good business person, network marketer, or affiliate of any product, should understand the principle.
Well, guess where these incidents are ‘bred’? The Family Courts ARE the incubators for sure. They are a hotbed of profit — for some. Not the four year olds, of course…
LOOK: A need is a market niche. If problems were simply solved in the most direct, honest, and sensible way, there goes a business opportunity, and it would have to knock on other doors.
What better constant stream of cash than a SYSTEM which generates problems? And when people are MANDATED to go through it, basically, unless their marriages are intact (and 1 out of 2, approximately, in the US aren’t), there’s practically No Exit.
We have in this one case, apparently a vet applying Boot Camp procedures (and worse) to a kid. Thankfully, this one got caught.
Go figure!
SHARE THIS POST on...
“However, in Victorville [family] court…” (Mind-reading by a judge leads to 2 deaths…)
This follows up to the Twin Peaks murder-suicide of a father and his 9 month old son, in the Tagle, Garcia case.
A newspaper article relates the sequence of events….
Family say courts shut down restraining orders
By Stacy Moore
Hi-Desert Star
TWIN PEAKS — Sunday’s murder-suicide was the culmination of months of threats and online and text rants from Stephen Garcia to Katie Tagle of Yucca Valley and her family.The mother of a 9-month-old boy, Wyatt, with Garcia, Tagle was never able to secure a restraining order against him for herself or an order for supervised visitations for their son.“This was preventable. This didn’t have to happen,” Tagle’s mother, Maria Brown said the day after Wyatt’s death.
“The system failed Wyatt. It cost him his life.”
Her family said Garcia abused Tagle throughout their two-year relationship, which ended in August 2009, when, her family said, he punched her in the face, knocking her unconscious.
Tagle brought Wyatt back to her family house in Yucca Valley, but frequently took him to visit Garcia’s parents in Piñon Hills.Garcia, her family said, did not seem especially interested in Tagle or their son until December 2009, when he discovered she was involved with another man.
“That’s when he wigged out,” Tagle’s sister Andrea Rodriguez of Hesperia said.In letters on a Web site he set up to chronicle his communications to her and her friends, Garcia cursed at Tagle and told her to return to him.
During one custody exchange with Wyatt, he proposed to her, then knocked her to the ground.
Judge denies first restraining order
On Dec. 15, Tagle asked for an emergency restraining order against Garcia, telling Judge Debra Harris in a Joshua Tree courtroom that Garcia had threatened Wyatt.
“He had sent me text messages before that if his son was around certain people … that he would kill him,” Tagle told the judge, according to transcripts of the hearing.
“And that if I wasn’t where I was supposed to be, he’d find me and kill me.”
“What about the threat to shoot you, where did that occur, to hunt you down and shoot you with a gun?” the judge asked.
“That was in a text message, Tagle replied.
When Harris asked for copies of the text messages, Tagle said she had no way of printing them out and her phone was shut off.
The judge denied the emergency order and set a hearing.
Garcia ‘doesn’t pose a threat’
At that hearing, on Jan. 12, Tagle went before Judge David Mazurek in the Joshua Tree courthouse to show cause for a restraining order.
“…On Dec. 31, we were doing our exchange, and he proposed to me, and I said no. He got angry and stole my phone and pushed me down. I made a police report about that,” Tagle told the judge, according to a transcript.
Garcia told the judge the report was “falsely made up.”
Mazurek denied Tagle the restraining order.
“If I grant the restraining order, how do you think that’s going to help with respect to you two being able to raise Wyatt together or work together to make sure Wyatt grows up happy and healthy?” the judge asked, according to the transcripts.
{{Pause for my blood pressure to go down . . . . WELL, the judge had his way, and no NOW one is going to raise Wyatt. That’s the benefits of the shared-parenting presumption when mixed with bad examples, like a man knocking down a pregnant woman. What kind of potential do you think a man knocking down a pregnant woman because she didn’t accept his marriage proposal, and before that punching her in the face, might be for a Dad? Great start in life, eh?}}
{{Go back to NOMAS and read Jack Straton, “what’s fair for children of abusive men?” Like staying alive to at least adolescence???}}{{See Lundy Bancroft’s “The Batterer As Parent” book…}} {{Well, what kind of society do we want? Violent? OK then, get those batterer Dads back in the action}}.
{{Consider if she’d punched HIM in the face! Would she be in jail, AT ONCE? Or would the father be put in a parenting class to teach him how to get along with her? Yeah, sure…}}
“He would have both of us still,” Tagle responded.Asked about an e-mail in which he confessed to hitting Tagle, Garcia told the judge he had slapped her during a fight, but it was Tagle’s fault for “pushing and pushing and pushing until she could get something from me.”
Tagle pointed out she was nine months pregnant when Garcia hit her.
“I kind of get an idea of what’s going on,” Mazurek said.
So glad the judge “kind of got an idea.” Are rulings from ideas, or from facts, and patterns of behavior? He kinda forgot that assault and battery (which this was) is either an (A) misdemeanor or (B) felony. …
He denied the restraining order, saying, “I don’t think that Mr. Garcia poses a threat to Ms. Tagle.”Mazurek went on to suggest Tagle might have ulterior motives for alleging domestic violence.
“I get concerned when there’s a pending child custody and visitation issue and in between that, one party or the other claims that there’s some violence in between. It raises the court’s eyebrows because based on my experience, it’s a way for one party to try to gain an advantage over the other,” he said, according to the transcripts.
WHICH CAME FIRST? THE SEPARATION BECAUSE OF THE VIOLENCE, AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE SEPARATION, A CUSTODY/VISITATION ORDER (KNEE-JERK REACTION)? OR THE CUSTODY/VISITATION ORDER AND then THE ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLENCE? THE WOMAN SEPARATED TO START WITH BECAUSE OF VIOLENCE, IT SAYS!
WHAT NORMAL SINGLE MOTHER WITH ANOTHER CHILD AND A NEWBORN IS GOING TO SEPARATE FROM THE DAD? SHE’D NEED THAT DAD’S HELP TO SOME EXTENT… THERE IS GOING TO BE A REASON SOMEWHERE.
Story predicts real-life ending
The day after the hearing in Mazurek’s courtroom, Garcia sent a text message telling Tagle to check her e-mail. In it was an anonymous message containing a story called “Necessary Evil.”
The story describes in detail Tagle’s and Garcia’s relationship, from their fights over his video-game addiction, to their breakup, to her new relationship and his failed proposal.
In the end, the story has two endings. In “Happy Ending,” the female character returns to the man.
In “Tragic Ending,” the character takes his son to a lake, puts him to sleep with Benadryl and the baby dies. “He will have a better life with you then (sic) we can give him here,” the man tells God before taking his own life.
Criminal Venue vs. Family Court Venue
Tagle called 9-1-1 after reading the story, and the responding deputy immediately went to the courthouse and obtained an emergency restraining order for her, signed by Mazurek.“Just from the very beginning, he didn’t want to listen,” said Rick Tagle, who was in the courtroom. “He started out by saying, ‘One of you is lying and I think it’s you,’ and pointing at Katie.”The judge also allegedly warned Tagle there would be consequences for lying.
Lemkau did not respond to an e-mail request for comment; the county does not provide judges’ office telephone numbers.
The following Sunday, when Garcia missed his arranged custody transfer with Tagle, she had to call a deputy to get Wyatt back from Garcia’s house.
However, in Victorville court Jan. 14, Judge Robert Lemkau would not uphold the restraining order and ordered Tagle to immediately give Wyatt to Garcia, as it was the day his scheduled visitation was to begin.
Transcripts from that hearing are not yet available, but family and friends who were in the court that day with Tagle said the judge appeared not to have read the evidence she presented, including the “Necessary Evil” story and the emergency restraining order obtained by a sheriff’s deputy.{{Been there, done that…}}Friends say discouraged and frightened by her last appearance in court, she did not seek another restraining order or custody change.“She was afraid she would go before the judge who called her a liar,” her sister said.
