Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for the ‘Split Personality Court Orders’ Category

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

leave a comment »

 

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

summarizing the situation fairly well:

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

chorus

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

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

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

Permalink

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

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

Do you stay, or do you leave?

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

Of course you should leave!

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

What does it mean to be a target?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is this what you want?

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

Why?

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

What mother allows her children to get abused?

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

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

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

That seems like the best idea. Leave.

Wait!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Get the restraining order anyway.

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

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

Go ahead and report the entire history of abuse.

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

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

Where are your vaginal tears, bruises, scars?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What mother would keep a father away from his children?

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

You know your abuser best.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

How do you want to die?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See Also: Carl Brizzi: Prosecuting Battered Women

Indiana’s Bench

The Paradox of Recusal

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

In Texas and Florida–Court Ordered Exortion

Pennsylvania, Corruption, and Children, Just Like Florida

How Judges Set Up A System to Rig Cases for Fathers

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND, obviously:

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

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

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

He has been charged with second degree murder. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Was money a factor?  Who knows…:

……..

January 2009 – Akron, Ohio

Police say emotional distress led man to kill estranged wife

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

By Phil Trexler
Beacon Journal staff writer
 

Published on Saturday, Jan 10, 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

He blamed infidelity and divorce. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stressful standoff
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suspect interviewed
 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

 

June 2009 — Autenreith – Pennsylvania:

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

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

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

 

September, 2009 (Labor Day) Minnesota:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

October 23, 2009 Atlanta, Georgia, Strube-Allen

(Isn’t this DV awareness month?)

Child of woman killed at Target in custody battle

Mother-in Law charged! 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police Search For Motive In Fatal N.J. Shooting

Paterson Father Allegedly Shot Estranged Wife, 2 Children

Reporting
Jay Dow

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

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

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

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

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

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

Police said

Gonzalez actually then chased down his 7-year old son and shot him in the neck near the rear of the apartment building.
The boy was pronounced dead at the scene.
However, the ordeal didn’t end there. Police said Gonzalez went back to the street and chased down his estranged wife. That’s when off-duty Paterson Detective Lt. Washington Griffen, a 19-year veteran who was at a nearby McDonald’s drive-through with his son saw what was happening and intervened.

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

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

November 2009, Oregon?

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

By Bill Oram, The Oregonian

November 10, 2009, 8:49PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Full story: Associated Content

Hans Reiser was sentenced to 15-years-to-life Friday in an Oakland, California, courtroom for the murder of Nina Reiser. Many believe that the sentence was too lenient, that prosecutors should have given Reiser more time on his sentence. Besides, Hans Reiser was convicted in April — and
convicted without the body of Nine Reiser. But Hans Reiser, a brilliant Linux guru, had held onto one piece of information about Nine Reiser throughout his trial, a trial throughout which he maintained his innocence. Hans Reiser knew where Nina Reiser was buried.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GEORGIA:

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

  • Coordination of visitations or parenting time
  • Mediation between the parents (non-legal, non-binding)
  • Written parenting plans
  • Group parenting education
  • Counseling on access issues 

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

MISSISSIPPI:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other goals include:

  • Encouraging family agreements through mediation; 
  • Providing parent education plans to enhance parenting skills;
  • Furnishing a safe, neutral facility for visitation, as needed;  i.e., [pushing Supervised Visitation]
  • Promoting compliance to the noncustodial parent’s court ordered support obligations;  [[Translation:  reducing support obligations in hope to bribe the other parent to better comply.  This is called “helping.” ]]
  • Aiding custodial parents in honoring court ordered visitations; and

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

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

Now WHY doesn’t that surprise me?

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

  • BOTH parents being involved in the development stages of the child’s life. 
  • BOTH parents providing emotional, medical, psychological and financial support. 
  • BOTH parents sharing in the child’s character and core values development.
  • BOTH parents agreeing on scheduling and time-sharing.

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

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

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

What services are provided in MAV-P?

  • MEDIATION includes MAV-P staff working with both parents to develop a peaceful resolution to visitation disputes.  This process is a face-to-face interview and/or telephone sessions.
  • SUPERVISED VISITATION is scheduled for parents with legally established visitation directed by a court order or divorce decree.
  • EDUCATION is offered through parenting classes which address the basic needs of the child, money and stress management, child abuse, co-parenting and the concerns of the parents for their child(ren)’s well-being.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

benefits associated with preserving the connection between noncustodial parents and their

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

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

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

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

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

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

Give us your huddled masses, your underage daughters: Oconto Co Wisconsin locks up Lorraine, . . .

with 5 comments

Earlier, I (and colleagues — see those buttons on my blogroll!) posted  on the 30-plus individuals involved in ONE mother reporting sexual molestation (and more) of her little girl in Wisconsin,  after CPS workers in 2 counties confirmed it. 

As reported Oct. 17th (DV awareness month, much?) on another blog (calling her a “teen” daughter was inaccurate.  Though the abuse started earlier, my understanding is, she is 11).  You should click on this link also — someone’s comment (wife of a police officer) is relating another account.

Wisconsin Mom Lorraine Tipton (Oconto County) is under fire because her teen daughter refuses to go on visitation with her abuser father, who makes her sleep on the floor and drives with her drunk in the car.  The father, Craig Hensberger, managed to convince the father’s rights judge, Judge David Miron, in power there, to threaten Lorraine with jail if her daughter does not go.  Her daughter was in the emergency room this past Thursday night, sick and frantic, and is currently home with her mom, medicated and scared.  The abuser’s mommy has not picked her up as she threatened to do.  So Lorraine faces jail on Monday.  Please say a prayer for her. 

Here’s a StopFamilyViolence release on it at “RandiJames.com”  File it under “a Thanksgiving to remember…”  I guess…

Daughter Won’t Visit Father? Jail Mommy!

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 19, 2009

Contact:
Irene Weiser
Stop Family Violence
iw@stopfamilyviolence.org

WHY IS THIS MOTHER IN JAIL?

(Oconto Falls, WI) Today an Oconto County family court judge sentenced a mother to jail because she was unable to force her daughter to court mandated visitation with her abusive father. The daughter will be sent to foster care if she refuses to live with her father while the mother serves her sentence.
Circuit Judge David Miron sentenced Lorraine Tipton to 30 days in county jail for contempt of court, for her failure to follow the custody order requiring her daughter to live every other week with her father, Craig Hensberger.

 

NOTE:  Anyone see this work in reverse, father jailed for refusing visitation to mother?  If so, let me know — it’s my situation.  I miss my (daughters) too!  And if I file for a contempt (further upsetting someone) knowing the courts or enforcement will do nothing, leaving an angry male on the loose.  Same deal with “certifiably insane restraining orders.”  But there’s not a single qualm about restraining protective mothers.  Fork them little girls over, we want a fresh supply of young flesh, plus that adrenaline rush that comes from dominating a woman,  for those who feel entitled, or have become addicted to this need.

These are country-wide, generational nightmares.  When’s the wakeup call?  What will it take to stop it?

 

She’s terrified of going; she has night terrors and severe anxiety” says Tipton, who admits her daughter hasn’t visited with her father since August.
“I thought the court was supposed to look out for the best interests of the child, not the best interest of the father,” Tipton continued. “I thought once I got out of the abusive relationship everything would be fine. Instead, my abuser is continuing his abuse of me and my daughter with the help of the court.”

Over the course of their on and off 8 year relationship Hensberger was arrested three times for domestic violence and once for child abuse. Since their separation in 2005, Hensberger has been arrested twice for DWI, including once while the daughter was in the car.

Although the court has ordered Hensberger into alcohol treatment and ordered “absolute sobriety” when having visitation, the daughter claims he continues to drink to excess when she is visiting. The father told the court he had stopped drinking completely. The mother recently had a private investigator follow the father, who found that the father drank heavily on a night he was scheduled to have visitation. In court today the father admitted to his continued drinking; nonetheless the judge still sentenced the mother to jail.

 

Clearly this judge marches to the beat of a different drummer, or is it $$?  One wonders…



Hensberger achieved his local 15 minutes of fame in Oconto in March of this year, when he forced his daughter to enter 3 different fishing tournaments using the same fish so that he could collect the money – a story covered widely by local news. While the local media angle related to his transportation of fish against DNR regulations, Ms. Tipton’s concerns were for the well-being of her daughter, who was being taught to lie, cheat and steal by her father. Since this incident, the daughter’s relationship with the father has deteriorated, Tipton claims.
Additionally, the father’s employment is irregular, his house is in foreclosure and he currently resides with his mother. The daughter claims she is forced to sleep on the floor in the living room or in the unfinished basement since there is no bed or private space for her in the small 2 bedroom house.

“Sadly, this case typifies the problems we are seeing in Family Courts nationwide,” says Irene Weiser, executive director of StopFamilyViolence. org. “Family court judges are failing to recognize signs of abuse, and are placing children in harms way. {{I DISAGREE.  THEY SEE IT, BUT CHOOSE TO IGNORE IT.  The KEY TO THIS PROBLEM IS WHAT ARE THESE JUDGES PAYING GREATER HEED TO THAN THEIR JUDICIAL MANDATE HERE?}}  Even worse, instead of investigating the abuse allegations, they accuse the parent making the allegations of being vindictive and punish them for taking actions to protect their children. Often judges seem more concerned with maintaining the child’s relationship with the father than ensuring the child’s safety.”

 

Apparently this mother is now out of jail, and her daughter is back in a different kind of jail sentence, and we will just have to figure out how to grow up around all this.  And the reporters will continue wondering why we have so much rape, violence, and substance abuse, let alone, mental health problems in our country.  Gee, let’s take a wild, educated, guess…

Again, folks, this is not anomaly, some aberration, some weird exception in upstate (or wherever) Midwestern Dairy State (?) .  No, this is the pattern, this is the intent, and this is the practice in the family courts.  You are watching it.  Watch your headlines….

At the risk of hammering in this point of HOW it happens, and why (i.e., pointing to probable cause, not just effects), here’s an excerpt from the NAFCJ.net website as to this practice. 

Further down on this link the “Center for Policy Research” group is mentioned.  Check it out — it’s a key player, and sets a pattern for similar groups…

Meanwhile, I am saying my prayers for the Tipton family (and mine).

Child Support role is often a key factor.  Don’t know if it was this time, but t ypically it is.  A broke Mom can’t stick up so well for her rights. 

ANYTHING below this line is a quote from that NAFCJ site, though not so formatted, which ends my post today. 

One reason I understand this pattern to make sense is watching the pattern of abuse, individually, between the family of origin and my ex, and the role of finances, etc., develop over the years, and a progression to the careful vocabulary / jargon used to justify it. 

There is most definitely a system to the chaos. In fact, chaos is the desired status, from what I can see.  (See also Naomi Klein, “The Shock Doctrine,” referring to continental lockdown, etc.)  When people, or a nation, is in shock, it is vulnerable to dictatorship.  That’s why we must FIGHT LIKE HELL for Constitutional rights for all citizens:  male/female, young or old.  This is a language issue, and then practicing what the Constitution says, eliminating something else in one’s life, and forcing legislators, judges, attorneys, and lawyers to practice what they swore an oath to.  It requires checking public records and trying to stop kickbacks, racketeering, double-dipping, and so forth.  This is the price of freedom — vigilance.  And yes, it matters, if it’s not your immediate neighbor!

—————————————————————————

Read about Meyer Elkin’s  role in the AFCC is discussed  toward the bottom of their site  AFCC: History page  .  
Completely omitted from this AFCC history is the very relevant fact that Meyer Elkin also co-founded in 1985, the leading fathers rights group – Children’s Rights Council.  Study these people and their site carefully because it is the “blueprint” of how the courts are organized to rig cases for their paid-up allies.  Nobody has to slip an envelope full of cash into the pocket of a co-conspirators to rig court cases for these people.  It is all done for them by the government.  They get their bribes paid for them !

The  AFCC never mentions the multiple cross-affiliations between AFCC officials and the fathers rights group including Children’s Rights Council (CRC), founded by David Levy  in 1985, along with several other key AFCC people.  While this vital fact is no where to be found on any of their recent literature, it did appear in the early (pre-Interent) CRC hardcopy newsletters,  which NAFCJ possesses, and uses to discredit this group and the judges who collude with them.  Also in these older CRC newsletters was discussion of grants they received from HHS and the people who worked with them on those grants – people like incest promoters Richard Gardner and Warren Farrell.  CRC allies were put into high-level HHS-ACF position such David Gray Ross, as Commission for Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) -starting in 1993 through approx 1999..  Ross was a Maryland Judge, who people who knew him say was a dead-beat dad himself.  He spent his time as OCSE commissioner instituting regulations, programs and policies favorable to fathers and CRC.  He essentially set up OCSE to be a fathers rights child support avoidance and custody switching agencyThis perversion of  OCSE’s  agency’s original legislative mission continues to-date.  This is the reason why so many custodial mothers can’t collect on their child support arrears, while non-custodial mothers are hounded incessantly and even jailed for support obligations assessed beyond standard guide-lines and beyond their ability to pay.   Other evidence taken from HHS Inspector General Web site reveals even worse corruption at HHS-ACF/OCSE.

The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a “clearinghouse” for organized case rigging.  They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard GardnerTheir  scheme involves “recruiting” male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program “services” which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations

{{COMMENT: This has absolutely been my experience, and the Center for Policy Research link, and many others, tend to verify it.  I pressed for child support, my kids were STOLEN, and this was rubberstamped.  Have barely seen them for dust since….}}

Instead the fathers get deals to have their support obligations closed and sent to a program paid attorney to litigant [“litigate”] for custody.  The judge hearing these cases proves [“provides”?] payments to the court-colluding fathers attorney and other supposedly “neutral” court evaluators.   None of this is disclosed to the targeted female litigant who sometimes is also ordered to pay the fees of these court professionals (e.g. illegal double billing).. 

The father is encouraged to file repeated motions (usually on frivolous claims of visitation denial or alienation) so the co-conspiring court professionals can get a steady stream of government payments.  {{GOT THAT??}} It appears the judge handling these cases gets a kickback from those being paid (with his approval) based on a few exposed examples.  This is what keeps their litigation game going and going.  They label it high-conflict bitter custody litigation to hide their own fraud.  The blame the mother for everything and keep her away from her children so she will be desperate to go back to court and get a chance to convince them of the truth (which of course they already know, and are exploiting perversely against her).

Basic Judicial ethics prohibits judges from belonging to organizations with people who appear before them in the court cases.  However, this doesn’t stop the crooked  AFCC affiliated judges from appointing Guardian at Litem (child’s attorneys) or court psychological evaluators who are AFCC members to the same cases which the AFCC member judge is handling.  Also the AFCC conducts joint conferences with the CRC – fathers rights group – usually on the subject of Parental Alienation – which they all know has been discredited as being not a valid method for use in court evaluations.

{{NOTE:  Like other organizations (me talking, again), AFCC may have some fine members.  I know some.  However, like our educational system, this system’s history and intent of the organization stands, and I stand by the above summary of it.}}

Other people on AFCC’s Board of Directors are many people closely associated with the Children’s Rights Council.  Their  favorite researcher  —  Sanford L. Braver, Ph.D. — was a recipient of a $10M federal grant.  Braver,  found, astoundingly, as a result of his study that after divorce, women do as well financially as men!   Bradford and many other purported “neutral” expert evaluators all work in concert behind the scenes to issue rubber-stamp anti-woman, pro-abusive father evaluations for the primary intent of deliberately covering up for abusive fathers (as a protection racket fueled by federal program graft).  

Another AFCC founding official is Jessica Pearson, President of Center for Policy Research of Denver, Colorado, which is a primary consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services – Administration for Children & Families (HHS-ACF) which includes OCSE.  Pearson/AFCC have been using their influence for many years to create pro-father programs and protocols which are steered to the pro-father court professionals who train others in the anti-mother evaluation tactics such as PAS.  She has been a frequent speaker at CRC and AFCC conferences and works closely with other fathers rights collaborators to promote PAS in government programs. 

 

The AFCC has many state chapters which conduct conferences, seminars and workshops on their “latest” practices for handling divorce, custody and related family & children litigation.  Most of the identified AFCC professional members routinely practice anti-woman, pro-abuser father PAS tactics against mothers who complain of child abuse by the father.  Most have a documented history of rubber-stamping every mother as an mentally unstable alienator who is the cause of all the problem and unfit to be around her children.  Of course, they know the truth of what they are really doing – is to trump up reasons to make the mother look bad so they can justify recommending sole custody a father accused of domestic violence, child abuse or support delinquencies
 
{{GOt those 3 avenues?  Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, Child Support arrears.  She protests, on behalf of the kids, she loses contact with them.  More business for the court.  Alternately, for a supervised visitation center, another “racket” as far as I am concerned.  LetsGetHonest speaking in that regard, not everyone agrees with me on that.  Jack Straton, Ph.D. and a few others seem to have already, though…”What’s Fair for Children of Abusive Men?”}}
 
This tactic actually works well for them, because so many people are inclined to believe that women can’t take the pressure of martial break-up they “go-crazy”, imagine or even fabricate problems in their attempt to “get-back’ at him.  These tactics are effective against even professional and prominent women.  The commonly heard “bitter custody dispute”  really means: “crazy lying accusatory woman” who drives the man to violence out of shear frustration (lets call this the Alec Baldwin excuse)

{{YOU WANT TO HELP KIDS?  TRACK THEM THAR FUNDS AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT….}}

###

Left from previous news release above…
StopFamilyViolence. org is a national activist organization that works to ensure safety, justice, accountability and healing for victims of family violence. Irene Weiser coordinates the Family Court Reform Coalition, a coalition of advocates, professionals and organizations formed in response to the national crisis in the custody court system, where all too often, judge’s order children to live with abusers and punish, silence, or jail the parent who tries to protect the children from harm.

Irene Weiser
Executive Director
StopFamilyViolence.org
331 W. 57th St #518
New York, NY 10019
iw@stopfamilyviolence.org 

 

OK, my commentary again.  See next post (11-17-09) for next installment in this fiasco (or, business as usual, depending on one’s perspective)….

This mother eventually DID go to jail for failing to force her underaged daughter to allow her father to force himself on her, drive drunk, and other forms of child abuse.  What a few judges with an agenda can do in a system that allows this . . . .  We were pissed off, appropriately.  I’m tired of that!  This mother was sentenced to jail, in 30-day stints, until her girl went back for more of the same (as I heard it). 

When the girl caved in, her mother was released.  This story is still unfolding. 

USA, folks, this is not Guantanamo, this is motherhood, USA.  And she wasn’t even a single parent, this time.  How’d you like to marry into that situation? 

Unjustice and abuse affects EVERYONE….

It affects the next generation, assuming they live that long. 

Over the past decade or so, researchers at McGill University in Montreal, led by Michael Meaney, have shown that affectionate mothering alters the expression of genes in animals, allowing them to dampen their physiological response to stress. These biological buffers are then passed on to the next generation: rodents and nonhuman primates biologically primed to handle stress tend to be more nurturing to their own offspring, Dr. Meaney and other researchers have found.

Now, for the first time, they have direct evidence that the same system is at work in humans. In a study of people who committed suicide published Sunday in the journal Nature Neuroscience, researchers in Montreal report that people who were abused or neglected as children showed genetic alterations that likely made them more biologically sensitive to stress.

[After Abuse, Changes in the Brain by BENEDICT CAREY

StopFamilyViolence.org, Feb. 23, 2009]

 

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

with one comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2013 Update, In Hindsight):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

Analyze This: Wichita Woes — What happened after 911? (1st time, 2nd time).

with 2 comments

I rest my case on “certifiably insane protection orders”. . . . 

 

This article is a quiz (answers below).  Do this:

A.  Put events in order.  

B.  What piece of the puzzle doesn’t “fit” and which pieces are missing?

C.  Keeping this within Kansas, bring this case history  to Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau, recently found sponsoring (yet another) Fatherhood act of some sort in Kansas and ask for commentary.  Request permission to record, and share on youtube with the rest of us, why a man like this needed to be within cutting/shooting range of his 21 month old daughter.  (Because if he didn’t get this, someone was going to pay, bad?).  And how the (decade-plus) of prior fatherhood initiatives may or may not have contributed to this young man’s sense that after punching XXX officers and threatening to slit the throat of his wife, for calling for help, society still owed him something…

D.  Rewrite the headline, more appropriately reflecting the crucial issues in the case.

And then Alternately

E-1.  Pray to the tooth fairy that this isn’t you or anyone you know and/or recite after me:

E-2.  “it spiraled out of control.  We had no idea.  It spiraled out of control.  The real social crisis of our time is fatherlessness, not lawlessness.  It wasn’t his fault.  It wasn’t her fault.  It wasn’t anyone’s fault.  Nevertheless, the Feds + faith-based + local agencies will fix this situation.  We WILL eradicate violence against women and murder by men if we JUST try harder, train more professionals, and dump some dollars in that direction.  We WILL, right??”


The children are our future.  Now, Where’s that Valium?

Kansas.com


Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past

. . . (and they married WHY???)

Comments (0) 

BY TIM POTTER

The Wichita Eagle

The 27-year-old man accused this week of ambushing a Sedgwick County sheriff’s deputy had a history of violence against his ex-wife — and against officers.

{{For why the word “had” is used, see 2nd article, below}}

 

In 2005, Richard Lyons’ ex-wife, Jenifer, accused him of holding a hunting knife to her throat and threatening to kill her after she called 911, an affidavit filed in Sedgwick County District Court said.