{{Had that feeling too, and hesitated because of it. I have limits to my traumas…}}
Thanks to her family and friends, and Rick Tagle, for getting this information out to the papers, so the rest of the world can see the bad attitude women leaving violence get in these courts, as if the initial violence wasn’t bad enough. Do you think Mazurek is going to say “oops!” and apologize to her family? Or suffer some severe consequences for that screwup?
He DIDN’T screw up, from one point of view. It’s simply one less set of customers for family strengthening classes, or parenting classes. There are more where these came from….
As I’m blogging this — surprise, surprise — here’s another one in the papers, involving a restraining order. No children, that I’m aware of, just some blood.
Oy!!!, here’s the google search for that one. As usual, it shows more than one:
Claw Hammer Restraining Order Ex Boyfriend
And the one in question:
Feb. 5–ANTIOCH (California)– Prosecutors charged a man with attempted murder and numerous other crimes Thursday, more than a week after a woman was severely beaten with the claw side of a hammer and pushed from a car outside a hospital.
The 39-year-old victim, whom police did not identify, had a fractured skull and a broken neck when she crawled inside the emergency room at Sutter Delta Medical Center at 2:20 p.m. Jan. 26 and suffered a seizure in the lobby. Doctors placed her in a medically induced coma.
She recently awakened and identified her attacker as ex-boyfriend Bradley Ruffin. She told police he had beaten her during an argument over a $1,000 winning lottery ticket.
Police reviewed surveillance video footage of her being pushed from a vehicle in the hospital parking lot. Officers then searched her court history and found that she had a restraining order against Ruffin, 47, stemming from a 2007 assault for which he was convicted.
A warrant was out for Ruffin’s arrest for violating probation, Antioch police Lt. Scott Willerford said.
Police drove to Ruffin’s home in the 2300 block of Peppertree Way and arrested him on the probation violation.
“He was in custody within a couple of hours,” Willerford said.
Now, let’s look at that info. He assaulted her in 2007 (about 3 years ago, if that, right?) and went to jail. Now he’s out again. . . . . Restraining orders around there, if I’m not mistaken, last about 3 years…
Why was she around him at all? For a damn LOTTERY ticket?
The victim told police that Ruffin had given her three scratcher lottery tickets, One of which was a winner of $1,000.
In the ensuing argument over how the winnings were going to be split, Ruffin allegedly struck her head six times with the claw side of a hammer.
When her head began to bleed, he at first told her to go wait in the street while he called an ambulance, the victim told police. When she could not move, he loaded her into a car and reclined her seat so no would see her.
When they arrived at the hospital and she could not exit the car on her own, he used his feet to push her out, police said. He then drove away, leaving her alone.
He didn’t want to go back to jail, obviously. Maybe he thought she’d just die, and he’d not be nailed? But why the hospital, then?
Ruffin is charged with attempted murder, battery with great bodily injury, assault with a deadly weapon, robbery, violating a restraining order and enhancements for the use of a deadly weapon and causing brain injury.
That’s why I call the restraining order process a JOKE. And women, get smart! JUST SAY NO (if possible, safely….) Because this is the direction it’s going…Whether or not the person is actually punished for the prior violence.
He remained at the County Jail in Martinez without bail.
Roman Gokhman covers public safety. Contact him at 925-945-4780.
In the Garcia case, the Family Court judge was, in his mind, obviously smarter than the sheriff who issued the EPO.
I actually READ some of the junk Garcia posted. It’s volatile, for sure.
SHARE THIS POST on...
(Yet another) Court-enabled infanticide on court-ordered visitation
You want to know why I call the DV Restraining order process “certifiably insane?” Whether granted, or NOT granted? Here’s why.
-
Local News in Victorville, CA
Pinon Hills man plans murder of infant son, suicide on Facebook
Comments 55 | Recommend 8
February 01, 2010 11:19 PMIn a chilling letter posted on Facebook for anyone to see, Stephen Garcia, 25, of Pinon Hills appears to detail how he planned his suicide and the murder of his 9-month-old son.
…..
Thinking that it is going to help us is grasping at straws. Instead, make a safety plan.
However, this mother had a choice of possibly going to jail for contempt if she decided to disobey a court order that overrode her mother’s instincts.
“I led everyone on my side of the family to believe I wouldn’t of done this because I did not want them to know…” the letter reads. “I had been thinking about doing this for months.”
In other words, the guy was deceitful, deceiving even his own family. However, the mother of his son, who apparently knew him more “intimately” saw the danger, and tried to stop it. She tried with the usual tools that women in this position are given: Seek a restraining order.
She didn’t even GET one, because there had been no prior criminal record.. Therefore, he could not have possibly been a danger. Sure…
The post may help San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Homicide investigators piece together what led to the Sunday morning tragedy, when Garcia took his infant son during a court-ordered visitation, drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks and ended both of their lives.
In the letter posted to his Facebook profile, Garcia claimed the deaths were an attempt to save his son from a difficult life — and to punish the baby’s mother, Katie Tagle, for refusing to come back to him.
“Our deaths are a lot for her,” the post continues. “It will have to suffice as her punishment. But that is not the reason I did it. It was the only way we could be happy without Katie. I did this out of love for our son, to protect him and myself.”
Saved letters, text messages and massive files containing e-mails and other correspondence give a glimpse into Garcia’s obsession, cursing Tagle and her family in some posts and asking her to return to him in others.
Court documents tell more of the story, with Tagle filing a request for a domestic violence restraining order on Dec. 11, 2009. On Jan. 12 that order was denied, as it was found Garcia was not a “threat to petitioner or the minor child.”
A search of his criminal record showed no history of domestic violence, battery or similar offenses in San Bernardino County. However, in one of a slew of other online letters attributed to Garcia, it states, “I’m sorry for hurting you. I’m sorry for hitting you. I’m sorry I made the wrong choices.”
On Jan. 17, shortly after the final visit with Judge David Mazurek, Garcia joined a Facebook group called “Organ Donor.”
In the days leading up to the murder-suicide, Garcia posted a half-dozen videos and dozens of photos of Wyatt with cryptic captions such as, “Please, it’s not too late.”
On his MySpace page, his mood over the last week was listed as “tested,” “bummed” and “scared,” with “one more day :(” his final post.
Hours before officials got a call Saturday night that Wyatt was missing and Garcia had threatened to kill him, he made his final online post: “We love you all.”
The suicide note was posted on Garcia’s Facebook profile Sunday, about eight hours after Hesperia Sheriff’s deputies found the bodies in Garcia’s car. It appears Garcia left directions for someone to post the letter and make it public for everyone to see.
The lengthy post also reads as a will, with directions for how to distribute his possessions and personal notes to family members and friends. It also states that Garcia left a signed letter in his truck, confessing to the killings and explaining why he did them.
Though Garcia mentions using a gun, investigators have not released information on how he killed Wyatt and himself, stating only that they both died from “traumatic injuries.”
Anyone who may have information about this case is asked to call Detective Ryan Ford or Sgt. Frank Montanez at the Sheriff’s Homicide Detail at (909) 387-3589 or call WeTip at (800) 78-CRIME.Brooke Edwards and Natasha Lindstrom contributed to this report.
Beatriz E. Valenzuela may be reached at 951-6276 or at BValenzuela@VVDailyPress.com.
Here’s the SFGate Report on this:
SoCal man mentioned son’s killing on Facebook
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
(02-02) 09:04 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —
A newspaper says a San Bernardino County man who killed his 9-month-old son and himself left a Facebook message saying he did it out of love.Sheriff’s officials say 25-year-old Stephen Garcia of Pinon Hills was on a court-ordered visit with his son Sunday when he drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks, killed the boy and committed suicide.
The Daily Press in Victorville says Garcia left a message on his Facebook profile about eight hours after his body was found. The note, apparently posted on his behalf by someone else, says Garcia had been thinking of the crime for months and wanted to punish the baby’s mother for leaving him.
Garcia says the deaths are the only way he and his son can be happy without her and says he did it out of love to protect the boy.
Information from: Daily Press, www.vvdailypress.com (the first article, above).
He did it for “love.” Some kind of love….
Here’s a fellow-blogger’s reaction.
And a site worth spending time on. . . .
See the heartbreaking MySpace page that belongs to the father and the bizzare RIP on it.
Judge J. David Mazurek needs to held accountable on this, and charged as an accomplice in this murder. This needs to happen to every judge that allows abusers to take children, and then hurt or murder them. Maybe then judges will start taking domestic violence seriously. Thanks to the father’s rights advocates and their “false allegations” drivel, they have turned America’s judges into a bunch of pussies who absolutely have no clue. Just get the child to the father….doesn’t matter if he is violent or not. It is time to stop listening to the mantra from these groups and start taking these violent guys seriously, and start putting judges in prison that don’t.
We Moms are NOT de-sensitized to this insane callousness to who lives, or who’s going to die. But if a Mom goes to jail in protest, what good is that to her children? If she doesn’t go, then the risk goes to the children. And/or her, and/or innocent bystanders, in some cases.
THIS overentitled, disillusioned, and unable to have a vital purpose in life other than punishing the mother of his child (how perverted is THAT?) was only 25. Bet he attended a public school system, possibly in this great state. Did he do college too? If so, to what point? Whether or not, there is clearly an attitude problem, a spiritual problem, and a moral problem. I don’t think the millions upon millions (literally) going to the California Healthy Marriage Coalition are going to stop troubles this entrenched. This guy was narcissistic, period. And to a point, he was a product of a system that encourages — and does not DIScourage — this. It’s a system where women have to fight uphill to get away from ground zero in their own lives.
I wonder how well we (well, people) are also reading characters before having babies. Makes you think, right?
BUT: Apparently the courts are, and clearly the judges are callous. Or, they are bound by the requirement to keep an ongoing stream of unwilling clients to their cronies. Excuse me, colleagues.
Well, no, I don’t think the judges are not clueless, and they are not pussies, I believe. They just don’t care! Why? What’s at stake if they do? . . . . An entire system.
A bribe perverts justice. I’m not accusing this particular judge of taking a bribe, but the court docket below tells clearly that they passed the buck to family court because there were custody and visitation orders. That’s how it goes.
And family court was SET UP from the start, at least per some sites (CANOW.org family law page, NAFCJ.net, and some others) to be abuser-friendly, and father-friendly (despite allegations to the contrary).
It was just business as usual. And if you want “business as usual” to change, friends, you have to change who is paying for the “business as usual,” and in the bottom line, this is the taxpayers. The Dept. of HHS in combo with some DOJ (Office of Violence Against Women) sources are conferencing together, educating together, declaring together, but the ONE thing they are NOT doing is confronting t he mandated mediation or custody evaluation where there’s conflict. And that “required outcome” model of the court process.
The judge is not going to be charged as an accomplice to murder. With luck, and persistence, he MIGHT be held accountable if this becomes a pattern. The people most highly motivated to do this are probably already victims of the court system, and are still in the process of trying to stay housed, alive, and their kids alive also.
However, what we MIGHT do for the next batch of innocent young mothers who show up thinking that family court is something you can walk into, and then also walk OUT of with a restraining order, is warn them…
HERE’s the Docket:
12/11/2009 – She requests ex parte DV restraining order.
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
WOW, lots of “Tagles” in this jurisdiction. This appears to be Katie Tagle in a previous relationship, or another Katie Tagle. In this one, she was charged with domestic violence.
Either way, the KNEE-JERK reaction of the court is to:
1. Consolidate with a family law (dissolution, I guess case).
2. Make a really STUPID order as to where violence has been alleged. THIS one has a daughter, “Dakota” and they are to alternate every other DAY, and — of course — go to mediation, or else.
Here: 2007 DOCKET, different couple (or at least, father)….
Action: (Choose)04/04/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…04/03/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR
04/03/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M2
| BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING. |
| CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ |
| REPORTER: GARY RAGLE |
| – |
| PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT |
| DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT |
| – |
| PROCEEDINGS: |
| DECLARATION RE: 4 HOUR NOTICE FILED. |
| WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE JR IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. |
| CASE CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE(S) MFL010729 MASTER FILE MFL010729 |
| – |
| {{NOTE: THis “consolidation” is where the issue of the DV gets basically lost, and is intentional. It happened to me. … This consolidation action violates due process for at least one of the parties, but is routine…}}HEARINGS: |
| CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/04/07 AT 08:29 IN DEPARTMENT M3. |
| – |
| TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS: PARTIES STIPULATE TO |
| SHARE CUSTODY OF DAKOTA TAGLE ON AN ALTERNATING |
| BASIS BEGINNING 04/01/07 EVERY OTHER DAY UNTIL |
| FURTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. WEDNESDAYS DAKOTA |
| IS TO BE PICKED UP BY FATHER FROM DAYCARE UNTIL |
| 04/18/07. IF IT IS MOTHERS DAY FOR EXCHANGE IT |
| IS TO BE MADE AFTER MOTHER GETS OFF WORK. |
| THESE ORDERS ARE TEMPORARY UNTIL FURTHER ORDER |
| OF THE COURT. THINK: IF violence truly occurred, the Court just buried discussion of it, and made SURE that the child IS going to be in the full, unmonitored (not that I’m thinking monitoring makes a difference) custody of the abusive parent. |
| – |
| THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO REPORT ON 04/11/07, AT 08:00 TO FAMILY COURT SERVICES AND TO COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE FAMILY COURT SERVICES COUNSELORS DURING ALL STAGES OF THE MEDIATION/EVALUATION {{Do you GET this yet? The racket is going through mediation and evaluation and counseling. Yes, I said “racket.” See “Access/Visitation funding” which was thinly veiled way to get more fathers (although it says “noncustodial PARENTS, in practice, and even the language frequently slips into saying, FATHERS) more time with their children. I have blogged on this earlier..} |
| PROCESS. CUSTODIAL PARENT(S) SHALL MAKE CHILDREN AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES REQUESTED BY COUNSELOR. |
| PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND ORIENTATION ON |
| 04/09/07 AT 3PM. |
| ACTION – COMPLETE |
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
| ==MINUTE ORDER CHANGED OR CORRECTED BY P MARTIN; CHANGES MADE ARE AS FOLLOWS: TO CHANGE TO ORIENTATION == |
It might be that she filed for divorce, and he quickly filed for DV. I don’t know without further research.
Here’s the minutes of the order, the next day. As you can see, the court called the DV “mutual combat” (Sure, right….) and ordered them to a “Strengthening Families Class.”
Here it is. We are talking, now 2 YEARS (almost) before another infant son died:
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR (==link here)
04/04/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3
| BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING. | |||||||||||||||||
| CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ | |||||||||||||||||
| REPORTER: GARY RAGLE | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT | |||||||||||||||||
| DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PROCEEDINGS: | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — SOMMER MERCER IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — CARLOS TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — MARIA BROWN IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. | |||||||||||||||||
EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:
|
|||||||||||||||||
| COURT FINDS MUTUAL COMBAT AND ORDERS PERSONAL | |||||||||||||||||
| CONDUCT ORDERS AGAINST EACH PARTY. | |||||||||||||||||
| THE RESTRAINED PERSON MUST NOT DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON OR PEOPLE: | |||||||||||||||||
| HARASS, ATTACK, STRIKE, THREATEN, ASSAULT (SEXUALLY OR OTHERWISE), HIT, FOLLOW, STALK, MOLEST, DESTROY PERSONAL PROPERTY, DISTURB THE PEACE, KEEP UNDER SURVEILLANCE, OR BLOCK MOVEMENTS. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| THESE ARE NON-CLETS ORDERS. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND THE STRENGTHENING | |||||||||||||||||
| FAMILIES PROGRAM AT THE NEXT START CYCLE. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| HEARINGS: | |||||||||||||||||
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SET FOR 08:30 AT M4 IN DEPARTMENT | |||||||||||||||||
| PETITIONER TO PREPARE ORDER AFTER HEARING. | |||||||||||||||||
| ACTION – COMPLETE | |||||||||||||||||
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
There are “Strengthening Families” programs across the nation. A search found one from San Bernadino, UTAH (not this case, obviously), but this is probably typical of how it’s organized and got started:
(see original link, above for visuals. This is, naturally, an “Evidence-based” practice. The evidence in the Tagle case, out of San Bernadino, CAL is still that something ain’t getting that job done. …. No matter, the court-ordered parenting classes continue…)
The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) is a parenting and family skills training program that consists of 14 consecutive weekly skill-building sessions. Parents and children work separately in training sessions and then participate together in a session practicing the skills they learned earlier. Two booster sessions are used at 6 months to 1 year after the primary course. Children’s skills training sessions concentrate on setting goals, dealing with stress and emotions, communication skills, responsible behavior, and how to deal with peer pressure. Topics in the parental section include setting rules, nurturing, monitoring compliance, and applying appropriate discipline.