Lyons pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and served several months in the county jail followed by about 16 months in a state prison.

He was released on parole on March 2, 2007. His sentence and parole supervision ended on April 11, 2008, records show.

In March 2005, four Wichita police officers responded to a report of a disturbance with a knife at his ex-wife’s home in the 900 block of South Waverly, in southeast Wichita.

Lyons had arrived and “demanded she give him their infant daughter,” the affidavit said.

She reported that they argued and that after she called 911, Lyons held a 4- to 6-inch knife blade to her throat and threatened her. The knife reportedly came from a sheath attached to his pants.

“Jenifer said she hung up the phone because she was in fear for her life and believed Richard would carry out his threat,” said the document, used to bring the felony aggravated assault charge against Lyons.

On the 911 call, a male voice could be heard saying, “I will cut you,” the affidavit said.

When he went to get a diaper bag in another part of the house, his ex-wife grabbed her two children and fled, the affidavit said.

At the home, officers found signs of a disturbance, and when they tried to arrest Lyons, he punched two officers, the document said.

Although prosecutors also initially charged him with two counts of misdemeanor battery against an officer, those two charges were dismissed after he agreed to plead guilty to the more serious charge of aggravated assault, records show.

His ex-wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Lyons.

In April 2005, about a month after the incident involving his ex-wife, court records show Lyons was living at the house where he is accused of shooting Deputy Brian Etheridge this week — first with a rifle and then with the deputy’s own gun.

Etheridge was responding to a 911 call from the South Rock Road residence, reporting a theft — a report authorities now think was concocted.

In Lyons’ 2005 divorce case, court records say he was working for Colortime in El Dorado at the time. The court at one point required him to pay $234 a month in child support.

At another point in 2005, Lyons temporarily lost visitation with his 1 1/2-year-old daughter because of the incident involving his ex-wife.

On Tuesday, a man who said he was Lyons’ father declined to comment.

Lyons’ ex-wife could not be reached.

In September 2003, about two years before the knife incident, Lyons was convicted of misdemeanor battery against an officer.

In the years before that, he had been convicted of felony criminal threat and misdemeanor domestic battery and criminal damage to property, records show.

As a juvenile, he had misdemeanor convictions dating to 1995, when he was 12, for criminal damage to property.

Wichita school district records show that Lyons withdrew from Metro Boulevard Alternative High School in July 2002.

Contributing: Hurst Laviana of The Eagle Reach Tim Potter at 316-268-6684 or tpotter@wichitaeagle.com.

QUIZ ANSWERS (mine) BELOW:  (I interspersed A & B as dialogue)

Events, apparent order (quite different from article, which jumps around considerably)

  • 1995 Juvenile Richard Lyons, age 12, has misdemeanor convictions for criminal damage to property, ergo he was born about 1983.
  • July 2002, Lyons withdraws from alternative high school (age, about 19)
  • Between age of majority (2001?) and 2003, he has convictions for felony criminal threat AND misdemeanor domestic battery, meaning, probably against a WIFE or GIRLFRIEND.  This is called “domestic violence,” folks.  SEE 1994 VAWA Act.
  • ??? somewhere in there he gets married to Jenifer Lyons.
  • Sept. 2003, misdemeanor Battery against an officer.
  • Somewhere in 2003  Jenifer gives birth to his child.  (Note:  Physical assaults sometimes begin with pregnancy.  Mine did).
  • Somewhere between then and 2005, they get divorced.  (Given the assaults, probably understandable.  What’s not quite understandable is why they got married, unless the pregnancy PLUS her lack of other options to survive (i.e., HER family of origin support), PLUS no doubt some of this federal pushing of marriage on everyone…??  Who knows.  Maybe they wanted to.  Maybe HER household (how old was she?) was a place she needed to get out of.
  • By 2005, he has a child support order in place and is actually, it appears working.  Apparently they’ve entered the family court system somehow, I’d guess.  The man is all of 22 years old, so this is a good thing and possibly a change for him?
  • THIS IS TAKING LONGER THAN I PLANNED.
  • OBVIOUSLY they had “visitation” (unsupervised, obviously).  Note:  He assaults women AND officers, felony-style, and threatenes (someone — seee above).  He destroys property and punches policemen.  NEVERTHELESS, an infant needs her Daddy.  Daddies can be nurturers too.  If we try hard enough, perhaps all of us (through funds, and social support and of course parenting classes) can transform this young man into a real nurturer before he kills someone for telling he can’t combine nurturing infants with wife assault.

Now in March 2005, things start getting, well, interesting:

  • In 2005, Richard Lyons’ ex-wife, Jenifer, accused him of holding a hunting knife to her throat and threatening to kill her after she called 911, an affidavit filed in Sedgwick County District Court said
  • HEre’s the account, I rearranged some sentences.  Apparently by now there are 2 children (both his?  Maybe not?) 
  1. Lyons had arrived (EXCHANGE OF THE KIDS  RIGHT?  Here’s a CLASSIC CASE involving DV, and no help with the exchange.  Yes, I’d imagine this was in family law system already, totally oblivious (per se!) to the potential danger of the situation, despite lethality assessments and DV literature dating back to at least 1985 (Barbara J. HART), 1989 (Family Visitation Centers started in Duluth Minnesota), 1994 (Violence Against Women Act) and all kinds of other literature.  THis hadn’t reaached the “heartland” yet, I guess. )  and “demanded she give him their infant daughter,” the affidavit said.  ((OMISSION – was there a custody/visitation in order or not?  if so, was it clear and specific, as many states require (but don’t practice) cases involving DV be, to avoid incidents like this?  If it WAS clear and specific, was his demand in compliance with or NOT in compliance with that order?  As they say, and we see, this isn’t typically a guy that plays by the rules, not even the rules for graduating from high school, or refraining from damaing others’ propery.  We’ll, he’s about graduate from punching officers to putting a knife to his wife’s throat.  I wonder if this was the first time….)
  2. She reported that they argued {{POSSIBLY OVER WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HIS TIME TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER?}} and that after she called 911, {{POSSIBLY THE ARGUMENT CONTAINED SOME THREAT OR PHYSICAL ELEMENTS?}} Lyons held a 4- to 6-inch knife blade to her throat and threatened her. The knife reportedly came from a sheath attached to his pants.  {{May I speculate that perhaps Mrs. Lyons was aware that Mr. Lyons sometimes carried knives, and this may have contributed to her decision to call 911, even if the argument was only “verbal” in nature?}} 
  3. On the 911 call, a male voice could be heard saying, “I will cut you,” the affidavit said.  (I’m going to assume this is “evidence” and it was his, not a responding officer’s.  I will further assume that this was a criminal prosecution, because someone actually got ahold of that 911 call.  GIVEN the history, was this a creditable threat?  It appears to the reader that her report was accurate in this part.  Contrary to the “false allegations” stigma associated with women reporting violence (or threats of it), ” because they want to get custody,” this report seems to have some merit.
  1. “Jenifer said she hung up the phone because she was in fear for her life and believed Richard would carry out his threat,” said the document, used to bring the felony aggravated assault charge against Lyons.  {AS FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS SHOW, YES HE WAS CAPABLE OF AND WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER WHEN HE FELT WRONGED OR WAS ANGRY OR ??  SO HERE, SHE DROPS THE “911” METHOD OF SELF PRESERVATION AND, if I may add, protecting her children, WITH HER KIDS OPTS FOR THE “FLEE” METHOD.   Amazingly, a charge was actually filed.  For why, possibly, read on.
  2. When he went to get a diaper bag in another part of the house, his ex-wife grabbed her two children and fled, the affidavit said.  {{I have done this flee while he’s in the other part of the house routine, often enough}}
  3. HERE COME THE RESPONDING OFFICERS:  In March 2005, four Wichita police officers responded to a report of a disturbance with a knife at his ex-wife’s home in the 900 block of South Waverly, in southeast Wichita.   {{Officers KNOW domestic violence wih a weapon can be lethal.  They didn’t send one custody evaluator, one parenting educator, one mediator, and one guardian ad litem, they sent FOUR officers, and I BET they were armed…  Yet women are left to face this, sometimes weekly, without adequate protection.}}
  4. At the home, officers found signs of a disturbance, and when they tried to arrest Lyons, he punched two officers, the document said.

Not one but 2 officers.  Tell them to thank Wade Horn, George Bush (Jr.), former President Clinton, present President Obama, (well, adjust for the year), and others for those punches to the face.  Father-engagement.  Healthy Families. . .. You’re in it. . . . . . .   Were these male and female officers, I wonder, and which ones got punched.  But in an incident, it could easily be any of them.

Moving on in our sequencing:

5.  Prosecutors initially charged him with two counts of misdemeanor battery against an officer.

6.  he agreed to plead guilty to the more serious charge of aggravated assault.  (good move, as they saw evidence, and he was already heard on tape threatening to cut her.)

7.  The lesser charges (above) were dismissed.  Is this called a “plea-bargain?

8.  His ex-wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Lyons.   (((WHEN?? see last post on police reporting of incidents).  Now?  Or had she earlier?  Criminal, or civil?)

 

NOW — figure out this timeline if you can:

9.  Lyons pleaded guilty to aggravated assault (See 6, above.  WHEN?  WHAT MONTH 2005?) and

10. served several months in the county jail followed by about 16 months in a state prison.

March 2007 is 24 months from March 2005 (date of assault).  Ergo “about 16 months” plus “several months” possibly does NOT add up to 24.  How many people do this kind of mental math when reading leading bleeding headlines?  

March 2005 (arguing, resulting in 911 call, threatening to slit wife’s throat in retaliation for calling 911, with 2 kids, one of them a toddler girl, in the home, Mom + 2 flee for safety, 4 police come, 2 of whom are punched) – March 2007 is most definitely 24.

The question is, what is “several” months?  Is it 8, or 9 (8 + 16 = 24, right?)   WHEN did he plea-bargain?  After punching officers and threatening to kill wife was he then RELEASED in this foul mood?  If he threatened to slit her throat and assaulted people who tried to help in March 2005, what kind of response might we expect after being sentenced, if he was released on bail?

11. He was released on parole on March 2, 2007.

12. His sentence and parole supervision ended on April 11, 2008, records show.

 

What this section of reporting does is to reassure that his crime (of — see above) was indeed punished properly.  Or was it?

13.  In April 2005, about a month after the incident involving his ex-wife, court records show Lyons was living at the house where he is accused of shooting Deputy Brian Etheridge this week — first with a rifle and then with the deputy’s own gun.

Omittting the obvious — after arrest (i’m going to hazard a guess that the 2 punched officers or their colleagues eventually handcufffed the guy) he was free on bail or own recognizance until arraignment and incarceration

YES, you read it right, finally.  Threaten to slit her throat, punch TWO responding officers, and get out scot free, for a few months.  This is an interesting sentence (I don’t operate under press deadlines, but still . . . . .  the sentence bridges four years of time:  2005 & 2009!)  Well, not quite scot free.  He was punished with not seeing his daughter, “temporarily.”  Wonder what time frame THAT word spans.

14.  At another point in 2005, {{Can we get a hint which month?}} Lyons temporarily lost visitation with his 1 1/2-year-old daughter because of the incident involving his ex-wife.

When I filed for a DV restraining order with kickout, and we had the guns, knives and assaults thing, but not on officers — we got ALMOST 7 days with no visitation, as I recall.  Perhaps at the most 14, as he had to find a place to live.

 

Now here is about the slain officer:

  1. Sheriff: Deputy was ambushed
  2. Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past
  3. Marriage came as a surprise to Johansson
  4. Deputy was quiet, funny, passionate about his work
  5. Opinion Line (Sept. 30)
  6. Robbers strike as police look for killer
  7. Deputy’s funeral set for Friday
  8. Sedgwick County Commission remembers slain deputy
  9. Opinion Line Extra (Sept. 30)
  10. Wichita man arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty

 

Sheriff was Ambushed

A black band around the badge of Sheriff Bob Hinshaw. The badges are in honor of deputy Brian Etheridge, who was shot and killed in the line of duty on Monday.

WICHITA – Richard Lyons set the trap shortly before noon on Monday by calling 911 to report a theft at his house.

He then hid in the shadows of a tree and brush in the backyard of a house in the 3600 block of South Rock Road with a high-powered rifle, authorities said Tuesday. He waited for a law enforcement officer to show up.

That happened to be Sedgwick County sheriff’s Deputy Brian Etheridge.

“It does appear to have been an ambush situation,” Sheriff Bob Hinshaw said Tuesday of the shooting death of Etheridge, 26, the first Sedgwick County deputy to die in the line of duty in 12 years.

Lyons, 27, was shot to death a few hours later in a field not far from the house in an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement officers.

“It’s scary,” Hinshaw said. “It could have been any law enforcement officer… this was just a call to 911 to get any officer to respond.”

Investigators spent Monday night and Tuesday collecting shell casings and other evidence, Hinshaw said, piecing together a chain of events from what was left behind.

Based on that evidence, Hinshaw offered this account:

Lyons called 911 at 11:42 a.m. Etheridge was dispatched to the address just east of McConnell Air Force Base and radioed his arrival at 11:51 a.m.

When no one answered his knock on the front door, he asked dispatchers for contact information for the caller. He then walked around to the backyard of the house and saw no one.

Lyons was hiding in the shadows on the bright, sunny day, and opened fire with a .30-30 rifle — a weapon commonly used by deer hunters — when Etheridge turned his back as he was either approaching the back door or returning to the front of the house, Hinshaw said.

The bullet hit Etheridge in the back, penetrating his body armor and knocking him down. Lyons approached the fallen deputy and tried to fire his rifle again, but it malfunctioned.

He took Etheridge’s gun and shot him in the leg before disappearing.

Etheridge radioed for help, and scores of law enforcement officers from throughout the metropolitan area converged on the scene.

The wounded deputy was alert and communicating with the first officers on the scene, Hinshaw said, but their priority at that time was his medical care — not gathering information about the suspect.

Escorted by patrol cars, an ambulance raced Etheridge to Wesley Medical Center, where he underwent surgery.

Authorities established a one-mile perimeter around the house and urged residents inside that area to leave if possible.

Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams said authorities had information indicating Lyons was likely inside the house, so that address remained the focus of their attention even as law enforcement officers combed outlying areas within the perimeter.

Tear gas was deployed twice into the house in attempt to flush the suspect out, Williams said, and SWAT team members were preparing to blast open the front door at about 5:15 p.m. when authorities were notified that the suspect had been spotted hiding near a tree row in a nearby field.

Agents from the Kansas Highway Patrol and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were patrolling a field in a Humvee when one of the officers spotted Lyons’ leg as he lay on the ground.

They stopped the Humvee, and Lyons stood up and fired at the vehicle with the deputy’s handgun. He then began running, firing several more shots as the ATF agents and KHP officers ran after him.

The law enforcement officers returned fire, striking Lyons “multiple times,” Hinshaw said.

Lyons was taken to Wesley Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 6:10 p.m.

Investigators hope to talk to neighbors and relatives of Lyons, Hinshaw said, but he doesn’t expect every question raised by the shooting to be answered.

“We may never know what the motive is,” he said.

Results of the investigation, including the use of force, will be presented to the District Attorney’s Office for review.

Flags at Wichita City Hall and other city buildings have been lowered to half staff in honor of Etheridge. They will remain at half staff through Friday, the day of Etheridge’s funeral.

“We’re just really shocked and saddened by what has happened,” Mayor Carl Brewer said. “It has affected all of our law enforcement agencies.”

Brewer said the city is providing counselors for police officers who were involved in the shoot-out and others who may be shaken by the violence.

“Every time they make a stop or enter a house, they don’t know what’s going to happen,” he said. “This demonstrated just how much risk there is.”

Reach Stan Finger at 316-268-6437 or sfinger@wichitaeagle.com.

 

FIRST 911 — from a woman — consequence, she’s threatened and has to flee for her life, BUT her ex-husband IS jailed — for about 2 years, or less.


SECOND 911 — from the formerly jailed young man (27 yrs old is young) — his ambush.  SOMEONE was going to pay.  Was Etheridge (the officer killed) a responding officer in the former arrest, or just anyone in uniform would do?  Was he upset at what had happened in prison?

Was this suicide by cop?  Sounds like possibly, to me.

 

WOULD IT HAVE PLAYED OUT DIFFERENTLY IF THE COUPLE HAD STAYED TOGETHER, OR WOULD SHE BE A STATISTIC, NOT THE OFFICER?

ANYONE WANT TO DO A PSYCHOLOGICAL WORK-UP ON THIS ONE (PLACE BESIDE THE WORK-UPS ON PHILLIP GARRIDO, AND HIS WIFE?)  WAS IT UNEMPLOYMENT MADE HIM DO IT?  WAS IT THE CHILD SUPPORRT ORDER?  WAS IT ACTUALLY TAKING CONSEQUENCES FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?  WAS IT HIS LACK OF A FATHER IN THE YOUTHFUL HOME (FATHER CONTACTED DECLINED TO COMMENT).  DID HE NOT HAVE A PLACE IN SOCIETY, WAS THAT IT?  WAS HE ON MEDS?  was he FORMERLY ON MEDS AND NOW OFF MEDS?  

WOULD’IT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO, AT ABOUT $20K/PRISONER/YEAR (??) KEEP HIM IN  LONGER, OR INDEFINITELY?  

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT “COLLATERAL DAMAGES” OF DV (OR SIMILAR PHRASE) IN YESTERDAY’S POST?

 

I do have one comment, here:  Something sounds narcissistic in the mix.  This person was supposedly a hell-raiser from an early age, but didn’t get help.  Possib ly being a father was a shot at sanity, but I think that the child support order was probably NOT a good idea for such a person.  It would’ve been better for all to let her do welfare.  She’d probably get off it quicker without the threats to her life than with them.

 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESOURCES IN KANSAS:

http://www.ksag.org/page/domestic-violence  (Attorney General Site):

Domestic Violence

The new Domestic Violence Unit within the Kansas Attorney General’s Office seeks to keep our families safe, stop domestic abuse and end the cycle of violence that threatens our communities.

Online Resources:

(Be sure to catch this “get inside their head” speculation (many didn’t apply to my case, i know):  date:

Source: The Battered Woman by Lenore Walker, Harper & Roe, 1979.  (I’m comforted to know that the Attorney General has the latest psychological profile of batterers and their victims — only 30 years old…..) 

  • Believes all the myths about battering relationships  {{NO one questioned me, and I hadn’t heard these…}}
  • A traditionalist about the home, strongly believes in family unity and the prescribed sex role stereotype  {{The alternative being, punishment….}}  {{BY THE WAY, this now describes the Health and Human Services Dept., in general, on this matter….}}
  • Accepts responsibility for the batterer’s actions  {{SAYS WHO?}}

Resources for Law Enforcement

 

Child Exchange and Visitation Center Program – (CEVC)

This program provides supervised child exchange or supervised child visitation to children and families at risk because of circumstances relating to neglect; substance abuse; emotional, physical, or sexual abuse; domestic or family violence; etc. The state portion of funding can be used to fund the local match required for receipt of federal child exchange and visitation center grants.

Mighta been helpful for Jenifer Lyons . . . . . 

The Essential Elements and Standards of 

Batterer Intervention Programs in Kansas  

The Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer Intervention Programs were developed over 

seven years through the hard work of many professionals who are dedicated to ending 

domestic violence in Kansas.   The Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

convened the initial work group and wishes to thank the following organizations for their work 

during this process: 

Developed and/or Reviewed by representatives from the following: 

Alternatives to Battering, Topeka 

Correctional Counseling of Kansas, Wichita   {{MAYBE Mr. Lyons got this and didn’t take kindly to it?”}}{{Or, the problem was, he DIDN’t get it?}}

Family Crisis Center, Great Bend 

Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board 

Halley Counseling, P.A., Girard 

Johnson County Office of Court Services 

The Family Peace Initiative, Girard 

Kansas District Judges’ Association 

Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall 

Kansas Attorney General Steve Six 

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

Kansas County and District Attorney Association 

Kansas Department of Corrections  

The Mental Health Consortium 

Office of Judicial Administration 

Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Center, Hutchinson 

Wyandotte Mental Health Center 

Family Crisis Center, GreatIn 2007, The Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board (GDVFRB), chaired by 

former Attorney General Robert Stephen appointed a subcommittee to review and update the 

Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer Intervention Programs. The GDVFRB adopted 

these as best practice standards in providing batterer intervention programming in Kansas, and 

recommended that the Office of Attorney General implement a training and certification program 

for providers of batterers intervention programs. 

Attorney General Steve Six readily accepted the recommendation to train and certify batterer 

intervention providers in Kansas using the Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer 

Intervention Programs in Kansas.   