SFP was developed and tested in 1983 with 6- to 12-year-old children of parents in substance abuse treatment. Since then, culturally modified versions and age-adapted versions (for 3- to 5-, 10- to 14-, and 13- to 17-year-olds) with new manuals have been evaluated and found effective for families with diverse backgrounds: African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, Australian, and Canadian.
| Goal / Mission | The goals of this program are to improve parenting skills and children’s behaviors and decrease conduct disorders; to improve children’s social competencies; and to improve family attachment, harmony, communication, and organization. |
| Results / Accomplishments | SFP has been evaluated at least 18 times on Federal grants and at least 150 times on State grants by independent evaluators. {{I question HOW independent…}}The original National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) study involved a true pretest, posttest, and follow-up experimental design with random assignment of families to one of four experimental groups: 1) parent training only, 2) parent training plus children’s skills training, 3) the complete SFP including the family component, and 4) no treatment besides substance abuse treatment for parents.
SFP was then culturally adapted and evaluated with five Center for Substance Abuse Prevention High-Risk Youth Program grants by independent evaluators using statistical control group designs that involved quasi-experimental, pretest, posttest, and 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. Recently, SFP was compared with a popular school-based aggression prevention program (I Can Problem Solve) and found highly effective (effect sizes = .45 to 1.38), employing a true experimental pretest–posttest, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up design in two Utah school districts. A NIDA four-group randomized clinical trial with about 800 primarily African-American families in the Washington, DC, area also found good results. |
| Categories | Social Environment / Family Structure Social Environment / Children’s Social Environment |
WHICH (to me) JUST GOES TO PROVE, THERE’S NO “FREE” LUNCH. YOU GO TO A NONPROFIT (POSSIBLY FUNDED B Y THE US GOV’T OR A STATE, OR BOTH) OR THE GOV’T (VIA AN AGENCY) FOR HELP — OR FOR THAT MATTER, ENROLL A CHILD IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR EDUCATION– AND YOUR CHILDREN, AND PROBABLY YOU, will, (read my lips), will BE “AT RISK” of becoming the subject of a demonstration, or randomized trial of some behavioral management theory.
in this case, Ms. Tagle went to a judge seeking protection for her (new) infant son, and lost. Again, I do not know that this is the same Tagle. Possibly, possibly not. Different man, though. Last names not changed. Was this a rebound relationship?
Oh yes, the 2009 docket, in reverse chronologic order. No dissolution in this one:
- Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition Image
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/12/2010 9:00 AM DEPT. M3 OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
01/11/2010 ANDREW H. LUND IS REMOVED AS ATTORNEY FOR STEPHEN GARCIA, AND PRO/PER IS ADDED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUPP DECL BY KATIE TAGLE BY MAIL ON 01/07/10 AS TO ATTORNEY ANDREW LUND, FILED. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 DECLARATION OF KATIE M TAGLE FILED Not Applicable
01/05/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANSWER TO TRO/IE BY MAIL ON 01/05/10 AS TO KATIE TAGLE, FILED. Not Applicable
01/05/2010 INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA Not Applicable
01/05/2010 ANSWER TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA, PARTY REPRESENTED BY ANDREW H. LUND. Not Applicable
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
12/11/2009 CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT RECEIVED. Not Applicable
12/11/2009 EX PARTE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
12/11/2009 REQUEST FOR ORDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION Not Applicable
12/11/2009 REQUEST AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED.(DV) Not Applicable
Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Action: (Choose)02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/12/2010 – OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FI…12/15/2009 – EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC…
EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
12/15/2009 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3
DEBRA HARRIS PRESIDING. CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE – PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY LORI SMITH FOR ANDREW EUND FOR RESPONDENT. – PROCEEDINGS: OSC/MOTION HELD. BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED. DECLARATION REGARDING EXPARTE NOTICE FILED. EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. EX PARTE ORDERS DENIED. – HEARINGS: OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE IS SET FOR 01/12/10AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT M3. ACTION – COMPLETE === MINUTE ORDER END ===
For those unfamiliar with the process, let me narrate:
- She asks for ex parte protection (12/11/09) which starts a process, and gives the respondent time to go get an attorney, which he does. The request for protection stands, it’s just not ex parte — a requirement which is for safety purposes, because of potential for retaliation.
- 12/15/09 the OSC for EX PARTE (immediate, without telling the other party) protection is apparently denied and the request for protection is continued to 01/11/10. NOTE: Christmas seasons, holiday seasons, can be very dangerous for the parties when there’s been a breakup; as it highlights “family” and a family is breaking apart…
- On 01/05/10 the man, who by now has an attorney (WONDER WHO PAID FOR HIM… ACCESS / Vistation FUNDING?), Mr. Lund, and files an answer.
- The parties exchange income and expense reports (if family law is going to make some money off this, it’s important to know which side has the money…. If not, they’ll be sent quickly through mediation, not evaluations….).
- On 01/07-08/10 the woman files and serves (by mail) a supplemental declaration to the man’s attorney, properly (Proof of service).
- On 01/11/10, the man’s attorney QUITS. (not enough money in it for him? Or, the case has already been, basically, decided).
- On 01/12/10, the OCS for a normal domestic violence protection order occurs, as follows:
OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
01/12/2010 – 9:00 AM DEPT. M3
| J. DAVID MAZUREK PRESIDING. |
| CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH |
| COURT REPORTER JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND |
| – |
| PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT |
| RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT |
| – |
| PROCEEDINGS: |
| OSC/MOTION HELD. |
| BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| COURT FINDS THERE IS A PENDING PROCEEDING IN |
| THE VICTORVILLE COURT THAT IS SUBJECT TO CUSTODY |
| AND VISITATION ORDERS. |
| – |
| COURT FINDS THERE IS NOT THREAT TO PETITIONER |
| OR THE MINOR CHILD. |
| THE OSC IS DENIED. |
| – |
| ORAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES BY RESPONDENT IS |
| DENIED. |
| – |
| BOTH PARTIES ARE REMINDED BY THE COURT OF THEIR |
| FAMILY COURT SERVICES APPOINTMENT FOR THEIR |
| VICTORVILLE CASE. |
| COMPLAINT STAGE AT DISPOSITION – OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL) |
| DISPOSITION OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL) |
| COURT ORDERS ENTIRE ACTION DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. REASON: REQUEST DENIED.. |
| ACTION – COMPLETE |
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
- This (civil, I presume) venue tosses the ball back to the FAMILY law venue, and reminds them to be good little girls and boys, and go to Family Court Services.
- 01/26/2010 (LAST week, folks), something regarding fees is filed.
- 01/30/2010 — Father kills son on court-ordered visitation, and then himself. (NOT ON DOCKET).
- 01/31/2010 — Sheriff’s Dept. reports to press (see top of post):
01-31, 18:38 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —
Authorities in San Bernardino County say a 25-year-old father and his 9-month-old son have died in what investigators believe is a murder-suicide. A sheriff’s news release says deputies found Stephen Garcia and son Wyatt Garcia dead in a vehicle on a rural dirt road in the Twin Peaks area early Sunday.
The release says the Hesperia Sheriff’s Station had received a report Saturday night that Garcia took his son during a court-ordered visitation and threatened to kill the child and himself. The department did not say how the pair died, only that they “sustained traumatic injuries.” The county coroner will conduct an autopsy on both father and son this week.
Stephen Garcia was from the Pinon (pin-YONE) Hills area and his son was from Yucca Valley.
- 02/01/2010 Someone requests a Court Transcript.
I had not meant to spend so long on this case, After all, EVERY WEEK, even in my own Golden State, it seems someone ground up by this system, dies. If not a child also. I can’t keep up.
But it does illustrate the futility of (I think– make your own decision, and this is NOT legal advice) seeking a civil restraining order, versus criminal, versus, better yet, some kind of safety plan. Then again, for women with kids leaving abuse in the family law, there does not appear to be any safety. Congressmen (Danny Davis was active in a case) will help fathers haul kids back from overseas (China, Brazil, come to mind recently), but good luck getting yours back from your own state, or a next door state.
And again, a word to the wse — not that it’s an excuse — but cool it on the rebound relationships, if this was one.
AND — whoever posted on Facebook, and whoever SAW what was posted on facebook (i.e., a cry to have his threats taken seriously, as they should’ve been), YOU are responsible if you knew this couple, and did nothing. Sorry, but you are.
AND all of us need to get on the stick about this family law system. The AFCC and all their experts that PROFIT from these situations leading to, basically, more deaths, is convening in February — this month. Do research, people! It’s not rocket science, just an investment of time!
I think that if marriage, and relationships are continuing to be this dangerous to have, and leave, it is a testament to the strength of testosterone (and other hormones) that people continue to engage in sex, let alone ongoing relationships. Good grief!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A task force or a committee is not going to stop this stuff. A good audit, ongoing, by someone with courage (and other source of income) MIGHT make a dent….
Wish I had time to say more, but I don’t.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Who’s Your Daddy? Er, your Mommy? er. . . . Let the Courts Order…
This NYT article from Dec. 13th is overdue for posting. A story of how important motherhood really IS and what lengths a mother (whether financial, or surrogate — neither with any biological relationship) will go to protect their own.
Sounds like, here, both the people who PAID for the babies (they were twins) and the surrogate mother (no biological relationship) were happily married. And it would seem in both cases, employed…Surrogacy is a job…
Anyway, I presented some “teaser” information. Check out the article (multiple links and graphics), and just ask yourself, what are the responsible fatherhood folk going to do with THIS one?
Building a Baby, With Few Ground Rules
Uncertain Laws on Surrogacy Can Leave Custody at Issue.
Unable to have a baby of her own, Amy Kehoe became her own general contractor to manufacture one.
For Ms. Kehoe and her husband, Scott, the idea seemed like their best hope after years of infertility.
Working mostly over the Internet, Ms. Kehoe handpicked the egg donor, a pre-med student at the University of Michigan. From the Web site of California Cryobank, she chose the anonymous sperm donor, an athletic man with a 4.0 high school grade-point average.
On another Web site, surromomsonline.com, Ms. Kehoe found a gestational carrier who would deliver her baby.
Finally, she hired the fertility clinic, IVF Michigan, which put together her creation last December.
“We paid for the egg, the sperm, the in vitro fertilization,” Ms. Kehoe said as she showed off baby pictures at her home near Grand Rapids, Mich. “They wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for us.”
[[So far, so good . . . . Everything is worked out. Looks like the courts, the police, and the parental education folk will have to go look somewhere else, as well as supervised visitation supervisors….]]
A month later, a police officer supervised as the Kehoes relinquished the swaddled infants in the driveway.
Bridget and Ethan are now in the custody of the surrogate who gave birth to them, Laschell Baker of Ypsilanti, Mich. Ms. Baker had obtained a court order to retrieve them after learning that Ms. Kehoe was being treated for mental illness.
“I couldn’t see living the rest of my life worrying and wondering what had happened, or what if she hadn’t taken her medicine, or what if she relapsed,” said Ms. Baker, who has four children of her own.
Now, she and her husband, Paul, plan to raise the twins.
The creation of Ethan and Bridget tested the boundaries of the field known as third-party reproduction, in which more than two people collaborate to have a baby. Five parties were involved: the egg donor, the sperm donor, Ms. Baker and the Kehoes. And two separate middlemen brokered the egg and sperm.
Well, that’s not my main post this afternoon…. Interesting reading, though. I poke fun at Designer Families from the Top-Down perspective. But you ain’t seen nothin’ yet . . . .
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Here Come da Judge!”
Some times, hard times, a little humor helps me. I seem to notice things that maybe others don’t (oft-burnt, twice as observant?)…
This is from Womenslaw.org about Custody, and a good question, plus a sidelong plug for (what else) supervised visitation. . . . And no absolute commitment either way on this topic:
Can a parent who committed violence get “custody” or “visitation”?
Maybe. It is possible that a parent who has committed violence will get custody or visitation if the court determines that it is in the “best interest of the child” to do so. Generally, judges beleve it is in the child’s best interest to have frequent contact with both parents.*1
{{so, the “court” kind of being the “judge” who signs the order, we get back to what judges generally believe… For more of that, see the AFCC conference as to what’s being promoted among many of them…}}
Conservatorship / Custody:
If a person is filing for sole or joint managing conservatorship, the court will consider whether the person has been abusive toward his/her spouse, the parent of the child and any person under 18 years old within the 2 years before filing for conservatorship or during the proceeding. A judge may deny joint managing conservatorship if s/he finds that there is a history or pattern of child neglect or physical or sexual abuse of a parent, spouse or child.*2
{{then, again, they also may not. Sounds like a toss-up to me…}}
The judge may not {{OR, may…}} appoint joint managing conservators if reliable evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *3
Likewise, the court [[as opposed to “the judge?”] will consider {{but will it act on?}} any incident of family violence in deciding whether to deny, restrict, or limit the possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory conservator.*4
Possession and Access / Visitation:
If a parent has been violent within the last two years before filing or during the court proceedings, a judge may {{or may not, we have no committed policy here, right?}} deny that parent possession of or access to the child unless:
the judge decides that allowing the parent access is not a danger to the child and is in the best interest of the child; and
the judge approves a possession order that will protect the child and any other victim from the abusive parent. The order may require:
- supervised access; {{Here’s the Business Model…}}
exchange of the child in a protective setting (see note below);
that the parent not drink alcohol and not use any drugs within 12 hours before or during the time the child is with him/her; or {{See my comments on Oconto, Wisconsin, where the father was caught DUI with the daughter in the car, but still it was the MOTHER who was jailed for failing to force the daughter back into that situation.}}
that the parent attend a batterer’s prevention program or any program the judge finds appropriate. *5
Tell the judge if you have gotten a protective order within the last 2 years against the parent seeking possession of and access to your child. The judge will consider this when determining whether there is a history of family violence.*6
{{Note: Some women get SMART after the first several violent incidents, and survive more than 2 years in a relationship before someone shows them how to get out. In this case, asking what happened in the last 2 years may not indicate that the father/husband/partner has reformed or settled down, or repented, but simply that the mother/wife/partner simply got cagier and smarter in how to avoid them. As many abusers also are control freaks, as toa ccess to transportation and ways to escape their abuse, this may involve shutting down emotionally, and teaching the kids to also, i.e., “walking on eggshells.” how many judges take the time to tell the difference?}}
Note: If the abuser is granted possession and access to your child, ask the court or a local domestic violence program for information about visitation centers or visitation exchange facilities in your county if you think that is a good option for you.
GOT THIS? The judge MAY respect the danger of domestic violence, or the judge MAY instead choose to drop-kick the problem to some cronies in the supervised visitation field.