For More information about this initiative, contact the  

Director of Victim Services in the office of 

 Kansas Attorney General  

Steve N. Six 

120 S.W. 10th Avenue 

Topeka KS 66612-1597 

785/368-8445

 

“FATHERHOOD  IN KANSAS (google, results 124,000)

 

ACCESS VISITATION IN KANSAS:

Child Custody, Support and Visitation Rights – Kansas Bar 

Visitation, often called “access” is the right of the parent who does not …. Child support and visitation are considered by statute in Kansas to be two 
http://www.ksbar.org/public/public…/child_custody.shtml – Cached – Similar – 


Crisis Resource Center of SE Kansas –

Child Exchange and Visitation Center. 669 South 69 Hwy.  Wichita Childrens Home Child Access. 810 North Holyoke 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/…/access_visitation…/ks.html – Cached – Similar – 


Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson website  Funding Source, The Federal State Access &Visitation grant program is a formula grant program to states and 
http://www.governor.ks.gov/grants/grants_savppp.htm – Cached – Similar – 

 

  1. Overland Park Visitation Attorney | Leawood KS Parenting Plans 

     

    Visitation & Parenting Plans. Kansas Visitation Lawyer  custody or non- residential custody, your children have the right of access to both parents. 
    http://www.cavlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Visitation-Parenting-Plans.asp – Similar – 


    You will have access, at our Download Site, to the legal forms you need to modify custody-visitation in Kansas

    These forms are the most current versions 
    http://www.custodycenter.com/MODIFYCUSTODY-KS/index.html



    Following an emotional breakup, many moms allow or deny visitation by whim, {{OR WHEN HE THREATENS TO SLIT ONE’s THROAT< CASE IN POINT}}
    leaving the dads without regular access to their children. 
    http://www.kslegalhelp.com/Divorce-and-Family…/Paternity.shtml – Cached – Similar – 



    YES, THERE WAS A DIRE LACK OF SERVICES FOR MR. LYONS…

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

leave a comment »

Oh No!

 

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

 

Regarding that. . . . .

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

 


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

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

DO YOU think I’m kidding?  I’m not!

 

JUNE 17,1999, Congressional Chronicle(tm)

Topic:  National Fathers Return Day

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Ah well. . . . . 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

2008:

 

Danger Zones:  Battered mothers and their children in Supervised Visitation

Supervised visitation centers (SVCs) have developed rapidly across the United States. Increasingly, courts are restricting contact between abusive intimate partners and their children by ordering visitation or exchanges to occur at SVCs. This article describes some of the key lessons the authors learned over 18 months of planning and then another 18 months of implementation at a SVC developed specifically to serve families for whom domestic violence was their primary reason for referral. The authors have organized their experiences around five major themes: (a) battered women in supervised visitation, (b) how battering continues during supervised visitation, (c) how rules at the SVC evolved over the first 18 months of implementation, (d) the importance of well-trained visit monitors, and (e) the need to embed SVCs within a larger context of coordinated community responses to domestic violence.

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

 This version was published on November 1, 2008

 

2004:

Six Crucial Issues in Supervised Visitation

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

Who conducts risk assessment?

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

2009, June 2:

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


 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

OCSE Access and Visitation Grants Information

 

I suggest filing this under Congressional Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Overview

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

 

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

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

 

I. Enabling Legislation

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

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

 

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

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

 

II. Allowable Services

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

  • Mediation

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

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

  • Development of parenting plans
  • Education

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

  • Counseling
  • Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)
  • Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
  • In other words, as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, once we figure out whether money, or the child’s best interests is the issue, we will — again, outside the vision and awareness of the CUSTODIAL parent, bargain with the NON-custodial parents and help them de-stabilize the children’s life, repeatedly, and on a proceess that takes place outside the courtroom.

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

    III. Annual Funding

     

    • $10 million is divided among the States annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.
    • Funding Formula (according to statute):”The allotment of a state for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the state living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all states.”
    • Minimum Annual State Allocation $100,000 This statutory provision ensures that states with small populations of single parent households with minor age children are guaranteed a base amount of $100,000. Those states with larger populations are awarded an allotment according to the prescribed funding formula.
  • Required State Match States are required, by law, to provide a minimum 10% match of the Federal grant amount. This match requirement can be fulfilled via cash or in-kind contributions by the state and/or local grantees.
  • This isn’t a section I’ve examined too much.  I HAVE searched for the funding to states under these grants, and was appropriately shocked at amounts, and who was getting them.

    IV. State Administration

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

      1. shall administer State programs funded with the grant directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit entities“;
      2. shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and
      3. shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs
    • Reporting Requirements The enabling legislation requires states to monitor, evaluate, and report on services funded through the Access and Visitation Grant Program. This statutory requirement is satisfied through the annual completion – by states – of the “State Child Access Program Survey” which includes:
      • State agency contact information;
      • Services funded;  {{Note:  “permitted activities,” above.}}
      • Provider agency contact information;
      • Number of parents served;  {Define “SERVED!” — forced through the programs??}
      • Socio-economic and demographic information on families served; and
      • Outcome data (i.e., number of noncustodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services).
    COMMENT #1.  McDonalds “serves.”  (1 billion served — did they mean hamburgers, or patrons?)   But the fact is, the desired OUTCOME of these grants is to modify custody orders, basically, or make sure unenforced ones then get enforced.  
    I have looked at one of these reports.  It ain’t much.
    Here’s a Self-report on this (Margot Bean, from the Child SUpport commissioner.  i STILL think it odd that the child support agency should be enforcing a grant whose design is to influence the judicial process.  I have experienced this personally, and saw the connection, although in the courts involved, a pretense of separation is maintained.  It’s a “DEAR COLLEAGUE” letter.  As a litigant, of course, I am not a colleague and went forward like a lamb to the slaughter, not knowing how many millions were going to my state (approximately $10, over the years), to get a “required outcome” to what I myself wished and wanted to be a law-and-evidence-based process.  Guess if you ain’t “in the IN crowd,” forget it!
         

     

     

     

    DEAR COLLEAGUE LETTER

    DCL-07-15

    DATE: May 24, 2007

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

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

    Dear Colleague:

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

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

     

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

     

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

     

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

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

     

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

    • Child support payments increased from 53 percent to 93 percent by service in the 12 months following service provision. {{DOES THIS INCLUDE THE SUPPORT ORDERS HAVING BEEN MODIFIED DOWNWARDS, WHICH IS ALMOST INVARIABLY THE RESULT OF SUCH PROCESSES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THEM, TOO}}
    • Child support compliance rose by 20 percent to 79 percent for unwed cases; but did not increase for divorce cases.

     

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

         

    • The level of child contact by the noncustodial parent rose from 32 percent to 45 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.  (HOW ABOUT 13-15 MONTHS?)
    • The behavior of the youngest child as reported by the custodial parent improved by 26 percent to 41 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.

     

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

         

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

     

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

         

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

     

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

     

         

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

     

    (or so they said, supposedly).

         

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

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

    Sincerely,

    Margot Bean
    Commissioner
    Office of Child Support Enforcement

     

    (whatever.  YOu see about the level of reporting).
    That’s all I have time for today, but i have been meaning to bring up this topic again.  So I just did.
    Again, the financial picture is $10million/year to compromise due process in the courts and force the above programs on parents trying to divorce. This is NOT mentioned in the court facilitators offices (at least for Moms, that I knew of).  As many times as I was in that child support office, also, not a whiff of it.  All I could smell was the dysfunction.  I just didn’t know where it was coming from.
    2008, summarized, on this site;
    Office of Child Support Enforcement
    State Access and Visitation Grants – FY 2008
    State/Jurisdiction Federal Allocation State Match Total Funding
    Alabama $142,379 $15,819.89 $158,199
    Alaska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Arizona $169,198 $18,799.78 $187,998
    Arkansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    California $957,600 $106,400 $1,064,000
    Colorado $125,800 $13,977.78 $139,778
    Connecticut $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Delaware $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    District of Columbia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Florida $497,059 $55,228.78 $552,288
    Georgia $295,222 $32,802.44 $328,024
    Guam $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Hawaii $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Idaho $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Illinois $344,357 $38,261.89 $382,619
    Indiana $191,496 $21,277.33 $212,773
    Iowa $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Kansas $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Kentucky $122,440 $13,604.44 $136,044
    Louisiana $139,592 $15,510.22 $155,102
    Maine $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Maryland $166,481 $18,497.89 $184,979
    Massachusetts $161,374 $17,930.44 $179,304
    Michigan $292,451 $32,494.56 $324,946
    Minnesota $133,277 $14,808.56 $148,086
    Mississippi $109,483 $12,164.78 $121,648
    Missouri $171,561 $19,062.33 $190,623
    Montana $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Nebraska $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Nevada $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New Hampshire $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New Jersey $217,801 $24,200 $242,001
    New Mexico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    New York $549,720 $61,080 $610,800
    North Carolina $271,792 $30,199.11 $301,991
    North Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Ohio $349,127 $38,791.89 $387,919
    Oklahoma $108,016 $12,001.78 $120,018
    Oregon $100,213 $11,134.78 $111,348
    Pennsylvania $327,030 $36,336.67 $363,367
    Puerto Rico $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Rhode Island $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    South Carolina $142,115 $15,790.56 $157,906
    South Dakota $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Tennessee $188,867 $20,985.22 $209,852
    Texas $687,405 $76,378.33 $763,783
    Utah $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Vermont $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Virgin Islands $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Virginia $207,722 $23,080.22 $230,802
    Washington $175,056 $19,450.67 $194,507
    West Virginia $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Wisconsin $155,366 $17,262.89 $172,629
    Wyoming $100,000 $11,111 $111,111
    Total $10,000,000 $1,111,108.34 $11,111,108
    How this translates elsewhere, CFDA Code 93597.
    TAGGS, interactive search, year 2008 only.  First, you can click on the Grant #.  This will then show you this year, and a particular designated state agency.  Then click on that agency, and see what else it’s doing.  
    What you will see is centralization, I believe, and a whole panorama of events and activities you were possibly aware of (or, I was just a babe in the woods in this category, DNK):
         

         

     

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

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

     

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

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

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

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

     

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

     

     

    About PSI   

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

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

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

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

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

    http://www.policy-studies.com. 


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

    View Jobs for Policy Studies I

     

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

    (Funny review from two employees:  

    Its not just a job, its only a job!

    Pros

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

    Cons

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

    Advice to Senior Management

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

     

    “Proceed with caution

    Pros

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

    Cons

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

    Advice to Senior Management

    Get back to the basics of what made PSI successful.

     

     

    Fiscal Year OPDIV Grantee Name City State Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2008  ACF  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  90FI0085 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION JESSICA PEARSON  $ 124,829 
    2008  ACF  CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH  DENVER  CO  90FI0098 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  JESSICA PEARSON  $ 99,908 
    2008  ACF  CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL  GRAND RAPIDS  MI  90FI0087 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION CANDACE COWLING  $ 124,674 
    2008  ACF  Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office  CLEVELAND  OH  90FI0093 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION FRANCINE B GOLDBERG  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS  DENVER  CO  90FI0094 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  BEN LEVEK  $ 99,800 
    2008  ACF  Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.  SAN ANTONIO  TX  90FI0086 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION RICHARD M DAVIDSON  $ 125,000 
    2008  ACF  IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES  DES MOINES  IA  90FI0095 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  MARIE THEISEN  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  Kern County Department of Child Support Services  BAKERSFIELD CA  90FI0088 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION PHYLLIS NANCE  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  Kern County Department of Child Support Services  BAKERSFIELD CA  90FI0097 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  PHYLLIS NANCE  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS  RALEIGH  NC  90FI0099 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  KRISTIN RUTH  $ 78,842 
    2008  ACF  NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM  NEW YORK  NY  90FI0092 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL MAGNANI  $ 24,325 
    2008  ACF  OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  OKLAHOMA CITY  OK  90FI0100 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  KATHERINE MCRAE  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT  SAN JOSE  CA  90FI0101 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  RALPH MILLER  $ 100,000 
    2008  ACF  SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE  TOKELAND  WA  90FI0089 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DEB DUNITHAN  $ 49,934 
    2008  ACF  Sagamore Institute, Inc.  INDIANAPOLIS IN  90FI0090 DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL $ 24,995 
    2008  ACF  TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL  AUSTIN  TX  90FI0091 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION MICHAEL HAYES  $ 25,000 
    2008  ACF  URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)  WASHINGTON  DC  90FI0096 SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT  93601  Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects   DEMONSTRATION NEW  RENEE HENDLEY  $ 68,355

     

     

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

         

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

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

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

     

     

     

     

     

    911 + 1 + a bit about boxes from a woman who spent years in one.

    leave a comment »


    My situation continues to unfold at its own rate.

    unrelated to anything appropriate for honoring 911.  I have been thinking about the times I called 911 and didn’t get help, or of the times the police RACED to the scene of an incident and did everything right, but still were unable to save.  Or when they (as so many did on this 9/11/01) were there and gave their lives to help as many as possible escape the two huge boxes called the World Trade Towers.  

     

    As this blog is on family court matters, I still think the theme of boxes is appropriate, and particularly in regards situations of a child-stealing, kidnapping, or such.  To be stuck in a relationship is one thing, to lose one’s kids is totally another. 

     

    The first article tells some more aspects of the Dugard case, but the second one, so well written I thought, is in the voice of Colleen who was kidnapped, stored in a box, renamed, tortured (etc.)  She is alive, she escaped, has had help and healing and looks, today, beautiful from what I can see.  (this photo is not most current — see end of post).  Thank God.  (Luke 4).

    Colleen (NOT Jaycee or her daughters), shortly post-escape.  Her escape was not from a 911 call, but when one of her captors opened a mental bar, revealed that one of the threats against her leaving was in fact a lie.  She then got on a bus and went home.  An amazing story.

     

    FIRST story is about recent rescue, SECOND story (far, far below….) is about what this woman, Colleen, has to say to Jaycee Dugard, about recovery, and to the rest of us, about the types of prisons that keep kidnapped women in place.  I believe much of this information is transferable to other situations.

     

    Fasten your seat belts, this one has some unexpected twists and turns. . . . and little stylistic consistency  (readers have been warned already) as I quoted within quotes, and pasted from WOrd perfect, dragged article information from the web, and added my commentary and tried to piece at least the more recent case together from the Web.

     

    Police: Kidnap suspect fathered victim’s kids

    Demian Bulwa, Jaxon Van Derbeken, Henry K. Lee,Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writers

    Friday, August 28, 2009

    (08-27) 19:56 PDT ANTIOCH —   

    Phillip Craig Garrido was already known as an oddball who said he could channel the voice of God through a makeshift box, but on Thursday, the eccentricity took on an aura of horror.

    Eighteen years ago, authorities said, he kidnapped 11yearold Jaycee Lee Dugard on her way to catch a school bus in South Lake Tahoe. Ever since then, they said, he kept her prisoner in a squalid backyard compound near Antioch, raping her and fathering two daughters by herthe elder of whom is now 15.

    Those girls also were housed in sheds and other outbuildings in the backyard, which had been walled off so it couldnt easily be seen by neighbors or other outsiders, authorities said.

    One of the sheds where Dugard and the girls were living could only be opened from the outside, Kollar said, and rudimentary toilets and electrical hookups were set up nearby.

    None of the children have ever been to school; theyve never been to a doctor,the undersheriff said at a press conference in Placerville. “They were kept in complete isolation in this compound.”

     

    Neighborssuspicions

    Neighbors in the unincorporated, semirural area outside Antioch where the Garridos live say they always thought he was bizarre, and even suspected something fishy was going on with the girls he called his daughtersbut they thought authorities were keeping tabs on it all.

    So much for THAT line of thinking.  Compartmentalization, delegation of authorities to the authorities so the rest of us don’t have to really get to know our neighbors, watch out for them, hold them to a standard so much, and can focus on our own business.  Protection and monitoring is not our job, it’s someone else’s.

     

    Phillip Garrido is a registered sex offender, and authorities inspected his house several times over the years but never discovered the backyard compound.

    The neighbors and other acquaintances said Garrido conducted religious revivals in a tent, claimed to hear the voices of angels and God, and said he had developed a device through which he could control sound with his mind. He propounded this all in a business he calledGods Desire.

    Apparently he himself wasn’t confined to a box.

    In a telephone interview from jail with Sacramento TV station KCRA, Garrido said,In the end, this is going to be a powerful, heartwarming story.”

    Again, HOW heartwarming depends on whether one’s perspective is from outside, or inside the box.  And whose voice we are hearing.  

    One article says that the first phone call a prisoner normally makes is for the attorney, but this man called the TV station instead.

     

    Suspect did time

    Officials said Garrido served time in Nevada on kidnapping and rape convictions in the 1970s,80s and90s and was paroled after one stint in 1988 and another in June 1999. It was not immediately clear where Dugard may have been while Garrido was in custody.

    One of the rapes he was caught at, that sent him to prison, took place in a storage unit.  This man seems to be an expert at boxes, and putting women in them.

    It appears that after Garrido was “BOXED” up for this, he was sprung though, after marrying Nancy Garrido while incarcerated.  Nancy was appropriate — she had a religious background (Jehovah’s Witness) and an uncle in the box as well, apparently.  Kidnappers and rapers need love, too, right?

    Neighbors of the Garridos on Walnut Avenueand even some of his own familyconsidered Phillip Garrido strange as he proselytized to them about his messages from God and kept the females at his house from contact with outsiders.

    The House Box.

     

    Erika Pratt, 25, who stayed next door two years ago, said she was continuouslyfreaked outby Garridos behavior and that when she popped her head over the fence she saw his secret compound. There were tents, sheds and pit bulls, she said, and water hoses leading from her house next door.

    They never talked

    He had little girls and women living in that backyard, and they all looked kind of the same,Pratt said. “They never talked, and they kept to themselves.”

    Pratt said people came and went from the property, but the core group consisted of two girls about 4 years old, one girl about 11, another girl about 15 and a young woman about 25. They were all blond, she said.

    Pratt said she had called Contra Costa County sheriffs deputies to investigate, but that officerstold me they couldnt go inside because they didnt have a warrant. So they just told him theyd keep an eye on him.”

     

    So like a well-trained citizen — or, like a woman who didn’t want to offend a freaky neighbor with pit bulls — she dropped it there. Leave it to the county sheriffs.  

    My message to any future 23-years old, especially women, who see things like this going on with their neighbors — it’s OK to seek information; please care enough to follow up beyond the Sheriff’s Office and/or WITH the Sheriff’s Office if you see anything like this, or which sets of an internal alarm.  Keep seeking until some answer is found.  

    I would LOVE to see any records or hear any tapes of those calls.  Let’s all start keeping recording devices handy and, if calling the police, inform them that we, too, are recording our calls.

    You can’t just go barging in on someone’s boxes without a warrant.  

    Police said Thursday that the only people living in the yard when the Garridos were arrested were Dugard and her daughters.

    Has anyone on-line followed up on who those about-4 year old girls were, and what year it was that Ms. Pratt saw them?  Mr. Bulwa, Vanderbeken, Lee, or Fagan, who wrote this article?   Who is this Erika Pratt, she seems observant where others weren’t?

    .  Time’s Person of the Week on 7/26/02?  Of Wikipedia fame, an African-American 7 year old who, kidnapped from Philadelphia — in an attempt to extort money from her grandmother, on the belief that she’d received life insurance from the shooting of an uncle:

    No, that Erica is now only 14 years old.

    The story: Erica was held for one long night and day in the basement of an empty house, her hands and feet bound with duct tape. She chewed through the tape, kicked open a basement door and made her way to a window where she screamed until someone heard her and came to her rescue. The little girl was plucky, but also lucky. The motive for the kidnapping was not sexual but financial; her abductors asked for a $150,000 ransom, perhaps believing a false neighborhood rumor that Erica’s family had received that sum as a life insurance payment after her uncle was shot and killed last month. Police Thursday arrested James Burns and Edward Johnson in connection with the kidnapping.

    EXTORTION OF ELDERS IS ANOTHER ‘CLUE’ AND WAS A PREDECESSOR IN THE GARRIDO CASE AS WELL.

    THIS ADVICE STILL APPLIES, and is why I also suggest Mace & Self-defense classes, not Restraining Order Suggestions after Domestic Violence, which externalizes the source of safety and in practice, really consists of “hope-mongering,” at some level…

    For parents wondering if it’s safe to let their kids even leave the living room without supervision, the most reassuring part of Erica’s story is that, faced with a situation in which many adults would panic, she kept her head and saved herself. In the end, maybe the best defense you can give your kids is not a blind fear of strangers but rather instilling self-assurance and presence of mind. “I have 21 years in the Police Department,” said Philadelphia Police Inspector William Colarulo, “and I have never seen this kind of heroic act of bravery committed by a 7-year-old.” Neither have we.

    re:  “911” —

    This other Erika Pratt was taken from Southwestern Phillie, and it’s a moot point whether, had she had a cell phone, 911 would’ve stopped the event.  Once you’re gone, most kidnappers are smart enough to cut off telephone and other contacts from the outside, so when being taken hostage in ANY manner, the key is to respond like this inner-city African American young girl, whose uncle had already died (or so rumor had it) in the streets, to fight Hard, til free, and RIGHT AWAY.  She hadn’t been indoctrinated into passivity yet, I guess.  Do we REALLY want to breed out “rebel” from society?  ??

    This Erika is the ex-girlfriend of Garrido neighbor Damon Robinson, per this article:

    The house is in a ramshackle neighborhood of modest single-family homes in an unincorporated area of Antioch hit by the foreclosure crisis and job losses.

    Garrido’s next door neighbor Damon Robinson was interviewed several times by the AP, Los Angeles Times and other media. During those conversations, he revealed his ex-girlfriend, Erika Pratt, had called police in 2006 to report Garrido had children living in tents in his backyard.

    While Robinson was being interviewed by the AP and others, three members of a British media group walked onto his property without his permission.

    When Robinson asked what they were doing, a British reporter told Robinson his deadline was coming quickly and offered him $2,000 if he would quit talking to everyone else and provide them an exclusive showing of his backyard.

    The reporter flashed $100 as an apparent sign of good faith. Robinson, who acknowledged that another British outlet had also paid him, agreed. Robinson, who is unemployed, did not disclose what outlets paid him and it was not clear from the interaction.

    Robinson led the crew deep into his backyard, where a hole in his fence provided a glimpse of the shambled compound next door.

    Robinson said he would use the money for his two children and might also give some to Dugard’s daughters.

    If this story, also from neighbor Mike Rogers, holds water, perhaps Erika Pratt was right to get her behind OUT of there.  Perhaps (?) this also may relate to why CC Sherriffs were not so aggressive in follow-up?  Or if Ms. Pratt was, like at least two of the Erika Pratt’s I saw on-line, African-American, this may be why her reports didn’t hold weight?  Or was it her gender?

     

    (ROGERS) The Antioch builder told theDaily Mail that Garrido made crystal meth using household utensils and frequently invited “perverts” to his home to regale in drugs, sex and drinking. Rogers went so far as to call the Garrido home a brothel.

    He said he discussed the matter with his brother, Dean, who also lives in the neighborhood. Rogers said they agreed not to contact police explaining, “People don’t even waive to each other or say hello here. You just pay no attention to what is going on with other people. That way, you don’t get shot.”


    He now agonizes (in public) over that decision and worries that Garrido may have been pimping out Jaycee and her young daughters to strangers. “I hope to God not,” said Dean Rogers.


    (**Mr. Dean Rogers is also re-filing this information (at least acc. to report) in HIS brain as to agonizing, whereas earlier, acc. to the Rogers brother Mike, not getting shot for ratting to the police was the priority, and hence pimping out someone NOT a kidnap victim or one’s own daughters, alternatively, MIGHT be OK….)


     

    A blank stare

    Haydee Perry, 35, who lives next door, said that when Phillip Garrido helped her jumpstart her car a month ago, he had a young girl clinging to him in a manner that struck her as strange.

    She stayed close to him at all times,Perry said. “It wasnt normal behavior. She had a blank stare on her face. ***Now it seems like a cry out for help.”

    i.e., according to Ms. Perry (age 35 now) the fact was first filed in a box in her mind (face it, we all have these, or we couldn’t function in life.  WE would have to become not just ill-literate, but basically a wordless society.  One of the first things “Adam” is credited with doing in the Bible is naming all the animals.  Then here comes a woman, and he named her, too, “Eve.”  The process of calling women names has continued to this day; it’s part of how one masters any situation, is by naming it. 

     

    A fascinating book on humans vs. animals, and how they interpret situations, is called “Animals in Translation.”  Humans specialize in interpreting situations, animals that are other animal’s food are more prone to notice more detail and interpret less.  The author, who is/was autistic, tries to describe her differences between these two extremes from the perspective of autism.  

     

    This book helped me become more aware of how people who had not undergone a battering relationships of many years, or post-traumatic-stress-“disorder” (actually a pretty normal response to life-threatening situations, it’s only “disorder” once the life-threatening aspects are out of the picture and there has been time to heal and deal….) just didn’t notice fluctuations in patterns of behavior, or things that others might.  What they notice, and then wish action to be taken on (OR, wish to themselves take action on) then becomes a point of conflict with self-appointed experts on the situation, sometimes with lethal consequences.  So understanding this becomes vitally important when a person leaving the abuse is forced to continually interact and negotiate with former abusers, or people who colluded with or enabled it.  

     

    The public MUST balance its desire to deny that abuse — or women in boxes, or kidnappers who start another generation of captives and get away with this in suburban California — or their neighbor/friend/business supplier, or someone in their religious organization — might be in another context, an insane sadist and unbelievable criminal, with women helping in the process, or participating.  No matter how many “out there” headlines are read, I’d say that generally speaking, public behavior as a whole is not going to change radically.  Why?  It would — and face it, it really would — disrupt the economy severely, if citizens took policing or child protection into their own hands.  Women have been thrown in jail for doing this when the abuser was related to the children; they overstepped their authority when it came to sticking up for their kids’ right not to be traumatized, and their own, through that.  THAT is one of the most closely-sealed boxes in the family court arena, although certain groups are starting to pry some of it open in some counties, with some (although how much is yet unclear) result.

     

    How I myself got out of a battering relationship involved calling it what it was, also.  Without the vocabulary, including legal vocabulary, I believe, I’d still be in there, or in a box several feet under.  Naming and filing is a VITAL human activity; and it’s important to put what we observe OUTSIDE us in a proper place in the thinking INSIDE.  

     

    This is important as a community also.  What Ms. Perry >then< saw as “strange” and filed it away, she >now< has refiled under as a “cry for help.”   

     

    In another scenario, and the one which led to the girls and Jaycee being freed, Officer Allison Jacobs, another woman, recounted that one of Jaycee’s daughters blue eyes seemed to be trying to burn a hole in her.  (See my post on police initution~mother’s instinct, or that article for quote).  Both women in two situations noticed the girls’ eyes.. . . . GUYS — do men do this?   

     

    This whole process, in the press, may be also seen as an attempt to help the public also “file” this whole incident in its communal (?) databank for future reference (as well as a surefire way to increase readership/ratings).

     

    I think that book and topic deserves another post, and will leave it for now.

     

     

     

     

    (QUOTING NEWS ARTICLE, CONT’D.)  A Web site containing statements from Garrido and others calledVoices Revealedtalks about a turnaround that allowed himto open doors that will honor the creator and his eternal purpose for mankind.”

     

    A PANDORA’s BOX, Oh No!

     

    In which Let’s Get Honest laments that she has herein just opened the PANDORA’S BOX of what GARRIDO WAS SAYING BEFORE ARREST, WHERE HE GOT THOSE IDEAS FROM, and SOME OF HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES.  On the other hand, I’m a mother who lost my daughters — to the courts, and their father — on an overnight visitation.  Many things already make no sense to those who think that police police, judges judge, and laws are, well, upheld, who wonders why public indignation just takes a hike when a husband & wife are involved, even YEARS AFTER THEY SEPARATED!  

    LET’S GET HONEST COMMENTARY:  There are times (added to post 09-13-09) I truly wish I weren’t as curious as I am.  I just “HAD” to go and open another “Pandora’s Box,” in other words, I wanted to know what the heck “Voices Revealed” was.  

    I know that PART of my curiosity stems from simply wanting to find out WHY in this culture it took so many years for my local communities to “wake up” (if they ever did) to the fact that a husband was assaulting his wife in the home, and only ONE of them, a family violence law center, actually took action to legally put a stop to it.  I was functioning as well as most people could as a mother, worker, and amazingly, teacher & musician and quite a bit more of professional involvements, without the tools MANY people can take for granted, for example, any possibility that I would have legitimate control over how the income earned was used, or my own access to bank, transportation, credit, and free association with people in my profession, without either sabotage or punishment for doing so.  . . . . . . . So afterwards, what seemed REAL simple to me – — the fact we needed a LITTLE help didn’t mean that we needed to be placed in the back seat of life, permanently, and moreover told where the car was going.  WHen one is on the bottom, the clear place to go is UP.  FAST!  

    The other part is probably innate.  I don’t remember NOT being curious, or something of a girl, young woman, or older woman, who just wanted to know WHY, and noticed things.  When I say “innate,” I am not the first individual in the family line to either be subject to or witness, or both, beatings of a Mom in the home, and who knows whether this habit came from that environment or not?  And, at a certain point, who cares?  The question is, what to do with it.

    Anyhow, here is that “Voices Revealed” website, and one part of it that happens to make some SENSE (and has a “not affiliated” comment at the end, please note) goes as follows (quote is shown by the font & typestyle change).  

    I wouldn’t quote it if there weren’t a few important lessons to learn from it (I know I did), including pay attention, if you’re going to be gullible enough to actually read newspapers about headline stories (which, obviously, I am) to be curious enough to want to know what they were talking about.  I guess one UPside of being involved in this system and periodic, sometimes long-term unemployment, along with the desire to STOp the periodic, and sometimes long-term unemployment that comes with domestic violence by exploring ways to stop it, most of which don’t work, is finding out how a lot of systems DO work.  ANYHOW, Voices Revealed, quoting another “private educational group” in Washington, pastes on its site:

    CULTURAL TRANCE

     

    Is a condition that exists when large bodies of people have accepted something as truth.

     

    In the days of Columbus everyone knew the earth was “flat.” Today everyone knows it is not possible to produce voices for others to hear as experience clearly marked it as not possible.

     

    The reason I have taken the time to qualify my findings through the legal system is obvious.

     

    When you hear of my findings you will be experiencing a “flat world concept”

     

    Because everything we know is based on our past personal and educational experiences in life thus we have all been conditioned in a variety of ways that can build “blind spots.” It is a sensory locking out of the environment that builds a Scotoma to the truth about the world and ourselves because of our preconceived ideas.

     

    This causes us to:

    SEE what we EXPECT to SEE

    HEAR what we EXPECT to HEAR

    THINK what we EXPECT to THINK

     

    The result is we often develop scotomas to the “TRUTH.”

     

    This awareness is also about to be apply to an age old book

    That will be reading in a powerfully unique way

    It will allow us to hear what we

    Have never heard before.

     

    (Isaiah 6:9)

    9He said, “Go and tell this people: `Be ever hearing, but never understanding;

    be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ N.I.V.

     

    The preceding information in its basic form** is from a private educational corporation

    (THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE, INC. Seattle, Washington)

    And is not affiliated with this project in any capacity

     

    Re;  “in its basic form”** I looked.  While I didn’t find this section (yet), I did see, below, The Pacific Institute’s fields of enterprise, and the phrase about the human mind as software which needs periodic “upgrading,”:

     

    However, the basic knowledge of how the mind works is constant from individual to individual, continent to continent. “The hardware is pretty much the same; what we are dealing with is the human software – and that, my friends, can and should be upgraded on a regular basis.” says Tice.

    If my mind is software, well, I’m constantly in a learning curve.  What frightens me as much, if not more than, the middle-aged, white-boy Phillip Garridos of this world, with their religiously compliant women in tow, trying to prove that the mind can channel external voices of this world through boxes in public, and kidnapping, imprisoning, repeatedly raping (possibly also pimping) and fathering little girls in private — and believe me, this DOES frighten me, I have daughters, and their father that parentally abducted them is a middle-aged, religious white-boy also — is ANY aged ANY color people in positions of responsibility believing that human minds should be (note passive tense) “upgraded” in time.

     

    Whenever you see passive tense in a sentence (“Minds . . . . should be upgraded”) and there is no “by whom” or adverbial “HOW” in the same sentence, be afraid.  Be very afraid.  Especially when it appears on the mission page of any company which does business with jails, educational institutions, and other agencies.


     

    Upgraded By WHOM?  There was a Dr. Who mightmare TV program about this very upgrade process.  It’s the stuff of science fiction.  

     

    1709 Harbor Ave SW
    Seattle, WA  98126-2073(Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metro Area)

     

     

    (The Tall man on the left needs no introduction.  The two on the right are the co-founders of this Pacific Institute, Inc., which Phillip Garrido’s site quotes, and which in many ways resembles at least two organizations RUNNING (and I do mean that) the court system nationwide, if not internationally.  I am going to blog on these now for sure.  One is Public Strategies, Inc. and another (similar) is “MCDRC” (I will look up proper initials in a bit here); their BUSINESS, and it is a very prosperous one, is outsourcing, evaluating, and reporting back on the many “demonstration” projects across a spectrum of government policy initiatives and arms, i.e., courts, child support, child abuse, law enforcement, jails (yes, jails), and helping low-income people (makes one wonder how some of us GOT to be low-income people, or why some communities and ethnicities, overall, tend to stay that way, with some escaping the cycle, and others not).  These are where socialization takes place by one part of society upon the other parts of society not lucky (or in some senses, immoral?) enough to be engaged in these professions, until eventually society viewed from the perspective of, say, outside itself, might start to look from a few feet above (or below) like THIS:

    Drawing Hands, 1948

     

    THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE (AND NOW MY POST IS GETTING TOO LONG..)

    Global Vision

    From the beginning, The Pacific Institute’s co-founders, Lou and Diane Tice, have held to the vision that the education they assembled would be beneficial to people all over the world. Yes, cultural differences do exist. However, the basic knowledge of how the mind works is constant from individual to individual, continent to continent. “The hardware is pretty much the same; what we are dealing with is the human software – and that, my friends, can and should be upgraded on a regular basis.” says Tice.   {{SEE MY COMMENT ABOVE}}

     

    1980 marked the beginning of a rapid expansion of The Pacific Institute beyond North America.

    Like the “fatherhood” movement, it wasn’t marketed or promoted, it just naturally “expanded.”

    Today, the Institute’s varied curricula have been translated and adapted to serve organizations in Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the South Pacific, as well as North America. It is an honor for The Pacific Institute to be able to serve {{to serve WHOM, exactly??}}

    as an agent for positive transformation in the world.  

    {{Transforming, or upgrading the human mind’s software? Transformation can be good, or bad.  It’s not always good! Who defines which way “positive” is, anyhow?}}

    Our Mission

    As we continue to expand our reach around the world, {{IS this Marketing, or Colonialism? I’m a little uncertain which..}}  our mission {{which as yet remains undentified…}}  continues as a standard of excellence:

     

    {{It continues “AS” a standard?  Spoken like a true educator, in other words, in vague, noble-sounding, garbled -grammar, proclamation style. . .  Thanks for explaining HOW (although not in much detail, here) your mission serves its unidentified master (servant/master, right?), but what I’m really concerned about is what IS your “mission,” kindly The Pacific Institute, sir/ma’am?}}{{If your mission is being adopted, or at least interpreted “in its basic form,” by rapist kidnappers, I definitely want to know what it is.}}

    “We affirm the right of all individuals to achieve their God-given potential. The application of our education (BY WHOM??  TO WHOM??) empowers people to recognize their ability to choose growth, personal freedom and personal excellence.

    As opposed to, say, Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, which in the US at least, are (supposedly) considered unalienable rights, and the fact that ALL men are endowed with these rights is considered “self-evident,” along with several other “self-evident truths.”  . . . . Suppose all individuals are not interested in “growth, personal freedom and personal excellence” but simply want to stay Alive, Free, and go for “happiness” instead?  Do they get to NOT choose to change the Color of their Parachute?  ???

    (i.e., compare, Declaration of Independence:  “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”)

    We commit ourselves to providing this education, all over the world, through all means that are just and appropriate.”

    Indeed, this institute, which began with a high school football coach and art teacher (Note:  sports and arts are typically areas cut when budgets are tight) who just wanted to help — everybody, of course.  Now, it preaches to the world, capturing also the imagination of men like Phillip Garrido.  But its clients most definitely include government entitites, acc. to the website, under “social solutions.”  {{I shudder!}}

     

    Government entities, from federal agencies to local municipalities; law enforcement agencies and correctional institutions; and the full spectrum of social service agencies all benefit from the wide range of The Pacific Institute’s services.

     

    With so many differing, and sometimes competing, agencies working from different angles – yet committed to helping those at the margins of society – it helps to be speaking the same language.

     

    i.e., The language of the educators, of Mr. & Mrs. Tice and people who think that their purpose in life truly IS, teaching the rest of the world to think, and have forgotten “all the world’s a stage” and a good deal of great literature, and instead see all the world as one Big, Fat, Market Niche.  LOOK, for “all the world’s a stage” there is the medium of the BLOG.  When it comes to captive audiences, literally in many cases, I protest!  

    Law enforcement agencies successfully implementCommand, Control & Choice™ into their officer training academies, Thought Patterns for High Performance™ for staff and non-badged personnel, as well as Investment in Excellence®

    New for 2008 is Discovering the Power in Me™, a program focused on the suddenly disabled – those individuals, their families and caregivers, whose lives have been affected by sudden, permanent injury. The Institute’s effective thinking skills education is targeted to move these individuals from recovery and rehabilitation to contribution and achievement. 

     

    I have studied several languages, and also “speak” the language of music, which is a language.  I am not in favor of Esperanto or any other form of one-world government, and I think that George Orwell and Aldous Huxley made some good points in their works of fiction, which I wish were more fiction than, as it turns out, prophesy.   A good deal of some versions of “prophecy” is simply observation of the obvious, and then speaking it aloud.  I like hanging out with people that are not “just like me.”  If I wanted someone “just like me,” what would we talk about?  Where would the growth come from?  What would life be about?  

    I do not think THIS is a good idea.  The metaphor of the Tower of Babel is appropriate here.  

    Does this language include the “old” language of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and a sense of modesty about the capacities within human nature that need restraint when it comes to “ruling” one’s fellow man?  I don’t think so.  Rather, we would all soon be playing God, or at least working for or the client of a business that is.  

     

    SCOTOMA (from “Cultural Trance” excerpt, above), unraveled: 

    The word “scotoma” (new to me, too, eh?):

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotoma 

    A scotoma (Greek for darkness; plural: “scotomas” or “scotomata“) is an area or island of loss or impairment of visual acuity surrounded by a field of normal or relatively well-preserved vision.

    Every normal mammalian eye has a scotoma in its field of vision, usually termed its blind spot. This is a location with nophotoreceptors, where the retinal ganglion cell axons that comprise the optic nerve exit the retina. This location is called the optic disc. When both eyes are open, visual signals that are absent in the blind spot of one eye are provided from the opposite visual cortex for the other eye, even when the other eye is closed. The absence of visual imagery from the blindspot does not intrude intoconsciousness with one eye closed, because the corresponding visual field locations of the optic discs in the two eyes differ.
    The term scotoma is also used metaphorically in psychology to refer to an individual’s inability to perceive personality traits in themselves that are obvious to others.
    What I have some serious trouble with, regarding Mr. Garrido’s application of the quote above, despite his adeptness with language and understanding of metaphor, is in the application:

    Translation, that he has special and remarkable powers….

       

    (per:       

    POSTED BY THEMANWHOSPOKEWITHHISMIND AT 5:18 PM 66 COMMENTS

     

     

     

     

    OK, bloggers, this blog, apparently by Mr. Garrido, has had 330,000 visitors, and his about-me reveals several blogs

    My Blogs

    Team Members

    Charging the angels with error.  
    The Truth Will Set You Free  
    Voices Revealed  
    Exposed  
    Voices Revealed  

     

     

    Besides the “voicesrevealed” one, only “The Truth Will Set You Free” (also titled “boastaboutthis.blogspot.com”) has a sidebar (no posts):  

    JEREMIAH 9:24 “But let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” 2 CORINTHIANS12:1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. 3And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows– 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.

    Apparently “on earth” did not apply to the patch of ground behind the home in Antioch, or to the  

    young females boxed in there, by fear, locks, trauma, rapes and lies, if the alleged charges are an indicator.  

     

    It may be that between the activity there, and if the “meth” and drunken parties neighbors allege took place, the MEN in the situation may have indeed had some “out of body” experiences, while (well, I won’t be crude here, but a turn of phrase comes to mind).  And yes, Garrido DID have a weakness, apparently — for dominating young girls and having sex with them.  See his compulsion to explain “the origins of schizophrenia” to the world, starting in Berkeley, below…(and on one of the blogs above).  I wonder if the 330,000 visitors since 2007 relates (let’s hope) to the recent press in 2009…..And we’ll probably never know what “errors” he was going to charge the angels with.


    One begins to wonder why this person got out of jail early, and under what circumstances.  His talk isn’t as far-fetcheed as it might sound from someone coming out of jail and with a documented prior head injury as well as some pretty bad drug use and horrible behavior.  Being a musician, I occasionally pick up news articles on what “MIT” is up to next, and occasionally get things that, to some, might seem an attempt to get a “mind-reading” box.  It isn’t really, but in that view, to such a person, a sound-control-by-mind box may not be so far-fetched. . . .    Here’s an “emotion-reading prosthetic ESP device” to help autistics, and “for multiple uses”  

     

    April 4, 2006 12:20 PM PDT

    MIT group develops ‘mind-reading’ device

    By Candace Lombardi 
    Staff Writer, CNET News

    El Kaliouby is developing the ESP device for her postdoctoral project as part of the Affective Computing research group at the MIT Media Lab under Rosalind Picard. Alea Teeters, also a member of the group and the ESP project, demonstrated the device.

    The project stems from El Kaliouby’s doctoral work at the University of Cambridge, in which she developed the computational model on which the device is based. Like humans, the system determines emotional states by analyzing hierarchical combinations of subtle facial movements and gestures, such as eyebrow raising, lip pursing and head nodding.

    The ESP consists of an OQO handheld, a tiny wearable video camera, an earphone and a small vibrating device that can be worn on a belt. The camera can be attached to a baseball hat, or worn around the neck on a stand akin to a harmonica holder. . . .

    The ESP camera can be worn facing outward by the speaker, or as a self-cam by the listener. As conversation ensues, the device “mind-reads” for the wearer. When the listener, whom the camera is focused on, begins to exhibit signs of boredom, the speaker is signaled so that she can readjust her behavior to bring the listener back into the conversation.

    The device is especially useful to those with Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC). people with ASC often lack the ability to evaluate others’ emotions on their own. The result is that high-functioning autistics, who might otherwise fair reasonably well in the world on their own, are hampered by a tendency toward misunderstanding and boring others.