{{Which of course they will prime you to. . . .. . I asked for this, and was of course, not told that there is federal funding for this, but not available so readily for MOMS… Not being incarcerated, an abuser, or behind on my child support (as the custodial mother), there was no outreach program to help me. And as I wasn’t preventing access, that wasn’t an issue. Thanks, dudes for rewarding me for compliance and good-faith allowing regular access to my growing (and healing) children by totally removing them from me, failing to enforce child support — at all, practically — and allowing him after custody switch to totally cut off contact, failing to report felony child-stealing (meaning, no Victims of Crime compensation), and no help after this event trashed my jobs. Thanks. Merry Christmas to all, and let’ em eat cake…}}
It is assumed by the court that it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *7
*1 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131
*2 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(a)
*3 Tex. Fam. Code §153.004(b)
*4 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(c)
*5 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(d)
*6 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004
*7 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(e)
======================
(Since I’ve already dated, if not geographically marked (as to California) myself, I’ll go one step further and admit, this “well, it depends. . . .. ” approach to whether an abuser (or “a parent who has committed violence”) can get custody of a child approach reminded me (see highlit words, above) on the old comedy routine:
“Here Comes Da Judge!”
A little more judicial humor, even more dated (i.e., not my own…):
“THE INSCRUTABLE WORKINGS OF PROVIDENCE“
My last blog{{whoever this is...}}, on the rather bland exchanges between lawyers and justices of the U.S. Supreme Court, gave me a craving for red meat. So I pulled out my copy of Winston Churchill's marvelous little book, Great Contemporaries, and I turned to the essay on F.E. Smith, a lawyer who later became the first Earl of Birkenhead. Smith was famous for his stilletto wit, which once drew a pompous rebuke from a presiding judge: "Mr. Smith, have you ever heard a saying by Bacon -- the great Bacon -- that youth and discretion are ill-wedded companions?" "Yes I have," came the instant repartee. "And have you ever heard a saying of Bacon -- the great Bacon -- that a much-talking judge is like an ill-tuned cymbal?" Taken aback, the judge resorted to scolding, "You are extremely offensive, young man," "As a matter of fact," said Smith, "we both are; but I am trying to be, and you can't help it." The judge, who apparently had never heard of citing a lawyer for contempt, came back for another drubbing: ""What do you suppose I am on the bench for, Mr. Smith?" "It is not for me, your honor, to attempt to fathom the inscrutable workings of Providence." That kind of exchange is something we we will never hear in oral arguments before the Supreme Court. Americans are much too dignified for any such thing. Posted on January 9, 2006 10:40 PM | PermalinkOR:If I want to quote a Supreme Court justice who was genuinely funny, I usually turn to Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935).Among my favorite Holmes stories is the one concerning how he was supposed to lecture at a college, and discovered that he had arrived at an insane asylum by mistake. The justice was philosophical. “Oh well,” he said to the guard, “I don’t suppose that there is a great deal of difference.” For once, the legal eagle was topped. “With great respect, Mr. Justice,” the guard replied, “there is. Before they let you out of this place, you have to show some improvement.” Posted on January 2, 2006 7:53 PM | Permalink
More, “HERE COME DA JUDGE” info:
Here comes the Judge!
Here comes the judge!
The court's in session!
The Funky Judge! Updated 8.28.02
That’s right. 1968 was the year of the funky craze (see last issue’s Soul With An African Twist). It may not have showed up on the Chinese astrological calendar, but ’68 was definitely the year of the Judge. Dewey ‘Pigmeat’ Markham trod the boards of the ‘Chitlin’ circuit for decades as well as appearing in many of the ‘sepia’ films aimed at forcibly segregated black audiences. In 1968 a routine of his about an angry, obstreperous judge broke into the mainstream of America’s pop consciousness. Pigmeat, a big guy with a loud, extremely gravelly voice would enter with a chant of: ‘Here come da judge, here come da judge! The court’s in session, the court’s in session!’ and then would launch into a hysterical tirade. In early 1968 Pigmeat and his rap found their way onto Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-in, and rapidly became a favorite, eventually becoming a regular on the show. It wasn’t long before ‘Judge’ records started to appear on the scene. Ironically, the first hit (chronologically) was not by Markham but Motown mainstay Shorty Long. Long, who had hit before with the original versions of ‘Devil With the Blue Dress On’ and ‘Function at the Junction’, made it (in June of ’68) to #4 on the R&B charts and #8 on the pop charts with his very funky ‘Here Comes The Judge’. In Long’s record, the Judge is sentencing the defendant to various amounts of time for the boogaloo, the four corners and the Afro-twist. The judge on the record even sounds like Pigmeat. Markham charted with his own version a few weeks later, on Chess (Chess2049). His tune ( a different song entirely) starts out with a long proto-rap speech, with exclamations from the gallery. The tune breaks into a deep, rough funk. In fact, despite the fact that he was an old fella, Pigmeat laid down the funkiest records in the entire ‘Judge’ genre (though it’s fair to mention that he had the mighty talents of the Chess house band backing him up).
I’m not really “playing around” so much as it might appear. Did you do your homework last few posts, and look up the L.A. County Judges Slush fund (at least acc. to Marv Bryer et al.), how it started out of the county court house, not paying taxes for years (til basically forced to), morphed into CCC then somehow AFCC, and now we have these tremendous professionals, and social scientists figuring out our problems for us…..?
ETHICS, TRANSFORMATIONS, and Dr. JUDITH REISMAN, Kinsey, etc….
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/CaliforniaCripplesWomen.pdf
I cannot find the exact article where Dr. Reisman was talking about the importance of ETHICS in public servants, and referring to a certain (old) law that was being undermined. She is a controversial figure for sure, but I responded to her personal story, which you might also, and how her own world got rocked when it was discovered a relative had been molested. …. I’d also like to note: articles are published onto “WND” (World Net Daily) which I do NOT espouse overall….
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html#journey
Summary:
Dr. Judith Reisman is sought worldwide to speak, lecture, testify, and counsel individuals, organizations, professionals and governments in Media Forensics, the scientific analysis of images, pictures, cartoons, illustrations, pornography and text in sexual harassment of women and children in the workplace, schools, and homes. Her Media Forensic expertise has been successful in child custody cases, examining “pseudo-child” and “virtual-child” pornography, as well as in judicial and legislative decisions about a) fraudulent sex science, sex education and b) the way in which media images restructure human brain, mind, memory, and conduct by hijacking rationality. The special emphasis of her Media Forensic research has been and continues to be the scientific documentation of the difference between public and private space human erotic displays, and the subversion of informed consent via exposure to supranormal visual stimuli.
Dr. Reisman is a consultant and former president of The Institute for Media Education and is the scientific adviser for the California Protective Parents Association. She was Principal Investigator and author of the U.S. Department of Justice, Juvenile Justice study, Images of Children, Crime and Violence in Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler (1989), Kinsey, Sex and Fraud (Reisman, et al., 1990) and Soft Porn Plays Hardball (1991), Partner Solicitation Language as a Reflection of Male Sexual Orientation (w/Johnson, 1995), and Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences (1998, 2000) and is a news commentator for WorldNetDaily.com. She has been a consultant to four U.S. Department of Justice administrations, The U.S. Department of Education, as well as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Dr. Reisman is listed in numerous Who’s Who biographies such as: Who’s Who in Science & Engineering, International Who’s Who in Sexology, International Who’s Who in Education, Who’s Who of American Women and The World’s Who’s Who of Women. Her scholarly findings have had international legislative and scientific import in the United States, Israel, South Africa, Canada and Australia, while The German Medical Tribune and the British medical journal, The Lancet demanded that the Kinsey Institute be investigated, saying:
The Kinsey reports (one in 1948 on males and the companion five years later) claimed that sexual activity began much earlier in life…. and displayed less horror of age differences and same-sex relationships than anyone at the time imagined. It was as if, to follow Mr. Porter again, “Anything goes”. In Kinsey, Sex and Fraud, Dr. Judith A. Reisman and her colleagues demolish the foundations of the two reports … Kinsey et al … questioned an unrepresentative proportion of prison inmates and sex offenders in a survey of “normal” sexual behavior. Presumably some at least of those offenders were also the sources of information on stimulation to orgasm in young children that can only have come from pedophiles–or so it must be hoped. Kinsey…. has left his former co-workers some explaining to do. The Lancet, (Vol. 337: March 2, 1991, p. 547).