    Yes, “Boring others” (case in point!) is  a social detriment, unless one is in government, or has taken hostages in some form or another, in which case it’s a moot point.  Literally, “captive audiences” HAVE to take orders, including, to listen.  Blog readers, on the other hand, can bore easily and simply click out of this triple-sized post….

    The ESP device can prompt autistic people, who are prone to monologues or repetitive behavior, to ask questions, or give the listener a chance to participate in conversation. The hope is that with long-term use of the device as a self-teaching tool, ASC patients will eventually learn how to read for themselves the emotional responses in others.

    According to Picard, the Affective Computing group has received human subject approval . . . 

    The ESP is exciting in that the technology has multiple possibilities in terms of use.  (YES IT DOES.  (shudder).  Imagine it in the hands of a kidnapper, helping him detect the emotional state of his victim should she, say, be planning to escape!  Then it seems to me, such people would already be adept at reading such things)  

    When one starts mixing MIT with religion, it gets a little hairy. . . . . 

    (article from “The Tech” about a BCC, i.e., Boston Church of Christ.  I have some exposure to the latter, and would affirm, sounds kinda controlling to me.  At least the article is interesting…)
    Re:  Phillip Garrido’s definition of “Cultural Trance” as not believing he can make sounds come out of a box. . . . . 

    While I don’ t think that the concept of a “cultural trance” is anything too radical a concept, for example, to people in PR, marketing, or who has survived The Holocaust, or lived through a genocide, snake charmers, street preachers, drug users,  self-improvement gurus, or for that matter, those who pay high prices to attend a concert (rock, opera, whatever).  We all need some help to get through this life.  In fact, this is also where the expressive arts begin, I believe, as far back as cave paintings on a wall in France.  The expressive and performing arts are often associated with spirituality and/or religion, and serve a similar purpose.

    On an individual level, when “love” happens, the word often used is “entranced.”  It puts people, whether temporarily or long-term, in a different mode of thinking and/or reasoning.  

    A state of some entrancement or fascination  is OK, if (a) temporary and (b) voluntary, (c) multiple choice truly exists.    (The root of the word “fascinate” is the “fasces,” which refers to the unbreakable rods bound together, as well as parts of the human body.  One is BOUND to the topic, like I am to this “train of thought” on who WERE these people in Philip and Jaycee’s back yards and lives? and being quoted in the article, and how deeply bound together IS religion and child abuse, woman-using?)

    For example, for many years, America was “entranced” with the Marlboro man, who helped sell cigarettes in a manly cowboy image, and later, I gather coughed out his lungs and died from the stuff.  I myself am VERY concerned about the use of the terms “family” and “law” based on what I have experienced here as opposed to the general meanings of both those words.  When the word “court” is added, then I totally DO understand the concept, in terms of my own general awareness of the themes surrounding kings, queens, courtiers, court jesters, and other royalty.
     

    The site also indicates that he gave a demonstration in Pittsburg last month with a homemade box to provethe creator has given me the ability to speak in the tongue of angels in order to provide a wakeup call that will in time include the salvation of the entire world.”


    Mary Thomas, accountant at J&M auto dismantlers in Pittsburg, near where Garrido set up his revival tent, said hewas always very professional and spoke the word of God whenever he talked.”

    Reader alert:  The use of the phrase “the word of God” indicates a belief in it.  How many of you caught this?  At the top of the article, it says neighbors (of whom Erika Pratt appears to be a sample) “proselytized to them about his messages from God.”  The word “proselytized” indicates a non-belief in (whatever is being preached).

    Note, the background of Nancy Garrido is Jehovah’s Witnesses, who go door to door and in public proselytizing, as part of their faith and (as I understand it), righteousness.  Proselytizing is not illegal.  Certain other activities, like boxing up women and repeatedly raping them, is.  Not all people who proselytize rape and imprison women.  Not all people who rape and imprison proselytize.  What’s Joe Public and Jane I Dont Know Which Way is Up to think? . . . . .

    I can’t answer that last statement for anyone else, but my point is simply to pay attention to language, and when things this horrible are at stake, and are reported afterwards, pay attention to who’s speaking.  The woman who called him very professional may have been part of a similar religious belief system, so to her, Garrido was one of people of this mindset.

    That said, incidentally, I”m of the “word of God” mindset, but I do not take it to criminal lengths and I tend to keep my internal radar in the ON position in general, and seek variety of input when in this arena.  I don’t think I could ever join a “church” again.


    Garrido had a printing business, making business cards for J&M and others in the area. Tiffany Tran, who runs Furniture Gallery in Brentwood, said she had seen and done business withPhil the printerfor six years, as recently as last week.

    We live in an interesting age, you can do business with people you basically don’t know very well.  OR DID SHE?

    Added 09-13-09 at 10a.m.  “Oh dear.”  (See below, where I actually looked up Garrido’s site, and posted from it.  Ms. Tran, per this site, apparently signed a declaration about Mr. Garrido  (better comprehended, if comprehension of such stuff is actually possible, by clicking on this link):

    02/24/08, Tiffany Tran, born on 7-26-73, contacted in person at her place of business named Furniture Gallery, located at 50 Snad Creek Rd., Brentwood, CA 94513, phone #(925) 516-3554. Note- When I previously attempted two separate personal contacts there I spoke with her sister Stephanie Tran, showed herthe Declaration in question, and she said that she was present when her sister signed it. She also added that she too witnessed Mr. Garrido’s demonstration and had the same to say about it as her sister did in her Declaration. 
    Respectfully submitted, 

    Ralph A. Hernandez.

    This document is to affirm that I Phillip Garrido have clearly demonstrated the ability to control sound with my mind and have developed a device for others to witness this phenomena. by using a sound generator to provide the sound, and a headphone amplification system, ( a device to focuc your hearing so as to increase the sensitivity of what one is listening to) I have produced a set of voices by effectively controlling the sound to pronounce words through my own mental powers

    FROM THE SITE “VOICESREVEALED.BLOGSPOT.COM”


    Also from this site:  Ms. Tran’s affidavit as to Mr. Garrido’s demonstration.

    Affidavit 
    Dated 5/1/08 

    Included in this package are six Declarations as Affirmations confirming several private demonstrations have taken place that allowed others to witness my freedom to speak in a tongue unknown to the medical field, scientific world and the public in general. The signatures that are located in the middle and at the bottom of each page are to confirm the statements of the entire document. Please note: many other people in the Greater Bay Area are also witnesses to this freedom generating a continued list of growth that in time will clearly become public knowledge. 

    In order to allow others the freedom to know and accept this ability does exist so they too may confirm it upon request a confidential investigation has been contracted with the following firm; 

    Aardvark Investigations & Consulting 
    Ralph A. Hernandez 
    (Retired career Peace Officer, 33+ years of Investigations experience) 
    Ralph A. Hernandez in not affiliated with this project in any other capacity

     


    A little different

    She recalled Garrido as beinga little differentand said he constantly talked about religion and showed her a device through which he claimed he could control sound with his mind.

    Which appeared to have an odd set of boxes with in itself — one for rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment (felony crimes, which he obviously knew, having been in jail for them before), another for telling people about God; no apparent contradiction there.  Detachment.  Commiting crimes in one arena didn’t cause trouble, evidently, to the other.  They were boxed up.  Many people in the field of domestic violence talk about “crimes of passion” and recommend “anger management.  My experience with (abuse) wasn’t that it was always a rage out of control thing.  Far from this, many times it appeared to be calculated, to keep (me) within my mental/emotional/psychological “box” of behaviors and places and things that were either permitted or, off-limits, i.e., outside MY particular box.  To keep one on edge, the limits often shifted, meaning, one was frequently on guard when engaging in something that MIGHT provoke, MIGHT be “off-limits” or so forth.  This man not only controlled women, but also sound, including the voice of God.

    In other words, detachment CAN be dangerous.  

    The concept of mental control is not THAT radical, I’ve seen a recent article from MIT on this, but you’ll have to look it up yourself..

    Some people have a story behind their smile, some donthe did,Tran said. “He was happygolucky, but you knew there was a story behind it.”

    Ms. Tran, if you are there, are you aware that your business card is pasted on this site as having given an affidavit as to Mr. Garrido’s special powers, and endorsed by Aardvark Private Investigations, above?


    http://voicesrevealed.blogspot.com/2008/04/report-jan-20-2008.html

    Attorney, University, & Law Enforcement Copy 
    This presentation contains six signed & notarized Declarations verifying there is new evidence concerning Schizophrenia that will affect the courts, the medical field and our institutions of higher learning worldwide.    

    IN AUGUST OF 2008 AT U. C. BERKELEY’S FREE SPEECH PARK I PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NEW INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDED A LIVE DEMONSTRATION.

    (the post, by “TheManWhoSpeaksWithHisMind”, says April 14, 2008.  This report says, release date June, 2008.  The report, refers to August 2008 in past tense.  Perhaps he didn’t take his meds (or was it meth?).  Nevertheless, the blogger puts up Ms. Tran’s and several other local business cards in support, affidavit support, of his assertions.  Perhaps you might want to protect your pbulic image here.  Or make a pro/con statement regarding the blog and your association with Garrido, in addition to the interview given to one or more of  the reporters below)
       

    THE LECTURE WAS DESIGNED TO RAISE THE AWARENESS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ORDER TO PREPARE A PLATFORM CAPABLE OF DISTRIBUTING A KNOWLEDGEABLE AWARENESS THAT WILL IN TIME PROVIDE A FOUNDATION POWERFUL ENOUGH TO UNDERMINE THE IGNORANCE THAT PREVAILS CONCERNING VOICES AND BEGIN SAVING LIVES

    This indeed sounds like a kind of garbled version of something The Pacific Institute, Inc., whose own mission statement sounds as garbled and not too much less grandiose; Mr. Garrido’s just a little more upfront that he (or his truth) is the salvation of the world, forget about Jesus, although borrowing heavily from scriptures is of course helpful in the matter.  

    (I went to elementary school when they still diagrammed sentences, in earnest.  Then I went through a violent marriage and now half my post sentences are incomplete, and the post has no style sheet either.  But still . . . . . I pay attention  to word “anomalies.” ).

    The words “Voices Revealed” plus his attempts to prove sound can come out of nowhere reads like an attempt to show that what were thought by us “flat-earth, culturally entranced, unbelievers” to be craziness (schizophrenia) might just actually be possible.  I think that MAYBE this was what he was obsessed with proving.  Somewhere, he mentions a woman who threw 3 children into the SF Bay in this context of saving lives.  I’m thinking, MAYBE, he was getting to the conclusion that actual voices (cf.  “the box”) got her to do it.  As opposed to, say, “the devil made me do it.”  And the Secretary of State actually signed the articles of Incorporation for his organization.

    What we deserve an answer for:  Why was this dude released?  and, why did they “drop” the comment that there were people in the back yard, when a sex offender was the person accused of this?  They had no problem (once this all came to light) searching the Molino’s home  in a different city, and confiscating some items:  

    Cheyvonne Molino, 35, who runs the JM Enterprises yard with her husband, Jim Molino, told the Contra Costa Times that 15 officers entered their Pleasant Hill home around 11 a.m. and searched through their personal belongings, seizing a Macintosh desktop computer as well as DVDs and VHS tapes.

     “They just came in and violated our privacy,” Molino told the newspaper. “I don’t understand why we’re now the bad guys. I mean, they never asked to see if maybe we can help them instead of coming in on me and my tenants. What about my rights?”

     Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement agencies are not required to obtain a search warrant when conducting a search of a person on probation.

    >>SO, then this statement (above) to Erika Pratt was false?

    Pratt said she had called Contra Costa County sheriffs deputies to investigate, 

     but that officers “told me they couldnt go insidebecause they didnt have a warrant

     So they just told him theyd keep an eye on him.”

    I mean, Garrido WAS on “probation” right?  So they could’ve searched without a warrant, and I’m SURE they knew it.  

     Molino said that her husband Jim — who turned 60 on Wednesday — is on court probation, but that it is unrelated to the Garrido case. She told the Contra Costa Times they are “vicitms by association.”

     Lee said the Molinos are not suspects.

     The Molinos did printing business with Garrido, who sometimes visited their wrecking yard with the two daughters police say he fathered with Dugard.

    MORAL:  Always run criminal background checks on businesses you do business with.  Then again, apparently JM auto wouldn’t have passed that, either.   

     

    Mr. Garrido wants to tell the world something about the origins of Schizophrenia.  If there is truth to the charges against him, he would definitely qualify in that category.  He is also quoted as being unable to get sexual satisfaction without dominating a woman (told to the arresting officer in about 1976), and I also note, an interview with, I believe a father or brother spoke of motorcycle accident with head injury (i.e., brain trauma) and experimentation with drugs in his (Phillip’s) youth, and that “transforming” him as well.  Head injury can indeed do this.  

    So can going through a governmental institution serviced by groups concerned with upgrading the human software as part of a worldwide positive transformation of, well, everyone.  Perhaps some of the gentlemen below could take a lookat some of the neighbors interviewed, or what’s up with Garrido & Garrido, Inc..  Again, “schizo-phrenia” refers to “split-thinking.”  

    I talk in this blog about “split personality court orders,” and they are this.  One cannot take them always both seriously.  The court says, a restraining order is just a piece of paper, make your own safey plan; then (or simultaneously) another arm of the courts says, but the children need frequent contact with their batterer parent no matter what, and parents shouldn’t have “high conflict” about this, or whatever takes place.  

    It also tells the custodial mothers, and clearly/repeatedly so, that visitation is not tied to child support, and no parent (especially mother) can literally withhold visitation because of unpaid child support.  Then, through groups like Pacific Institute, above, here, and others I post about, and which are receiving federal grants to promote healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and through child support offices working with incarcerated fathers, etc., they bargain to reduce child support by getting a custody order modified.  Who’s enriched?  The organizations doing this, not the kids. . . . . That’s itself “schizo” (or, simply dishonest) so no wonder people after eyars in this system, or possibly in jails also, they come out totally wired and fired up to get even and prove a point, even if it means stuff like THIS, or worse.  (Yes, when people are killed, that IS worse, although this is surely scraping the bottom of the barrel here).

    I DIDN’T withhold visitation.  MY KIDS WERE STOLEN, WHEN HE WAS THOUSANDS IN ARREARS!  Then the child support arrears was retro-actively wiped out (leaving me childless AND penniless, and them without a source of child support from either parent — from him, because he owes me, and from me, because the back was broken economically in the process of custody switch).  Another thing I can definitely say is, from afar, it appears that at least ONE is confused, quite understandably so, and this comes out as anger — towards the absent parent.  When sense is lacking, because, being deprived of accurate information on the situation, it seems anger will do.  What a waste of time, and talent.  

    So, Language is a key, and an indicator.   I am a “bear” {which causes the forbidden “conflict” at times} about language when interacting, as I’m forced to, with people who cooperated in removing the restraining order (temporary respite) situation from me, and it really does matter, folks!

    Perhaps later Jaycee may recover and tell us some of the truths of her experience, if she chooses to, and ONLY if she chooses to. 

    Chronicle staff writers Matthew Yi and Matthew B. Stannard contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at dbulwa@sfchronicle.comjvanderbeken@sfchronicle.comhlee@sfchronicle.com and kfagan@sfchronicle.com

    Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/27/BA4N19EJ35.DTL#ixzz0QwwPOIS1

     

    POSTED 9-12-09 (hence “911+1” ),

    and really this was the original main point.

    I simply had included the article on the Dugard case as part 1 of 2.

    This woman explains how the mental limits can be just as strong and confining as the physical.  Once a person is conditioned (first, usually by trauma, drama, threat, shock, as in kidnapping), then they can be made to believe that limits exist which are unreal.  This is then easier for the kidnapper.

    Colleen got out the moment someone told her that the ominpresent “Company” didn’t exist.  Once she realized that fear was gone, she got on a bus and went home.  however, while she believed it was still there, she was even able to visit home, and go back to horror.  

    I hope that this article will be read with appreciation and understanding by those who have NOT been abused, threatened, falsely imprisoned, or anything like it.  Try to understand how things work.  It may help you to help others, including to forgive captives for not getting free sooner, and help them when they do.  It might also help you to listen to your instinct and find out HOW to act, the next time something looks “off” in a situation.  Observation plus instinct.  We live in a world when we’re taught to let others be our instinct and give us permission to listen or not listen, judge or not judge.  These cases should help us overcome that where necessary.  At the bottom are some photos of this woman, who is beautiful and poised now, and able to help others who have been through the situation.

    September 2, 2009 6:30 AM

    Exclusive: Woman Imprisoned in Coffin for 7 Years Has Special Message for Jaycee Dugard

    Posted by Paul LaRosa

     
    NEW YORK (CBS) Whenever I hear about a story like Jaycee Lee Dugard’s – kidnapped at age 11 and held captive for 18 years, bearing two children with her kidnapper – I inevitably think of Colleen Stan because if anyone knows what Jaycee went through and is about to go through, it’s Colleen. 

    Photos: The Search For Jaycee 
    Photos: Jaycee Lee Dugard Found Alive 
    Photos: Inside Jaycee’s Terror Tent 

    Colleen is not as well-known as Elizabeth Smart or Patty Hearst but, if anything, her story is even more incredible. Everyone wants to know why someone like Jaycee or Elizabeth or Patty, all of whom had some apparent freedom, did not flee their kidnappers. Well, Colleen can tell them why. Her story is horrible but instructive. 

    I met Colleen in 2003 when Elizabeth Smart was found alive, and I’ve never been able to stop thinking about her. Colleen was held by a husband and wife for seven years as a slave for sex and just about anything else the couple desired but here’s the kicker – for much of that time, she lived in a coffin-sized box underneath the couple’s bed!! 

    A book was written about Colleen by a prosecutor in the case and its title fittingly is “Perfect Victim.” 

    When I met Colleen, she seemed well-adjusted. She came to the interview with her daughter, a young woman, and then calmly but articulately spun out her incredible tale. 

    Colleen was a 20-year-old hitchhiker in 1977 when she was picked up by a young couple with a child in the back seat of their car. What could be safer, she thought? But the husband, Cameron Hooker, was a sexual sadist who took Colleen to the family’s isolated trailer and raped her. The abuse got worse and worse. 

    “He liked to whip me with whips,” she told CBS News. “He had electro-shocked me. He had burned me. He had done many things.”

    Colleen explained that Hooker had warned her that, if she said a word about what was going on, his “men” would storm into the house and kill her parents and her and anyone inside the instant she opened her mouth. 

    “Because of the threats that people would come right in the house and people would be hurt,” she told Van Sant. 

    “And you believed him?” 

    “Yes, I did.” 

    Hooker’s control over Colleen was that complete. She went back to the box, and it was only because of Hooker’s wife that she was eventually rescued. Hooker’s wife went to the authorities at the behest of her minister. Hooker was eventually tried and sentenced to life in prison. His wife was never prosecuted under the theory that she too was abused and scared to death of her husband. 

    Sounds like that might have been understandable.

    Photos: The Search For Jaycee 
    Photos: Jaycee Lee Dugard Found Alive 
    Photos: Inside Jaycee’s Terror Tent 

    Colleen recovered after years of therapy. She is now an office manager in Northern California. I caught up with her Monday and asked her about Jaycee Dugard. Colleen said she’d been trying with no luck to get in touch with Jaycee’s mother, and had met her mother on a talk show some years ago. 
    Colleen was of course concerned about Jaycee’s state of mind. “I read that she felt guilty but she should not feel that way,” Collen said. “You can’t be with someone 18 years and not have an attachment. I hope I get the opportunity to talk to her and tell her she did nothing wrong. She did everything right. She’s alive. 

    “I want to work with these women (Jaycee, her mother and her daughters) and help them readjust,” Colleen said. “It is not easy. After being away from the world for 7 1/2 years and all of a sudden you’re thrown back in the world and it’s hard, very overwhelming. My heart just goes out to these women who come out of these situations. It’s hard to adjust to your family situation.”

     

    Hooker renamed Colleen “K” and constructed a coffin-sized box with holes in it and instructed her to climb in. He then shoved the box under the couple’s bed every night and kept her as his slave for the next 7 years. 

    Colleen felt she had no control of anything. She said he told her, “I’m in control and Colleen no longer exists. You are now K. You are my slave.” 


    Hooker wrote up a contract for Colleen that “basically said that he owned me body and soul.” 

    At one point, Hooker handed Colleen a gun. “I didn’t know if it was loaded or not and he told me ‘this is to see if you’ll do what I say,’ and he told me to put the gun in my mouth and pull the trigger, and I did,” she said. 
    Everything about this story is shocking and you might think that Colleen would do anything in her power to escape, and that is where her story intersects with Jaycee’s because people who are totally under someone else’s control – even given the opportunity to escape – do not. The brainwashing is complete. We as free individuals cannot understand it because we’ve never been in their situation. 

    Some 3 1/2 years into Colleen’s captivity – living in a box, being raped repeatedly – her abductor Cameron Hooker took her home for a visit with her family and left them with her overnight. She never said a word about what was going on with Hooker, and in fact went back with him the next day to live in the box again for another 3 ½ years. 


    CBS News Correspondent Peter Van Sant was incredulous: “Why then didn’t you tell them ‘I’ve been kidnapped, tortured?’ Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call the police and say, ‘Get here immediately. I need your help, I need your protection?’” 

    {{I have been many years outside the battering relationship I was in formerly.  I still get, from people that did nothing to intervene, and probably to make themselves feel better, and more innocent for not helping, blaming for not leaving earlier.  It is minimized, and I am supposedly “over it” even when many aspects of the abuse, in this case (no one ever went to prison in my case, unfortunately, I say) were continuing.  I try to understand their point of view, but the converse is not always true.  Victim-blaming is actually a self-solacing activity.

    I used to try to become “normal” again and to a degree this is desirable.  But there is no “past” to go back to before which one has undergone certain things.  The brain also begins to work somewhat differently at times, which is biologically normal; for example, if PTSD comes up, that can be difficult, and is disheartening, but there are things I am going to notice, and possibly respond to, that people who have not been mugged (by an intimate), stalked, or repeatedly traumatized, etc., might not.  When we are then discussing a similar situation, for example, something may be characterized as “over-reacting” but for that person, it isn’t.  . . . There are some pros and cons to aspects of how one is changed by certain experiences.  At times, I have learned to “translate” or try and understand why people may not “understand.”  Would it be ideally normal to go totally back to normal for Colleen and Jaycee, if that were possible?

    Maybe not — for one, while “normal” both of them were kidnapped.  I imagine they are a little more cautious, as are their friends and relatives, than before.  }}

     

    What most shocked Colleen when she came out of captivity was something you might not expect. She was surprised at how ungrateful everyone was. “I was shocked,” she said. “People had nice jobs and houses and had plenty but they seemed so unhappy. They wanted more. I was coming out of a situation where I had nothing, and being exposed to these people who had so much and were unappreciative of it and complaining, I thought ‘My God why don’t they see how blessed they are?’ 

    “It was overwhelming at first that people don’t take advantage of what they have. All I came home with were the clothes on my back. I had nothing. I was blessed with family and friends. 

    She received therapy from Doctor Christopher Hatcher from San Francisco, who has since died. Colleen considers him her savior. “He helped me to understand that I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything right. People will ask you why you didn’t do this or that and they don’t know. They were not in that situation. 

    “I had a lot of support from my family but they didn’t know what to tell me so Dr. Hatcher helped me understand that people in this situation switch to survival mode. You have to do what you have to do and say to get through this situation and you shut down your emotions. I had to learn how to turn those emotions back on. 

    {{That’s beautifully said, and it’s true, too.  As we run through life and notice people whose emotions ARE shut down, it might be something to also keep in mind.  Perhaps there’s a reason they are.  Anecdotal:  Initially (and also at other times), when I would protest a form of abuse, there would be a punishment, to dominate, retaliate and establish that protesting abuse was UNacceptable.  There were other times (this is talking DV in a marital situation) when I purposely stayed calm, flat-faced, did not react, or express what I think.  My “me” went into hiding, for safety.  Then I was criticized for being emotionless.  When I say “Criticized” that means, namecalling, etc., some of it pretty nasty.  I guess he needed someone reactive in there to get a feeling of power from the abuse.  

    There is a term for this (I think more re: childhood abuse) called “DID” — Dissociating, and literature around it.  It’s a survival thing.  I did not go through anything close to what this woman did — but she survived, and looks wonderful now and is able to speak out to someone else and help (see photos, below).  

    One book (person’s story) I read (reading other’s stories at one point — this is AFTER leaving the in-house abuse situation — seemed to gave me hope), she describes and attack and said, “immediately my mind split in two.”  I remember this from one of the first most severe ones.  The attack was happening, and part of my brain was compareing the two:  “THIS — husband — THIS — husband” and trying to connect the two concepts.  They didn’t connect.  (I’d already hauled back in for trying to to out the front door and wrestled to the ground, pregnant, was being sat on and slapped across the face.  It all happened very fast.  I remember so much of it, even from many years ago).

    }}

    “I would like Jaycee to understand that (her recovery) will not happen overnight. She’ll carry around guilt, shame, anger and it will take years. I never got angry until long after (Cameron Hooker) was arrested. I did not feel safe until he was convicted because I was still afraid he would get off

    “It’s perfectly normal to go through these emotions.” 

    I asked her the question everyone always wants to know: why didn’t you escape when you had the chance? 

    People don’t understand all the threats made against me, my family. There’s a lot more to it than just walking away. When you’re sexually abused, these things solidify the fact that if you don’t do what I say, I can take your life. I thought, ‘What if he catches me when I try to escape?’ It wasn’t like I never thought about these things. I did but I never felt safe to act out on them until his wife came to me and said, ‘We have to get out of here.’” 

    Colleen is 52 years old now, and on August 9th, she celebrated the 25th anniversary of the day she was set free, enjoying a cake and celebration with her recovery group. The cake, she said, was as sweet as life is now. 

    ==========

    One of the worst things people can do to someone coming out of trauma is judge them harshly for not getting over it fast enough.  If it’s dramatic and awful enough, news headlines, mercy seems to come.  But there is so much in just daily life, “routine” assault, battery, and long-term domestic violence.  I still have family members scolding me for being “stuck in the past” (this happens to be actually a dodge attempting to derail a different conversation).  Generally speaking, if you haven’t been through it, you’re just not in a position to judge.


    Another thing not to do is go with the sympathy plus patronizing, i.e, making decisions for the person on the basis that because of her EXPERIENCE of domination and abuse, she just needs someone else to “take control” and dominate how she recovers, leaves, gets out, proiritizes WHAT area of life is most important, etc.  What happened to me was that after years of negligence, it seems (at least) that the same people who weren’t competent to name and act on “danger” when it slapped THEM in the face metaphorically (as it did me, literally), and it wasn’t just hands, there were indeed weapons, which was also known – – the experts moved on in because I happened to be in a weakened state initially.  Then I began to assert some boundaries and found this recovery resented.  Kind of like a codependent need to know the person that was needy and in abuse.  The, “She has a backbone and is utilizing it” wasn’t in the vocabulary.  This saddens me, to have to fight a similar fight, again, and with different people.

    The “experts” who aren’t can be every bit as abusive as the captors.  It is necessary for others involved to “think outside the box” also.  

     

    I rejoice that these women got out.  

     

    =========

    Photo: Colleen Stan today. 

     

    Colleen Stan at age 29, shortly after she was released. 

     

    Photo: Colleen Stan’s 20th birthday. She was abducted soon after. 

    The ACES study — Bridging apparent Skipped Synapses in Family Court thinking….

    leave a comment »

    Happy Labor Day post.  I give you one study I refer to often on this blog, that dates back to 1998, and one (more) inane/insane custody discussion from Australia, case dating 1999-2003, and topic, joint legal custody and visitation with a young girl and the father who crushed her baby brother’s skull with his bare hands, baby being 3 weeks old and in his father’s arms at the time.  The court is less concerned with that behavior than the mother’s “phobia” (odd label, eh?) about that behavior.  Nothing much new for Family Law Arena — this is its speciality, in fact, stigmatizing parents that actually seek to protect their kids from trauma, abuse, and possible (in that case) death.

     

    ACES (below):  Bridging the Gap between Childhood Trauma and . . . . .Negative consequences later in life.

     

    Or should I call this bridging the gap between theory and reality?  Which results in the ever-widening “Chasm,” the Court public Credibility Gap.

    So, how does one talk with mad engineer at the helm of a runaway train with one’s kids on it?  How get one’s kids safely OFF the train?  because in this venue, it doesn’t seem possible.  If they spend the duration of their childhood on this train, perhaps this will become their new “normal” and then another generation of trainsters and railway-hoppers will grow up, have kids, and provide new cargo for this Trip to Nowhere (except the trips to the bank for the railroad and its employees).  Like the formerly renowned rail system in the U.S., it took a lot of subsidy to keep the thing operational.

    There are basically two types of conversations going through the courts:  

    1.  IN open court — in open, and 

    2.  Behind closed doors — in private.

    The heart of the matter is in the 2nd arena.  Best interests of the child is static, sound-fluff and media-bytes.  It’s not reality, and I don’t any longer believe that any one who makes a living in this arena seriously, seriously believes in this paradigm — or if they do, their eyes are simply closed, because the cat is out of the bag.  

    I believe the language the speak, as any good employee or business person truly does, is that of who is paying their bills. One reason I know this is that I actually experienced leaving an abusive marriage, and how vital a part finances was in getting free.  I also watched systematic economic abuse (mismangement, comandeering of access to basic funds/cash flow/steady jobs that would make this possible, and so forth), which restricted and delayed the exit.   

    Which would you be more accountable to as a secretary whose family’s food and rent (lifestyle) depends on your pleasing that employer?  Up to your own personal level of moral/social tolerance (and ability to choose), a disgruntled customer in the waiting room or on the phone?  Or your employer?    . . . . Well, what about judges and other professionals, some of whose salary (US$) is well over $100,000 and lifestyles and associates to match?  Along with judgeships go political influence and possibly later activity — it’s a career path.  It took a lot of convincing in California (and publicity) for these judges to give up (statewide) their almost $20 million in SUPPLEMENTAL pay, but not until one of their own, an attorney in Los Angeles, was firmly intimidated and jailed for reporting financial corruption (Richard Fine case), which was his actual job to do in this city, as I understood it.  He was put in punitive solitary conffinement, moreover, and I heard, disbarred, for actually bucking this system.

    However, these articles ARE about “best interests of the child” and whose head is where in being unable to figure that out in a given case involving infanticide! Or other horrors to any growing child, or the parent of any such child.

     

    I am going to start grading the Family Law systems in my country, and in any country that imitates policies that I give an “F” in my country:

     

    1998 THIS study is also old, and underestimated.  Probably because of its common sense, like the 1989 and 1992 ones I quoted earlier, from NOMAS, talking about why the HECK have we got to continue exposing each new generation of children to more and more parents who batter, and then posing STUPID questions like, why is the next generation ending up in jail, or beating THEIR women, or taking the assaults, either.

    WHY is business as usual, THAT’s why.  A case came to light today where an Australian court (dealing with similar issues down under) is ordering psychiatric evaluation for the mother of a two-year old because the two-year-old’s father, quickly knocking up another woman, had just crushed to death the newborn (3 weeks old) infant with his bare hands, in response to the baby’s crying.  The man is in jail, and the court is trying to tell the mother that she needs to have her head examined for wanting to make sure this doesn’t happen to the one that came out of HER womb.  No, I am not kidding!

     

    FAMILY LAW – Children – parenting orders – contact in prison – father incarcerated for killing child of another relationship – specific phobic anxiety of the primary carer and compromised capacity to care for the child – no significant contact ordered.

    At what point do we get to have the COURT’s “head”  – and values — examined?   ???

     

    O & C [2005] FMCAfam 200 (29 April 2005)

    Last Updated: 6 June 2005

    FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

    REASONS FOR JUDGMENTIntroduction – the proceedings

    1. This matter comes before me as the final hearing of the competing applications of the various parties concerning B M C born 9 March 1999. Final parenting orders were made in relation to B on 20 February 2002 whereby B lived with the mother and the father had regular contact. However, on 11 March 2003, the father killed his newborn child of another relationship, Z, and the father is now incarcerated until approximately February 2006.

    Yes you read that right.  Infanticide:  3 years.  3 hots and a cot.  Wonder if he’ll get out on parole early, like Garrido did, in time for a repeat performance.  Sounds like it didn’t affect his entitlement much, being incarcerated for baby-killing; he still wants to assert his shared parenting responsibilities and rights.  Where’s KING SOLOMON (of the Bible) when you need him?   Where’s the anti-abortion pro-lifers when you need them?  This mother, of child “B” is a pro-lifer.  She doesn’t want HER kid to suffer the same fate.  For expressing and acting on this protective, motherly sentiment, she may be sentenced to a lifetime — or at least for the duration of B’s childhood — of having her “head examined” over this “phobia.”

    “Phobia” being, I guess, being afraid of something the Court isn’t afraid of, probably because it’s not the Court’s offspring involved or at risk.


    2. The proceedings were initiated by the mother filing an application on 1 July 2003 in which she sought that previous parenting orders made by this court on 20 February 2002 be suspended and that she have sole responsibility for making decisions about the long term and day to day care, welfare and development of B. Effectively, she sought that there be no contact between B and the father.

    3. On 21 November 2003 a Form 3 response was filed and served on behalf of the father  {{BEING AS HE WAS INCARCERATED??}}. Relevantly, the father sought joint responsibility for long term decisions affecting B and contact in prison 

     

    RELEVANT:  What the jailed Dad wants.

    IRRELEVANT:  what the killed 3-week old baby wanted before his Daddy crushed his skull together:  probably either some cuddling, a diaper change, some milk, or to be held differently.  Or his Mama.

    IRRELEVANT:  What the mother wants, safety for HER kid, and her concerns taken seriously.

    YES, this WAS 2006, “DOWN UNDER,” and a term well-earned from what I can see of this decision, at least.

    As to his paternal grandparents:  Well, their son was an adult at the time, but still, they raised this guy.  PERHAPS this should be considered “relevant” in allowing unsupervised contact of child “B” with them.  (Not mentioned are her parents. . . . or mother of the deceased newborn.    )

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

    I give you one more reason (not including Phillip Garrido, Jaycee Dugard, and any woman who opts to marry a convicted kidnapper and raper) to take domestic violence seriously:  The children:

       

     

    What is the ACE Study?

    The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and 
    Prevention and Kaiser Permanente.  Led by Co-principal Investigators Robert F. Anda, MD, 
    MS, and Vincent J. Felitti, MD, the ACE Study is perhaps the largest scientific research study 
    of its kind, analyzing the relationship between multiple categories of childhood trauma 
    (ACEs), and health and behavioral outcomes later in life.

     What’s an ACE?

    Growing up experiencing any of the following conditions in the household prior to age 18:

     

    1. Recurrent physical abuse
    2. Recurrent emotional abuse
    3. Contact sexual abuse
    4. An alcohol and/or drug abuser in the 
      household
    5. An incarcerated household member
    6. Someone who is chronically depressed, 
      mentally ill, institutionalized, or suicidal
    7. Mother is treated violently
    8. One or no parents
    9. Emotional or physical neglect

     

    Origins and Essence of the Study (2003)

     

    ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES AND STRESS:  PAYING THE PIPER (2004?)

     

    The findings of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, an ongoing collaboration between Co-Principal 

    Investigators Vincent J. Felitti, MD, of Kaiser Permanente, and Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, of the Centers for 

    Disease Control and Prevention. 

     

     

    Because the two links above are in multi-column format, I can’t copy and paste.  I exhort you to take a look at some of this.

     

    Please note that “one or no parents” was NOT on the top of the list, as it is on current “fatherhood.gov” policy, or HHS/ACF grants prioritization in the Designer Family mode it appears to be stuck in.

     

    Women, including women like me, whose children have been exposed to from 1 to all of the factors above, are after removing their children FROM such factors, having the courts force them back in through shared parenting considerations.  IN this case the theoretical ideal is held over the head, and clubbing protective parents, of the practical reality that Batterers do NOT make Good parents until they thoroughly address the battering behavior, and what drives it.  Moreover, men have graduated with flying colors from programs allegedly adjusting their attitudes, and gone right out to murder that bitch who forced them to sit through it (McAlpin is one case that comes to mind, Bay Area, 2005.  Within just a few days, her body was discovered in a trunk).

     

     

     

     

    Again, the issue becomes who gets to rig the test and give the grades?  I give any policy that lacks common sense — protect the kids! — and ignores the golden rule and “F.”

     

    Golden Rule in Family Law:  Do unto OTHERS as you would have them do unto YOU (i.e., if it were YOUR kid, whose father just killed a newborn, would you as a judge order the woman who was alarmed at said murder to have her head examined, and the child ordered into contact with the parents of the killer, OR would you yourself be alarmed, and rule accordingly?)

     

    If it’s not good enough for YOUR kid, it’s not good enough for HER kid.  That’s the golden rule in the courtroom, I say.

     

    This of course presumes that a judge cares about his or her own kids, which may be a presumption indeed; some judges have been convicted of collecting child pornography and making some of it (Thompson, NJ), another of sexual harassment of female employees (Fed. District judge in Texas).

     

     

    “Wife Abuse and Custody and Visitation by the Abuser” –A Man Speaks from the Past (1989).

    leave a comment »

    This voice from the past (1989 to 2009 = 20 years!) — 

    is pretty well drowned out by “the Duluth Model,” and the millions of $$ of grants, funds, and now even new professions springing up, all to help avoid what I’d call THIS common sense.  I guess I will have to show.  This will deal with the issue of Supervised Visitation:  The question nowadays is how to make it safe, etc.  The question of why ANY visitation with such violence, scarcely gets raised again.

    Wife Abuse and Child Custody and Visitation by the Abuser

    by Kendall Segel-Evans

    originally published:
    ENDING MEN’S VIOLENCE NEWSLETTER, Fall, 1989

     

    I recently read the National Organization for Changing Men’s statement on child custody, and the position taken that, in general, sole custody by the previously most involved parent is preferable to joint custody. I would like to elaborate on this position for families where there has been violence between parents (i.e. woman-abuse). The following includes the main points of a deposition I was asked to provide to a lawyer for the mother in a child custody case. I do not believe this is the last or best word on the subject, {{now THAT’s a rare humility in the field!}} but I hope that it will s(t)imulate useful dialogue** about the effects on children of wife-abuse and the treatment of wife-abusers. I also wish to further discussion on the issue of how we are going to truly end men’s violence. ***  Clearly, I believe that the treatment of wife-abusers should not only be held accountable to the partner victim/survivors, but also to the children, and to the next generation.

    **{{WAS THAT A FREUDIAN SLIP IN THE ORIGINAL?? “simulate” for “stimulate”??}} . . . 

    ***

    I’ve noticed that the professionals are more likely to have the “social transformation” goal, while typically women leaving abuse, and specifically MOTHERS leaving abuse, have a more short-term goal, namely LEAVING abuse and providing safety and good things, including good values, safety, education and role models — for their CHILDREN.  This is a significant difference, and with different goals come different means to reach that goal.  Moreover, as women leaving abuse, we have a ZERO tolerance for situations that might lead to, well, death.  Women have been killed around visitation centers, which is a dirty little secret.  Another one is that some supervisors are themselves abusive, or “on the take” and so forth.  Again, the professionals have spoken to this issue — but not changed it.  (For more info see nafcj.net).  Are all?  No.  But why even risk it?

    WHY place both children and the nonabusive parent at any sort of risk whatsoever, for any reason?  For one, good grief, what about PTSD?  A child has witnessed abuse or been abused.  Therefore, expose them to the abuser.  REGULARLY, and in a performance situation.  A mother has been abused or her child.  Therefore, force her — and/or her children — to see their father, regularly and in front of others who will “judge.”  AND they do (see “Karen Oehme”).  The model lacks integrity, to my mind.  No matter, it has government backing, and LOTS of it.

    SO this post is a “blast from the past.”  I’ve read the literature a LOT, I assure you;  you don’t hear this person’s name a lot.  Too much common sense.  And yet he is in the marriage field, and attaches a Bibliography like anyone else:

    Kendall Segel-Evans, M.A. Marriage, Family and Child Counselor 4/15/1989

     

    He recommends not taking chances.  Such types of recommendations are not the stuff publication, conferences, and promotions are made out of.  No new building needs be built for this recommendation.  It’s just too dang sensible. 

    Reminds me of Jack Straton’s similar work, a while back, here below:

     

    1992

     

    What About the Kids? Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence

    National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project – Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota

    from the Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues*

    of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism

    Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001) 

    c/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751

    503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX) , straton@pdx.edu

     

     

     

    What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?

    by Jack C. Straton, Ph.D.

     


    {Let’s GetHonest speaking….}} Reviewing this document years, and years after baptism by a dissolution/custody suit cold-shock immersion in to the language and lore of Family Court, resulting in a return to Food Stamps, but no return of my missing children!, but I HAVE (there’s always a silver lining) perhaps returned closer to placing my hope in things eternal more than things local! (I’m talking Jesus Christ for those who don’t catch the reference), I have a different opinion, not on its CONTENTS but on its CONTEXT, as follows, re::

    I want to express my deep gratitude to Ellen Pence, Madeline Dupre, Jim Soderberg and the others from the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project for giving me this opportunity to speak with you. The State of Minnesota should be proud that, quite literally, the world looks to this program for guidance on understanding and ending domestic violence. I also want to acknowledge how much I continually learn from Barbara Hart, of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

    I will first critically examine the criterion at the base of all custody laws today “What is in the best interests of the children?” I will the talk about children’s choice in these matters. Then I will examine the actual effects of wife-battering on children, and develop an alternative paradigm for custody based on those effects. From this I will examine the question, “Is it ever appropriate to ever give a batterer custody of a child?” (emphasis mine…)

    {{PLEASE PARDON THIS INTERJECTION!   This article indeed does that, and convincingly.

    LINK:  DAIP Grants rec’d 2000-2009 (scroll down to bar chart)

    (hint:  over $4.5 million)

    LINK: Grants rec’d by DAIp Parent organization,Minnesota Program Development, Inc.

    (hint:  Over $25 million, and NOT including some of its sub-groups, which apparently get their own grants, too).