Tim Tate, UNESCO and Amnesty International Award-winning Producer-Director of “Kinsey’s Paedophiles,” Yorkshire Television, Great Britain, 1998: “In the course of producing my documentary-Kinsey’s Paedophiles–it became clear that every substantive allegation Reisman made was not only true but thoroughly sourced with documentary evidence–despite the Kinsey Institute’s reluctance to open its files.”
HER STORY:
By Judith A. Reisman, Ph.D.
I have been asked to introduce myself so that you know something of my life and how I came to discover Kinsey’s child molestation protocol, his false data, his molding of modern sex education and of western sexual culture and conduct, as well as how I came be involved in international governmental hearings on science fraud, child sexual abuse, pornography, drugs and the other critical issues of our time. I will try to touch on the points in my life which may be of most use to readers of this Kinsey expose.
I was born, Judith Ann Gelernter, in 1935 in Newark, New Jersey. Mine was a large and thriving second-generation Jewish-American family, Russian on my maternal side, German on my parental side. Both sets of grandparents had fled persecution in Europe, and upon landing at Ellis Island in New York, they thankfully embraced their adopted country, immediately took up menial labor, and raised large families of achievers.
My father Matthew was born in Massachusetts and my mother Ada in New Jersey. They eventually owned “Matthew’s Sea Food,” which they developed into a prosperous fish business in Irvington, New Jersey. The Gelernter’s held family meetings every few months at Aunt Laura’s large home in South Orange, New Jersey. More than forty adults and dozens of children sat down to dinners tastefully arranged and served, table manners always impeccable. After dinner, without the modern invention of television, political debates raged between my parents and the family. My parents were the radicals of the family. They believed the widely publicized propaganda of a perfect new world order under socialism or communism. None of our mainstream newspapers had ever revealed the multiple millions of Russians murdered by “Uncle Joe” Stalin. Still, all was mended when cousin Ruth sat down at the piano to accompany my father and three aunts, Laura, Shirley and Mary, as they sang old Yiddish and American folk songs in four-part harmony. I was mesmerized.
For me, they were musical giants, singing, swaying, smiling and beckoning. My dad, looked, I thought, movie-star handsome alongside my favorite Aunt Mary, a beautiful red-haired, green-eyed soprano who had rejected an offer from the Metropolitan Opera in order to marry and raise a family.
. . .
I lived at a wonderful time. My mother welcomed me home every day and my father supported anything I did. I was safe among neighbors, uncles or cousins due to the delightfully repressive influence of the time. I married, and the hedge of protection about my life was not breached until 1966 when my 10-year-old daughter was molested by a 13-year-old adored and trusted family friend. She told him to stop, but he persisted. He knew she would like it, he said, he knew from his father’s magazines, Playboy, the only “acceptable” pornography of the time. The boy left the country a few weeks later, after it came to light that my daughter was but one of several neighborhood children he had raped, including his own little brother. My heart was broken for all the families involved.
This appalling event in our lives, I would learn later, was a pattern with juvenile sex offenders, as they are known in law enforcement circles.
I might never have known anything about her violation, except that my daughter slipped into a deep depression. Only after I promised not to call the police would she talk about what happened. After assuring her this was not her fault, I called my dependable, staid aunt who listened sympathetically and declared, “Well Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. Children are sexual from birth.” Stunned, I replied that my child was not seeking sex, and called my Berkeley school chum, Carole, who counseled, “Well Judy, she may have been looking for this herself. You know children are sexual from birth.” I wondered at this same locution from two such different people so separated geographically. I recognized an ideological “party line.” I did not know it then, but as a young mother, I had entered the world according to Kinsey. I would hear and read that “children are sexual from birth” often again. But finaly I would uncover the hidden circumstances surrounding its source.
What will your judge believe? Suppose it was your daughter? As a mother — like the Berkeley (female) officer who finally noticed something was “off” regarding Phillip Garrido’s twoa ccomplices, will “da judge?” be receptive to your story, your kid’s story, or your partner’s story? Will all of them be considered “stories” and then business farmed out to a mediator, because the story now, is, equal parenting, pretty much no matter what….. And we MUST resolve our (irreconciliable?) differences in Conciliation, excuse me, Family Court, because it’s emotionally damaging to have irreconciliable differences with real damages.
I really believe the only way out is to find out who is paying these pipers. My research, to date, shows that it’s NOT just the litigating parents, but the entire taxable workforce. And the organization spouting all this stuff began by dodging taxes itself, allegedly. Go figure!
(THESE few from NAFCJ.net, home page — links may or may not be current, but are searchable):
“Protective Mom Accused of Witchhunt”, 11/23/1999, By Cheryl Romo, LA Daily Journal — Karen Anderson, one of the retaliated protective mothers mentioned in the Insight story, has since obtained hard evidence (cancelled checks) that federal money from fatherhood programs was used without her knowledge to pay-off all court officials in her case. Anderson along with Connie Valentine are heading up NAFCJ’s reform action in California.
A Financial Fiasco Is in the Making, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara, Insight Magazine, Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association, 2002, still slushing funds
and not paying taxes…
Insight Magazine “Is Justice for Sale in LA?”, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara – Marv Bryer fights against corruption in Los Angeles County Court – the original AFCC court judges’ association, and promoters of Dr. Richard Gardner’s discredited pedophile theory, “PAS” Parental Alienation Syndrome.
Insight Magazine “New Scandals in LA Courts”, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara — Continuation with more of Marv Bryer’s evidence details on an alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association (AFCC judges) and the possible extortion of civil litigants by some officers of the court.”
Retaliation Against Professionals Who Report Child Abuse, By Katherine Hine, J.D., Exposé The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes, A Resource Book for Lawmakers, Judges, Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals.
I’m still looking at the googled “Marv Bryer” myself: here’s a sample of printouts:
Videos: Interview with Marvin Bryer – Naples, Fl | Naples Daily News
Marvin Bryer talks about getting to see Obama – Video taken in or around Naples, Florida.
http://www.naplesnews.com/videos/detail/interview-marvin–bryer/ – Cached – SimilarHave you Ever Heard of Marvin Bryer
3 posts – 3 authors – Last post: Dec 28, 2008Have you Ever Heard of Marvin Bryer. … It starts at about Minute 50 about Marvin Bryer. The below document indicates some of the stuff …
forum.prisonplanet.com › … › General Discussion – Cached – SimilarIRS Non-Profit Organization
Dec 21, 1998 … A letter has been sent by Marvin Bryer to the IRS alerting them of this scam; the attendant mis-use of government facilities; …
http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/irscpa.htm – Cached – SimilarBryer Tort Claim of 9/10/98
May 8, 1999 … Enter Marvin Bryer, a retired computer analyst in La Crescenta, Calif. . . . . Bryer became ensnared with the family-court system after his …
http://www.johnnypumphandle.com/cc/bryr0910.htm – Cached – Similar
You know what? Maybe the love of money IS the root of all evil. Not using it, not having it, but loving it more than, say, children. Or oaths of office, etc.
Exposing & Prosecuting
Judicial Corruption thru
Common Law Discovery
by Marvin Bryer [1997]
DISCLAIMER: Note, this seems to be a survivalist, gun-toting, all-American (you get the picture), I’d say for sure conservative site. I am just curious to read the Marv Bryer article, and don’t know if this represents his philosophy either. Sort through it, though.