    (the bottom half of logo proclaims”  home of the duluth Model, Social Change to End violence Against Women”)

     

    )

    Visitation Center 

    The Duluth Family Visitation Center opened in 1989. Our mission is to provide a safe place where children can build and maintain positive relationships with their parents. The Visitation Center offers support for victims of domestic violence and their children as well as supervised visitation, monitored visitation, and monitored exchange services to families affected by domestic violence


    (See the nice picture??)->_>_>_>_>

    The Center provides a variety of children’s books, games and videotapes as well as beverages and snacks for children and parents to help provide a comfortable and nurturing environment where parents can work on building and strengthening their relationship with their child which so often is damaged by violence in the home. 

    The Center also collaborates with many other community agencies and accepts referrals from the courts and social services. {{NOw you understand the BUSINESS model…}}  Currently we serve approximately 120 families and conduct over 4000 visits and exchanges per year at minimal cost to families.

    And I do mean BUSINESS model:

    The database simplifies the logistical work of coordinating a Visitation Center and reduces the time to prepare quarterly reports for funders.  

    Download sample report here

    Purchase the visitation center database ($350.00) by visiting our online catalog

     

    Beyond the pure financial collateral, there is also the professional collateral (prestige) and of course feeding much, much much more personal data into databases for further” research and demonstration” projects on how to — end violence against women.

    I question why so few have questioned this model.  Probably because of the powers behind it, and because those who have been affected by it are often destitute and experiencing PTSD.  BY THE WAY — I HAD HEARD OF THIS AND ASKED FOR IT IN MY CASE, AND WAS FLATLY DENIED  because there was no “money” for it.  In other words, I, the mother, could not pay for it (already on the record) and he the father (being so far arrears in child support) obviously could not.  however, when the father asked for  — by refusing to acknowledge the court had ordered something different — ZERO contact, it took less than a few months to give this to him, and only one year (as opposed to the years previous I had sought actively seeking help, as single mother, and while personally having to negotiate my own safety, on a near-weekly basis) to retroactively attribute custody and modify the arrears owed ME as the caretaker of our daughters, and which didn’t come to them while living here — down to insignificant and unenforceable payments.  Yet our state receives grants to facilitate access by the noncustodial parent.  When I became one, I could not access them, either.  go figure.

    JACK didn’t recommend this model, although he was apparently asked to speak here.  BUT  – – His voice, too, has been ignoredMOST chiefly by the DuluthDomestic Abuse Intervention Projectitself, apparently.  This paradigm, I simply didnt find it once in operation — everanywhereexperientially.  Our society simply does not accept this yet.  And, FYI, there is a LOT of money in this venue bent on “transformational language” and “therapeutic jurisprudence.”  Doing this is considered in many circles “good,” and not surprisingly, because many of our school systems share the same premise, they are “values transformation centers” and succeeding well at this, apparently.  

     

     

    Nor have I found someone who accepts this No-Visitation where there’s been Violence paradigm.  (And I talk to Dads, not just Moms, and I research, a LOT, online.  I have been in circles which dont believe women should speak, literally, and I have lived in which men did not confront violence towardsone of their ownby even TELLING the man to stop it! Let alone, intervening themselves in any manner to stop it.  Ever since I finally took it upon myself to get someone from outside these circles to indeed stop it, I have been exposed, through the family law venue (and others) to a virtual nonstoplitanyofjust get over itas if either the lethality risk, the economic abuse, the stalkings, and the implicit threat to escalate were somehowoverin my case.  My experience, lots of it, showed the precise opposite. Any attempt at independence was countered.  this got tiring for such a person, and others were found and incited to participate in communal denial, a sort of catharctic selfcleansing ritual, I suppose.  

    AGAIN, I myself didn’t share this paradigm initially.  However, this was because I had been enduring years of this type of threat/intimidation/etc. behavior and attempting — myself — to ‘reason” with this man, after it became clear — and from the OUTSET — that saying “no” or “Stop!” was likely to result in physical assault, or worse, and my friends, there IS a “worse.”  Now, I have some perspective:  10 years living with a batterer, 10 years of attempting to separate from one.  My perspective has changed, after i watched the reactions of society to my assertion of my right to say NO! and ENOUGH!  I gave ENOUGH! in the “let’s negotiate” process, and shouldn’t have ever entered into it or been encouraged to.  These were the PRIME working years of an intelligent, responsible, and law-abiding woman and mother.  Now, I would like some change to happen.  i would like the truth of the situation OUT, and I am taking it (obviously) to the blogosphere, and my local Congressperson, AND up the chain, as are others.  The truth of the situation is that this paradigm that Jack and Kendall discuss, was not taken seriously by their colleagues then, nor was it ever likely to be.  Like him, I have immense respect for Barbara J. Hart (can anyone say “lethality risk assessment”?)  But — today or tomorrow, probably — I am about to post the $$ figures of some of these “helping” groups and ask — where’s the help?  Moreover, show us the books!  I will show the grants, at least from the sources I have.  But what I want to see is expenditures, processes, and evaluation tools.  I want to see DOCUMENTED fewer homicides, suicides, infanticides, child-kidnappings, and wasted years in the family law system.   And if these are not being documented, then what was all the hub-bub about?  

    IN thisparadigmallfalloutfrom abuse either didnt exist (thats thefantasy worldStraton refers to, I suppose) or was exclusively my responsibility to fix, as the mother.  However, when I then sought to address this in my own manner, I was again given marching orders, a drumbeat of 3-word myths, and told to get in line.  I didnt.  Consequently, two adolescent girls were removed from my custody and replaced in the care of the man they grew up witnessing threaten, impoverish, assault, abuse animals, deprive of access to transportation and ffinances that anormalfamily would not do, even when I worked at times, and be subjected to repeated lectures on how to behave – – sometimes even on a stool!.

    Therefore, as seemingly reassuring, or validating as these talks may be, that I refer to today, they are most definitely theminority opinionin this field.  They show me I am not alone in my perspective at whats sensible and whats not, but these premises were never moved into practice.  

    Theres reasons they were not, and THAT should be the topic of aresponsible citizenmale or female, parent or not, in this country.  WHY they were not is a public issue, not adomestic dispute.”  The topic of this issues is not justwhere are my children?” butwhere are my taxes going? as well aswhat kind of leaders is this next generation, if we get that far, going to consist of?  children accustomed to trauma, abuse, and participating in the cycle themselves?

    I suspect the answer, at this point, MIGHT beYESbut I am not yet resigned to the fatalistic, fundamentalistIm not of this worldpassivity when it comes to social justice.  I must speak up!

     

    STRATON, Ph.D., Ct’d…..

    In the process, I am going to talk today about the effects of male power and control over children, not about parental power and control. I know that it is popular these days to de-gender family conflict, to talk about “spouse abuse” and “family violence” rather than “wife beating” and “rape.” I know that we want a society in which men nurture children to the same extent that women do.

    I know that fathers and mothers should both be capable parents. But if you ask “What about the kids?” I want to give you a serious answer. I cannot seriously entertain the myth that our society really is gender neutral, so to consider “What about the kids?” while pretending such neutrality is to engage in denial and cognitive dissonance. I cannot hope to arrive at an answer that will positively affect reality if my underlying assumptions are based on fantasy.

     

    I would like to say more about the history of these movements (which I am still learning), but readers deserve a break:

    Have a nice weekend.  Again, I’d rather see a sermon than hear one any day.

     While this essay is music (the voice of logic, of common sense truth) to my ears, but it’s not a tune many people like these days.  Because it actually addresses the impact of role-modeling and personal responsibility upon the next generation.

    There are only two places to really put the responsibility:  Either on the INDIVIDUAL (which is actually empowering, it acknowledges choice), or on the “THERAPIST” or “SOCIETY AS COLLECTIVE THERAPIST.”  Either/or, my friends.   

    Benefits of putting the responsibility on the INDIVIDUAL.  :: If we are indeed EQUAl and ENDOWED with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, then we are also ENDOWED with certain UNALIENABLE RESPONSIBILITIES as to how we exercise them.  This leaves a LOT more government time and resources and study, etc., upon maintenance of DUE PROCESS. 

    It also removes the excuse for killing people, for assault, for rape, for destruction.  There IS no excuse.  The question comes of up of what about “war”?  My answer is, how is what we are seeing now take place towards women attempting to leave abuse, with children, too, not a real war — not a “virtual” war.  When there are casualties, that comprises a REAL war.

    Moreover, most wars are about ideas to start with.  Sometimes they are about basic human lusts couched in more palatable ideas.

    SO, check the dogma it’s vitally important, and it’s vitally important also that “foreigners” — people to whom actually facing abuse, having a life on the line, having lost a child, having had to comfort an abused or traumatized child while in trauma onesself — are not to be setting policy.  Moreover, those who set policy are not to do so from a particular chip they have on their shoulder, that every one should carry the burden of relieving.  And this happens (You can see my chip on the shoulder” here, obviously, but I’m not recommending the undermining of due process in the courts, and re-defining criminal activity as non-criminal.  THAT’s Cognitive Dissonance for sure!

    (Well, I’d better back out this post fast.  Feedback appreciated!  My exit takes place Here:  XX.  

    Anything below was added earlier)

     

    This was written Pre-VAWA and Pre-National Fatherhood Inititative, which one theme of this blog has been showing what these cost, and how they attempt to cancel each other out.

    Yesterday, I saw a significant DV initiative that was also receiving thousands under “promoting Responsible fatherhood” as well.  Same source, different themes entirely.  The fatherhood movement has positioned itself as FIRMLY anti-VAWA and in its writings, and in people responding to its writings, says to clearly.  Many of them also position themselves as religious, which is true in the WORST (not best) sense of the word, as I understand it.  They identify a common enemy, which is feminism, and feminISTS.  The prelude to identifying an enemy is attacking it, and this means people.  Typically (not always) “feminists” are, my friends, women, and this is who is often getting severely attacked for separating.  

    The VAWA movement, it has different characteristics, but I do not believe it started out of man-hating.  It started out of hating to see beaten up women, and recognizing this has a true social cost.  

    Both these movements have “morphed” and are now in the higher stratospheres (translation:  best-funded organizations) collaborating.  In these collaborations they share many things — primarily the design and structure of FAILING TO INCLUDE THOSE MOST DRASTICALLY AFFECTED IN THE COLLABORATIVE PROCESS, and “SALVATION AS A MARKET NICHE.”  (in essence).  What else is (not) new in the world!     

    Perhaps THIS ESSAY, THEN (below) can be a reference point from how far off base is society (specifically, government and nonprofits addressing:  Violence Against Women, Responsible Fatherhood, and Healthy Marriages — and failing abysmally in terms of the human toll — on all counts, across the nation.  (And, world).  Perhaps (though I doubt it) some common sense will “redeem” us from all that debt, with so little dent in the problems the debt is incurred to address….Policies get MORE and more pervasive, self-replicating and intrusive, and still we have things like an 11 year old abducted from a bus stop, held captive in a back yard by a (incidentally, MARRIED couple) – – for 18 years — and being used as a personal sex slave and baby-making machine.  In a nice suburb, eh?  So much for suburbia and “family-oriented” safe communities.  

    Jaycee Lee Dugard and Phillip Garrido's daughters 'like brainwashed zombies'

     

    Police missed an opportunity to rescue Jaycee Lee when they visited her captor’s house in 2006 Photo: REUTERS

    Officer Ally Jacobs sat in on a meeting with Mr Garrido and his daughters after he requested permission to distribute leaflets on the Berkeley campus of the University of California.

     

    But her suspicions were aroused by the strange behaviour of the two girls – and led to the eventual release of their mother, Jaycee Lee Dugard, after nearly two decades of captivity. 

     

    She said Mr Garrido arrived with the girls, aged 11 and 15, who stared at their father “like God” during the meeting. “They had this weird look in their eyes, like brainwashed zombies,” she said.

     

    She spoke out as police said that Mr Garrido’s home has been searched for evidence of a link to the unsolved murders of several prostitutes in the early 1990s, and as Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy, 54, denied charges of kidnapping, rape and false imprisonment in connection with Miss Dugard’s disappearance at their first court appearance.

     

    When Officer Jacobs asked the younger girl about a bruise near her eye, the 11-year-old said it was an inoperable birth defect.

     

     

    (I NOTE:  THIS WAS A FEMALE POLICE OFFICER, AND HER JOB ENTAILS NOTICING THINGS THAT DEAL WITH LIFE AND DEATH, POTENTIALLY.  HER JOB ENTAILS NOTICING “ANOMALIES.”  THERE WAS FACT-CHECKING IN THIS CASE, AND THE FACTS CHECKED RESULTED IN FREEDOM AND DELIVERANCE, THOUGH AFTER 18 YEARS, FOR 3 WOMEN, JAYCEE’S MOTHER, JAYCEE’S STEPFATHER, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, FOR HER — AND HER CHILDREN.

     

    A NICE, MARRIED COUPLE . . . . HAD MR. GARRIDO HAD THE SAME CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, AND ACTUALLY BEEN JAYCEE’S FATHER, IN MY EXPERIENCE, HIS KIDNAPPING WOULD HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED, AND HIS EX-WIFE SEEKING TO SEE HER DAUGHTER BEEN TOLD (as I was) TO JUST GET ALONG WITH IT, OR GIVE IT UP, NO CONTACT WITH YOUR DAUGHTER BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN’T GET ALONG WITH THIS PARENT.  CASE IN POINT:  WE WERE GIVEN A COURT ORDER THAT EXPOSED US TO CONTINUAL ACCESS AND ABUSE BY A MAN THAT MY DAUGHTERS HAD WITNESSED ASSAULT THEIR MOTHER.  EVENTUALLY, A DRASTIC (and criminal) EVENT HAPPENED on an overnight.

    TODAYS’ POSTED ARTICLE, 20 YEARS OLD, QUESTIONS THE POLICY  ~ ~ REALLY, THE DOGMA ~ ~ THAT WOULD EVER, EVEN ONCE! ~ ~ALLOW SUCH THINGS TO TAKE PLACE.  U.S.A. . . . . . 

    OR – – – OR – – – – THINGS LIKE THIS ONE, A MISSING FOSTER CHILD TURNED INTO A HOMICIDE VISITATION.  AGAIN, HAPPENED IN A VERY YUPPIE NEIGHBORHOOD, ALSO NEAR BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA.

     HASSANI CAMPBELL (see my recent post on ‘AMBER ALERTS’ for more photos)

     

     

    Foster Parents Arrested Over Missing Boy

    AP

    OAKLAND, Calif. (Aug. 28) – The foster parents who held vigils pleading for the safe return of a missing 5-year-old boy with cerebral palsy have been arrested on suspicion of murder, Oakland police said Friday.

     

    Louis Ross and Jennifer Campbell, who is the boy’s aunt, were being questioned by investigators in the case of Hasanni Campbell, who disappeared on Aug. 10 after Ross said he briefly left the boy outside his car in the parking lot of an upscale Oakland neighborhood shoe store where Campbell works.

     

     

    REGARDING “THERAPY” FOR BATTERERS:

    I think Lundy Bancroft says it well — there are certain indicators that one is wasting one’s time.  I’ve read them, and you can too, HERE:  I am not quoting Mr. Bancroft because he’s an expert, but because i already experienced what he gave voice to.  I had no idea who the author was in picking up the book.

    Why Does He Do That?: Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men

    While I am thankful for Mr. Bancroft’s insight and observations (and have featured it elsewhere on this blog), I think that the failure to look OUTSIDE the family court system and INTO the funding behind it, which consists of a powerful government grants system, underwritten in some cases by conflicting actual laws (I refer to “supervised visitation” vs. “Access visitation” premises, which are BOTH funded — in a huge way — and which DIRECTLY oppose each other in fundamental premises, creating chaos — not just “disorder” — but literal “CHAOS” in the courts.  Why?  Because what’s fought over is power, control, and money.  I do not, therefore, agree that training to eradicate deeply held prejudices or myths — when applied to JUDICIAL professionals (court-related) any more than when applied to batterers — is a critical solution.  I believe that we should pull the plug on the profit system, which it clearly (my research shows) is.  That said, in about 2003, had his not book been there (and this above book) for a point of reference WRITTEN BY A MAN for me emotionally, as I exited another life-changing and mind-numbing session with a mediator, I might be a different woman today.  

     

    Women, and mothers, do indeed have instincts.  I believe these are God-given, and they are protection-related.  Moreover, as a DV survivor, and beyond that, professionally a teacher and musician, it has been my job to pay attention to group dynamics in relationship to a standard!  The accuracy of my instincts, and speaking up about them, has been ignored in the courtroom.  This told me something about family courts, when I accurately predicted a child-snatch, and was shouted down in advance AND afterwards about the same matter.

     

    Two Female Officers (above) accurately noticed, reported — and because they were cops, apparently, and because this was NOT a family law venue, they were not a litigating parent — they were HEARD and lives were saved.

     

    In the Jaycee Dugard case (above), I heard on TV that a woman (neighbor) HAD called 911, saying this man was psychotic, she was very disturbed.   Was her call not heard because she was female?  I watched Sheriff Rupf apologize on TV that their county law enforcement had “missed it” in this case.

     

    Our current administration has a lot of TALK, but very little RESPECT for mothers in general.  Our pro-active protective and active involvement in our children’s lives is viewed with suspicion after separating from their father in particular after marriage. . . . The fact is, I believe, our involvement is a perceived threat to a child-care-based, employee-driven, dependent-family-substrate economy.  (which is not today’s topic).

     

    These instincts are not in operation all the time, and along with Phyllis Chesler (Dr.), I acknowledge fully “Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman” exists, and is horrific.  And some men (I have known them) notice more than some women.  This is also called “CARING.”  Such men are also sometimes castigated as “feminine” by fellow-men, and deal with this in whatever manner they choose to.

     

    However, I take a look at who are some of the most vehement women I personally have had to deal with (not including certain judges, whose behavior cannot be logically accounted for somewhere other than financial reward, which I WILL be finding one of these days, and I am not the only person who has had this happen, same judges), I can see where either their childhood was severely messed up, OR, they never got to have children themselves.  Some key component of the logic system (the part that doesn’t acknowledge court orders!) is out of commission, and when confronted on this, reacts in a retaliatory manner as if the threat were personal, when the statement was, I want court orders respected!  I have already demonstrated the ability to respect court orders I don’t agree with, for years, but the double standard has been devastating to our family.

     

    The other category which comes into play is “second wife” syndrome.  While there are I’m sure (and I’d love to be one, some day!) healthy second wife scenarios, all too often a batterer will go specifically SEEK a woman in order to extract the children from the first wife, when he couldn’t otherwise.  That 2nd woman lends a seeming credibility, and yet, sometimes these women can be more vicious than the men they married to start with.  An abusive man is not going to pick a second woman who is likely to confront him on his abuse!!  

     

    WELL, this post is now over-worked, but I wanted to include the Jaycee and Hassani case above, to make a few points.  It also has helped me get past another few hours in a day in which, I have no visual contact with either daughter, as one of them is entering college and the other one is, at this point, alienated, a thing I never inflicted upon her father while they lived here.  They have HAD to make some sense of their existing world.  Their existing world included a sudden, and COMPLETE elimination from their mother’s input and involvement, without a chance to say goodbye.  They were involved in keeping secrets (and induced to) before the event, for over a year, on pretenses of the adults around them.  The facts surrounding this event are still not out, and I happen to believe that my absent daughters are not yet aware of what was said on paper about them.  I know that they are not exposed to the penalties my family has exacted upon me (subsequent) for continuing to speak up.  


    This is a HOW -TO for the intergenerational transmission of trauma and abuse.  IF the goal is to do this, I am looking at the HOW of it. All that REALLY needs to be sacrificed, in the bottom line analysis, to stop it, is a LOT of pride in high places, and what I call dogma and others call social science, policy, or probability-driven practices (it’s called “evidence” but the actual “evidences” considered are often summaries of “probability.”)

    AS TO THE 1989 ARTICLE (BELOW):

    I’m not in agreement with his theme that men can be taught not to abuse.  I think men mostly respond to what they’re taught in this society — authority, and taking control.  Women are taught to negotiate and submit, overall (I didn’t realize HOW much til confronting others after leaving my own violent marriage, and then, in shock, realizing it was expected I should take orders.  I said no, and took this to the institutions available (first, the courts) to set boundaries and standards.  Then I was in for even a ruder awakening to the state of affairs. 

    So just consider the fall-out, the social fall out from these things, the canaries in the coal mine.  it’s also a good part of the present NATIONAL economic distress and contributing to it, do not kid yourself!  Asking Big Brother to coach, teach, punish, reward, analyze, and rationalize the common ethical issues of life — BIG, mistake.  This is called farming out thinking to others.  In the process, we are paying people to also form our own ethics, when these were formed and stated long ago in the US Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights, PLUS the fact that these stemmed from a refusal to become the colony of a distant king.

    Figure it out — the distance these days may not be so geographic as in worlds apart in perspectives.  The colonization part still seems to apply.  Children are the MOST attractive and fertile field for TOO many people, and they are hurt in this unnatural process, a constant interruption to their lives.  I saw this happen to my own, there was a point in time (a certain season, when others saw the personal gain in our divorce and and custody issue) that –because of a badly written visitation schedule — I watched my daughter who, prior to this, had been able to adjust to separation with regular visitation, and retain their personal integrity — they became performers.  It was clear that they were collateral in the fight, and I believe knew this too.   They talked about it, too.  It was unfair to them, and to me as their mother.  

    SOURCE — 

    http://members.shaw.ca/pdg/wife_abuse_child_custody_visitation.html

    Note:  “Last updated Nov. 2008”

    (More of my comments below, for once!)