THE THING IS:
If you are going to the fruit stand in a store, are you going to sort and pick through apples for the good ones? Or pick a pre-bagged, inspected, certified organic (etc.) one, whose packaging you trust? Or, alternately, skip apples for today.
They say one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. When you get divorced and can’t figure it out OUTside court, you must go INSIDE, and in this case, you can’t forum-shop or judge shop. Remember, if there is conflict within a family, the parents just lost jurisdiction, acc. to that old law (see last few posts). Your kids and your life are no longer your own.
Therefore it’s IMPERATIVE that ALL financial incentives to defraud the public be removed for ALL judges. This ain’t going to be a walk in the park, and I wish that the Moms and Dads both (the honest ones) would quit yakking about social science studies and do their math homework.
Hope you appreciate this sacrifice of my own internet time just made to day. Have a nice day… and Let’s Get HONEST! And make sure our public officials do also!
Thanks.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Social Services or Simply Serving Up Socialism?
leave a comment »
{{post began in late May…}}
I’m almost off the deep end after having made the rounds of all the potential “services” available to help with — well, what exactly WERE they supposed to help with?
I looked at yet another set of conferences (and the backgrounds of the speakers).
Consider:
FAMILY COURT SERVICES (serving up WHAT to WHOM?)….
HUMAN SERVICES
and for that matter,
SUNDAY, or SATURDAY, MORNING SERVICES.
Adding to the dissociation, neither the word “Sunday” nor “Saturday” (above) derive from the Judaeo-Christian writings, which forbade worship of the heavens (or creation) and simply numbered the days, rather than naming them, except for specified feast days. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, SABBATH.
Changing that 7th day to “Sunday” was a power play not even shrouded in history, but clearly documented — and part of our ADHD landscape today. The days of the week are named after what this tradition called “Pagan” gods, and not even consistently so. Some are named after planets, some are gods (Norse, if I have it right).
Then we name the months also — some of them after divinities (January, March) some after emperors (August) and some after numbers (like September — which means Seven — but in OUR mixed up calendar, it’s actually the 9th month). No wonder the year starts with the god with two faces, Janus.
======
BUT — back to the idea of “SERVICE”
Just who is being served? And what?
What’s on the plate, and who’s paying the piper?
The more I actually THINK about this, examine, and reflect (things low-income single mothers, let alone litigants are NOT supposed to do; they are supposed to leave the evaluation up to those hired to do so, i.e., the “evaluators” and other “experts,” few of who — as I keep saying — have experienced what we are going through (including at the hands of the courts), and not enough of them having actually even experienced giving birth and functionin as a MOTHER, and then suddenly having motherhood ripped out from underneath them…. That is not typically the job route to becoming a judge…. But, if you are a 2nd (or in the case of Ms. Nadia Lockyer, I heard, THIRD) wife, then it’s probably a different scenario. She moved up real quickly through the ranks, having a child the same year she married, and within 4 years (who’s raising HER child?) becoming head of the Alameda County Family Justice Center — something she surely knows a lot about, having actually raised a family (??? ??? ????)
There is a slippery road of Slipshod language sliding downhill FAST to what I basically call SLAVERY.
14 steps to slavery listed
in the back of the NDCC book. “NDCC” stands for “None Dare Call It Conspiracy.”
One dare not call a conspiracy a conspiracy because of the namecalling, slander, shunning campaign likely to follow.
Why can’t one use the word “conspiracy” if one exists, or is thought to exist? We have a Department of Homeland Security whose very job is to STOP “conspiracies” to overthrow it.
Suppose people notice a conspiracy to overthrow civil rights, or a particular group of people, which shows indicators of heading towards a partial genocide by (name your profile) — we are NOT supposed to talk about it? Will that DHS come after us if we do?
I’m going to talk about it, because I know what I have personally experienced, I know my experience is NOT unique, and I’ve been around enough to know which topics are censored (never brought up) by which types of conferences, even when the conference APPEARS to have (on the face of it) diversity of viewpoints represented.
The diversity is superficial, as in the case of the VAWA groups collaborating with the Fatherhood Groups (1994 VAWA and 1994 NFI are clear enough indicators) and NONE Of them are really talking about the Fatherhood movement actually being a religion [these adherents are so upset with feminists because feminism challenges the male-dominated Judaeo-Christian religion], about misappropriations of federal grants, nor are they talking about government sanctioned child-trafficking, which is just about what’s taking place these days.
[[I’ll paste top of that link at the bottom of this post…]]
Here are 14 indicators, per Gary Allen, (link below) and he wrote this in 1970. He claimed that several were already in effect at the time:
I SHUDDER as I realize how many of the above are taking place through the family law system, and have become accepted, and commonplace, by society {A few bracketed above in italics are mine, not Mr. Allen’s}. I was deeply affected by the one regarding education when private education is possible. It’s easier to make orders like this to divorcing or separated parents (given the threat of removing custody to the other parent if compliance is not quick) than a united pair. I most definitely had fewer rights separated than married, and remember, my marriage standard was the religious version of domestic violence.
Here’s where it goes when the Religious Police hold sway, or could go. THis time, a man was caught, but typically it leans hard on women:
http://www.google.com/search?q=90+lashes+kissing+in+public+&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1
Is this where we want to head?
We DO realize, right? that psychology & psychiatry is basically a religion substitute, and shares many of the same qualities, stating norms and deviance from them as mental illness sometimes requiring medication …..
And Wade Horn and other religious folk are fundamental architects of many HHS programs.
We’d better face these issues nationally!
We’re on it, and far down this road. I can’t take on the nonprofits and the foundations behind them without reliable housing, food, and transportation, let alone identifiable FUTURE. At this point, I can’t even write a well-reviewed post.
But one thing I CAN do is walk into a room, or a venue, and pick up on the linguistic ambience. This comes perhaps from my former profession (teaching, musicianship) in combination with the years of living with a spouse who was overt about controlling everything.
You want to “explicate” domestic violence? I have it in a simple motto, and no conferences need be run on the finer points of it: It’s slavery.
It’s this attitude:
Read the “14 steps to slavery” in the back of this book. We’re in it. And while reading, ignore any onlookers who start the namecalling — you’re a Tea Party member, you’re a fundie, you’re paranoid.
NO, I’m awake. Grrrrowllll
[PDF]
NONE DARE CALL IT CONSPIRACY
at their disposal to fire the barrages at None Dare Call It Conspiracy. …… This book: None Dare Call It Conspiracy. In writing this book we have tried …
The Great Income Tax Hoax
Welcome to the Net-based copy of 16 chapters of Irwin Schiff’s masterpiece on the US “Income Tax”! Laws are the whitewash that governments use to disguise the ugly fact that they steal money from productive people, then use it to control how they live their lives.
Being merely one-sided contracts, [tax, presumably] laws have no moral validity whatsoever; but eight generations of government schooling have conned Americans into supposing that they are magic, to be held in respect and awe.
Accordingly, if there is a tax law, most people tend to obey it. In this masterpiece, perhaps the most important book he ever wrote, Irwin Schiff shows that there is no such thing; how even that veneer of respectability falls off the “income tax” when its origins are systematically probed
==============
SANDIEGOCHILDTRAFFICKING:
(The sites spelling and formatting is a LITTLE better than mine…)
Here are some of the links at the top of the page. The average person does not have the time or stomach to process all of this:
Child Trafficking
Son says Hennepin County ignored his claims of hidden camera in home
He says he reported it in 2007; father indicted in May on child-porn charges
dhanners@pioneerpress.com
Updated: 06/12/2010 09:40:16 PM CDT
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
June 11, 2010 at 4:56 pm
Posted in After HE Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Split Personality Court Orders, Where's Mom?
Tagged with 14 Steps to Slavery, CPS, custody, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, Due process, family law, fatherhood, foster father child porn arrest, Hennepin County MN, hidden camera in foster care family bathroom, None Dare Call It Conspiracy, obfuscation, Our ADHD calendar, Pierre Larsen case, runaways, San Diego Child Trafficking, social commentary, Who's serving Whom WHAT?, women's rights