     

    Stop Violence Against Women
    A project by The Advocates for Human Rights

    Copyright 2003 Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights.
    Permission is granted to use this material for non-commercial purposes. Please use proper attribution.

     

    (THESE documents do not appear to have stopped violence against women.  I used to read and read from this International Source, but no matter — the people most directly involved with our lives chose NOT to read, or accept, some of these writings.  So what good have they done, other than to increase the frustration level, the awareness of the discrepancy between reasonable, and unreasonable?  Sometimes, I wonder.  

     

    <><><><><>

    (Best read in the original HTML, but here:

    Wife Abuse and Child Custody and Visitation by the Abuser

    Kendall Segel-Evans, 1989.

    Wife Abuse and Child Custody and Visitation by the Abuser

    by Kendall Segel-Evans

    originally published:
    ENDING MEN’S VIOLENCE NEWSLETTER, Fall, 1989

     

    {{Let’s Get Honest has decided to interrupt the article more than to put :}}

     

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________ after each paragraph, in hopes that a thoughtful reader will think about what was just said.  

    Again, one of the greatest motivations for THINKING about various policies, doctrines, and dogmas, is if something valuable is at stake in the mix.  Plus, if one has developed the habit of THINKING with this in mind, throughout — as if not just “someone’s” life or livelihood, but as if “your own” life, or your child’s, were at stake in the matter.  THAT is responsible government hood (along with respecting civil rights and due process).  COLLECTIVELY, what we all have at stake is to acknowledge that what we may think is “common” sense is nothing of the sort, and that the view gets foggier the less time one spends at street level — and I mean on a regular basis.  Dwelling in courtrooms only is NOT “street level” in the sense of, what happens after the court order is written?)

    I recently read the National Organization for Changing Men’s statement on child custody, and the position taken that, in general, sole custody by the previously most involved parent is preferable to joint custody. I would like to elaborate on this position for families where there has been violence between parents (i.e. woman-abuse). The following includes the main points of a deposition I was asked to provide to a lawyer for the mother in a child custody case. I do not believe this is the last or best word on the subject, but I hope that it will simulate useful dialogue about the effects on children of wife-abuse and the treatment of wife-abusers. I also wish to further discussion on the issue of how we are going to truly end men’s violence. Clearly, I believe that the treatment of wife-abusers should not only be held accountable to the partner victim/survivors, but also to the children, and to the next generation.

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________

    I would like to mention that I will speak of husbands and fathers abusing wives and mothers, because that is the most common situation by far, not because the reverse never happens. It also seems to be true that when there is wife to husband violence it is usually in self-defense and usually does not have the same dynamics or effects as wife abuse. I will use the words violence and abuse somewhat interchangeably, because, in my opinion, domestic violence is not just about physical violence. Domestic violence is a pattern of physical, sexual, economic, social and emotional violence, coercion, manipulation and mistreatment or abuse. Physical violence and the threat of such violence is only the part of the pattern that is most visible and makes the other parts of the pattern difficult to defend against. Once violence is used, its threat is never forgotten. Even when the violence is stopped by threat of legal action or by physical separation, the coercion, manipulation and abusiveness continue (Walker and Edwall, 1987).

     

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    Accompanying this pattern of behaviors are common styles of coping or personality characteristics – such as the tendency to blame others for ones problems and impulsiveness – that most batterers share. Almost every man I have worked with has a tendency to see his partner (or his children) as responsible for his pain when he is upset. This leads to seeing his partner (or his children) as an enemy who must be defeated before he can feel better. This is destructive to emotional health even when it does not lead to overt violence.

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    In my opinion, it would be better, in most cases, for the children of homes where there has been domestic violence not to be in the custody of the abusive parent at all. In many cases it is even advisable that visitation be limited to controlled situations, such as under a therapist’s supervision during a therapy session, unless the batterer has been in batterer’s treatment and demonstrated that he has changed significantly in specific ways. “Merely” observing ones father abuse ones mother is in itself damaging to children. My clinical experience is consistent with the research literature which shows that children who witness their father beat their mother exhibit significantly greater psychological and psychosomatic problems than children from homes without violence (Roy, 1988). Witnessing abuse is more damaging in many ways than actually being abused, and having both happen is very damaging (Goodman and Rosenberg, 1987). Studies show that a high percentage (as high as 55%) of fathers who abuse their wives also abuse their children (Walker and Edwall, 1987). In my experience, if one includes emotional abuses such as being hypercritical, yelling and being cruelly sarcastic, the percentage is much higher. The damage that children suffer is highly variable, with symptoms ranging from aggressive acting out to extreme shyness and withdrawal, or from total school failure to compulsive school performance. The best way to summarize all the symptoms despite their variety is to say that they resemble what children who suffer other trauma exhibit, and could be seen as a version of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Walker and Edwall, 1987).

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    Equally serious is the long term effect of domestic violence – intergenerational transmission. Children who observe their mothers being beaten are much more likely to be violent to a partner themselves as adults. In one study, men who observed violence towards their mother were three times more likely to be abusive than men who had not observed such violence (Strauss et al., 1980). The more serious the abuse observed, the more likely the men were to repeat it. Being abused also makes children likely to grow up to be violent, and having both happen increases the probability even more.

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    How children learn to repeat the abuse they observe and experience includes many factors. One of the more important is modeling. When they grow up, children act like their parents did, consciously or not, willingly or not. Several of the boys I have worked with have been terribly conflicted about being like their father, of whom they were afraid and ashamed. But they clearly carried parts of their father’s behavior patterns and attitudes with them. Other boys from violent homes idealized their father, and they were more likely than the others to beat their wives when they grew up (Caesar, 1988). Several of the men I have worked with in group have lamented that they told themselves that they would not beat their wives the way their mother was beaten when they were children. But when they became adults, they found themselves doing the same things their father did.

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    One reason for this is that even if the physical abuse stops, if the children still have contact with the batterer, they are influenced by his coping styles and personality problems. As Lenore Walker observes (Walker and Edwall, 1987, p. 138), “There is also reason for concern about children’s cognitive and emotional development when raised by a batterer who has a paranoid-like pattern of projecting his own inadequacy and lack of impulse-control onto others.” Dr. Pagelow agrees, “It may become desirable to avoid prolonged contact between violent fathers and their sons until the men assume control over their own behavior and the examples of ‘manhood’ they are showing to the boys who love them, (Pagelow, 1984, p. 256). If the abusive man has not sought out domestic violence specific treatment for his problem, there is no reason to believe that the underlying pattern of personality and attitudes that supported the abuse in the past have changed. There is every reason to believe it will impact his children.

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    Additionally, in a society where the majority of wife-beatings do not lead to police reports, much less to filings or convictions, it is easy for children to perceive that abusiveness has no negative consequences. (One study, by Dobash and Dobash, found that 98% of violent incidents between spouses were not reported to the police [reported in Pagelow, 1984, p. 437]). Some children, seeing who has the power and guessing what could happen to them if they opposed the power, will side with the abuser in custody situations. Often, children will deny that the abuse ever happened. Unfortunately, the children who side with the abuser, or deny the abuse, are the most likely to be abusive themselves as adults. It is very important that family court not support this by treating a wife-beating father as if he were just as likely to be a good parent as the woman he beat. As Gelles and Strauss point out in their book Intimate Violence (1988), people are violent in part because they believe they can get away with it. Public consequences are important for preventing the intergenerational transmission of violence. Boys, particularly, need to to see that their father’s abusiveness leads to negative, not positive results.

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    Lastly, I would like to point out that joint legal custody is likely to be damaging to children when there has been spousal violence. My experience with my clients is definitely consistent with the research results reported by Judith Wallerstein to the American Orthopsychiatric Association Convention in 1988. The data clearly show that joint custody is significantly inferior to sole custody with one parent when there is parental conflict after the divorce, in terms of the children’s emotional adjustment as well as the mother’s safety. Most batterers continue their abusiveness after the marriage, into the divorced parent relationship, in the form of control, manipulation and harassment over support payments, visitation times, and parenting styles. The children are always aware of these tensions and battles, and sometimes blame the mother for not just giving in and keeping the peace – or for being too submissive. The batterer often puts the children right in the middle, taking advantage of his belief that she will give in to avoid hurting the children. The damage to the children in this kind of situation is worse because it is ongoing, and never is allowed to be resolved or have time to heal.

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    Because I work with batterers, I am sympathetic to the distress they feel at being separated from their children for long periods of time. However, the men who truly cared about their children for the children’s sake, and not for what the children do for their father’s ego, have been willing to do the therapeutic work necessary to change. They have been willing to accept full responsibility for their violent behavior, and however reluctantly, have accepted whatever restrictions on child visitation existed for safety reasons. They have been willing to be in therapy to deal with “their problem.” They have also recognized that they were abused as children themselves, or witnessed their mother being abused, or both, and are willing to support interrupting the intergenerational transmission of violence.

    MAIN POINTs?:____________________


    Kendall Segel-Evans, M.A. Marriage, Family and Child Counselor 4/15/1989

    BIBLIOGRAPHY

     

    Caesar, P. Lynn., “Exposure to Violence in the Families of Origin

    Among Wife Abusers and Maritally Violent Men.” Violence and Victims , Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring, 1988.

    Davis, Liane V., and Carlson, Bonnie E., “Observation of Spouse Abuse

    – What Happens to the Children?” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Vol. 2, No. 3, September 1987, pp. 278-291, Sage Publications, 1987.

    Dutton, Donald., The Domestic Assault of Women, Allyn and Bacon, 1988.

    Gelles, Richard J. and Strauss, Murray A., Intimate Violence, Simon and Schuster, 1988.

    Goodman, Gail S., and Rosenberg, Mindy, S., “The Child Witness to Family Violence:

    Clinical and Legal Considerations. Ch. 7, pp. 47ff. in: Sonkin, Daniel. Ph.d., Domestic Violence on Trial, Springer, 1987.

    Pagelow, Mildred Daley, Family Violence, Praeger Publications, 1984.

    Roy, Maria., Children in the Crossfire, Health Communications, Inc. 1988.

    Roy, Maria., The Abusive Partner, Van Nostrand, 1982.

    Sonkin, Daniel. Phd., Domestic Violence on Trial, Springer, 1987.

    Strauss, Murray A., et. al., Behind Closed Doors, Anchor Books, 1980.

    Walker, Lenore E.A., and Edwall, Glenace E.

    “Domestic Violence and Determination of Visitation and Custody in Divorce.”

    Ch. 8, pp. 127ff. Sonkin, Daniel. Phd. Domestic Violence on Trial, Springer, 1987.

    Wallerstein, Judith., Report to the American Orthopsychiatric Association Convention, 1988.

     

    Some of the above professionals listed here, from what I understand, have either changed their tune, or found more profit in conferences funded by the shared-custody, father’s-rights, premises that women are equally as violent and dangerous as men in marriage.  Or, that what is said above, here, about role modeling and responsibility to the NEXT generation, doesn’t apply.  I have seen them (I think even Dutton was seen in my last post, at such a conference.).  Nevertheless, read what he wrote!

    And I can show you, in approximately $millions$$ (as I have been at times in news headlines) the cost of these premises, in particular to the next generation.  But what kind of generation IS it that can’t see right/versus wrong, principles of values as defined by what is and is NOT criminal behavior, when they see an age gap.  How does gender pre-empt behavior, or youth pre-empt age?  Why must women be held to a higher standard of accountability as parents then men, and men be paid — by the U.S. Government through the states through the courts, prisons, child support systems, mediation, supervised visitation, parenting education classes — and AFTER many times a K-12 (or almost 12th in some cases) educational system that itself is a major public expenditure.  . . . Moreover, WHY should programs supposedly aimed at low-income people (as if such people had fewer human rights, common sense, or were less entitled to due process and informed consent about what’s happening! than others) are being utilized by sometimes some very well to do individuals in the divorce arena.  For example, google the Alanna Krause case.   This does not make “sense” to me.

     

    <><><>

    Speaking personally, the exchanges where were the problems occurred in our case.  I asked (for YEARS) for help with this, and got none.  Then finally on an overnight, I stopped seeing my daughters again.

    I think that had COMMON SENSE PREVAILED long ago, our own family would be much more prosperous, and I doubt life with me would’ve been so stressful for the girls, after all, each weekend was likely to become a scene, or not come a scene.  I could scarcely relax much around that.   Add into the mix child support issues, and we have a decade of devastation, at least from my point of view.

    And WHY?  To support some new theories and professions?  How about the professions Moms were in beforehand?  (Many of us were, FYI).

     To support: marriage and family therapists, mediators, custody evaluators, trauma specialists?  

    When a society either refuses to deal with  — OR cannot agree on the  source and causes of the ongoing sources of trauma, SOMEONE will have to pay the cost of a traumatized populations, just as any war-torn country, or AIDS-ravaged country, there is collateral damages to go with the death, shock, poverty and collapse of infrastructure.   In the United States, this plays out entirely differently, of course, because we still have a significant infrastructure, or at least many of the population believe we do, and those not so badly hurt by it as others wish to, apparently, maintain the myths that it’s sustaining something valid.

    And yes, I repeat, those are myths.  

     Where is the real moral, let alone economic, validity in paying multiple professionals to deal with one recalcitrant, overentitled, or person unwilling to seek help with his REAL problems, rather than to alleviate the symptoms of his REAL problems, such as being separated from his children.  I had to face this in marriage, and now with family of origin, and again in the family law system?  I find a fundamental flaw, and the truth of the matter, the difference is in worldview of (1) humanity and (2) whether or not law applies to all, or only to some.  I.e., the “double-standard” mentality.

    And that typically falls on the gender divide.  Other times, it falls on the Economic Divide.  While it’s common for rich to blame poor for being poor in a matter that an abuser blames his victim, there is wiggle room in both viewpoints, and the institutions we live in and deal with ARE not formed, historically, by poor people.  They aren’t.  Rather, they tend to impoverish.  The familyy law system is GOING to do this.  It is going to move wealth around, and afterwards, SOMEONE is going to be impoverished under this theme that it’s not an adversarial system, its’ “really” all about the children.

    For child-molesters, this may be true.  For those who see $$ when they see custody to one parent or the other, in a sense it might be. 

    But it’s NOT about the children’s welfare, not like this.

    If the individual is unwilling to separate his behavior from himself as a person, after being offered multiple opportunities to do so, and go through equivalent shock of personal changes, as did his victim(s) and bystanders affected, then THAT is the issue.  

    MOREOVER, if the family system surrounding this individual is ALSO unwilling or unable to confront own criminal behavior, life-threatening and life-changing behavior, in one of its own, what’s that family FOR?  that is precisely the family that should be dismantled, yet a system says, no it shouldn’t.  (Theoretically, although I know plenty of mothers who can’t see their children under this theory.  When the pedal hits the metal, that’s how it plays out, too often).

     

    Voices from the even further past, still valid today:

    Too bad we’re more religious than actually a truly God-conscious society — because of the simplicity and beauty with which truths are stated:

    • “Even a child is known by his doings, whether they be good or whether they be bad.”
    • “Ye shall know them by their fruits.”

    As to who to socialize with, who to take on as business partner or close friends:

    • “Evil communications (this just means “associations”) corrupt good manner (ethos).”
    • The book of “Proverbs” (31 in all) was directed to young people, and talks about not associating with an angry man or a furious man “lest you learn his ways.”  Family law says, if it’s supervised, it’s OK, and a child must, because it’s his father.  Today’s essay talks about that….  Proverbs talks about not meddling with them that are given to sudden change.  That’s common sense!  Sudden change could be backstabbing, betrayal, turning on you.  That habit, done ONCE, is cause to separate if not confronted, admitted, and changed.  FAST.  We have a RIGHT to be once burnt, twice shy.  . . . . .  Yet this family law system attracts such characters, accepting hearsay as evidence when it’s not, suppressing evidence when it’s found too often; it keeps the litigation going, and exposing parents and children to a series of sudden shocks, disrupting their entire lives and livelihoods, sometimes everything.  We should not have to do this.  And Proverbs ALSO talks about not associating with fools:  “He that walketh with wise men shall be wise, but a companion of fools shall be ashamed.”   
    • When our children are forced to break these simplicities, for a different ideology, this is in effect using parents, particularly mothers, to produce children for the state.  That’s not what we went through nine months for, or labor! No woman goes through this in order to raise a fool, a criminal, or have her kid hurt and taught values that will lead that child to sometimes a lifetime of it.  Or to have no coherent set of values but personal survival!

    (Note on quoting Bible verses here:  I quote them as what’s in my thinking, others may (if they wish) look some of them up on-line at “http://bible.cc&#8221; (KJV) or elsewhere.  My quotes may not be verbatim.)

     

    What mother would WANT a son or daughter to join a gang of criminals?  Yet they do, or sometimes they die for NOT being in a gang.  It’s not only the risks, but the values systems.

    What about a government gang?  What about a system that robs parents of years of productive work based on a theme that someone is somehow to be deciphered psychologically, apart from his or her behaviors? What about a system that would bring ongoing conflict onto growing children — and do so for financial and personal profit — based on the belief that freedom of association does NOT belong to (typically) their mother?  

    It’s nice to have a lot of professions spring up on how to stop violence against women, I suppose, BUT how about the professions Moms were in beforehand?  (Many of us were, FYI).  The professionals I most needed in the early 2000 would’ve been a criminal (not family) defense attorney.  Then again, where was the funding going to come from?

    Who’s actually TALKS with the REAL stakeholders when it comes to Stalking, Domestic Violence (not “abuse”), and Child Abuse??

    leave a comment »

    I have a question, after finding an unusually honest commentary on how the model code for stalking laws was developed.  I’ve spent some years, in the process of seeking help, becoming acquainted with the standards for what makes sense, according to LOTS of organizations.  I then tried to bring this common sense into actual practice in our own case after it hit the family law venue.

    Yeah, right..

    I have a question.  As usual, thinking aloud (and posting as I go), the introduction gets longer and the original content that inspired the post, lower and lower.  Presently, scroll down to just below all the graphics (logos) and there’s the question, and in primarily BLUE content, the quote that started today’s post.  

     

    Eventually, over the years,  I got to the point of connecting more and more dots, including why would it take this amount of diligent searching by a woman with two college degrees and highly motivated to get some answers, to come to the inclusion that the tipping point is where the intent to publish hits the point to put it into practice.  This is a fulcrum.

    Eventually I stopped just reading only content, and started paying more attention to in which publication things were published (most of which I couldn’t afford to subscribe to).  THEN I started connecting which nonprofit (or, some of these are almost exclusively the project of some government grants, and say so right on the websites) with which publication, which which professionals.  This is what would in interpersonal interactions be called “body language.”  Only, without warm bodies and live voices and actual interaction face to face, the next best substitute, especially for those without a travel fund, is sometimes a little background check.  On-line.  Free.

    What I post here today was written a while back by a professional now involved in addressing some family court issues, and who I hope to meet someday soon.  We appear to have been circling around geographically within a few miles of each other, but consistently in different venues.  In other words, she has worked for and at organizations I’ve sought help from and whose halls I’ve sat in as a “client.”

    It’s probably time to make a phone call.  Meanwhile, today’s a difficult time for me, and I can’t quite say why without revealing which case.  Please bare with some of the over-writing here, and understand why today (and I acknowledge, yesterday), sarcasm is pretty high.  Fact is, I miss my daughters, and it’s the beginning of a school year.   Instead, I get the back hand and the ugly side (or no side at all) of the parent and other adults in control of their lives.  I can and have read law, and after looking, still don’t see that I’ve committed a crime in these matters, and I most certainly HAVE seen and identified several ones committed since the case switched from civil to family law, which I to this day believe is where batterers go to hide, and keep up the same pattern of behavior, only with more validation.

    Oops, there I go again.

     

     

    ANYHOW, as to the conferences and subscriptions, I have a suggestion:  Instead of a grant to explicate the context of domestic violence in custody decisions (apparently a recent one) and the “Domestic Violence Conference of the Decade,” whose speakers and sponsoring organizations I did take a pretty good (on-line) look at — and got the general picture for sure — and ANOTHER one I just heard of today:

    (boy, the logos, and PR, and branding, is getting more and more professional!):header

    (SEE:  http://dvinstitute.org), which it appears just happened in Detroit. . .. 

     

     

     

    IDVAAC

     

    Here’s another one about to happen in San Diego:

    http://dvinstitute.org/announces/files/Partial%20Brochure-5-18.pdf

    The logo makes me think I’m back in grade school again (check it out — I couldn’t click & drag).

    It has a wooden post with 3 pointers, “Future, Present, Past” all askew on a sky background.

    • “FUTURE” is pointing right (the only one pointing right) and UP (ditto).
    • Present is horizontal and point left, indicating a change of direction.  From WHAT?
    • Past is pointing left and down.  Talk about not very subtle.

    I could suggest some more detailed logos.  Perhaps the length of the line I stood in yesterday for $15.00 coupon to go get food, which allowed me to get some nonfoods, which Food Stamps program, onto which I’ve been forced back because of former failed systems, most of which interfered with My system called, working! and complying with court orders.  Because we might also have a problem with drugs, alcohol or tobacco, or who knows, perhaps just for simplicity, and of course for the safety of those distributing (i.e., no cash), we could only go to ONE store (a few miles away, which is great for those without cars, with children, and poor enough to need help with food).  I figure out the expense to time ratio of this, and between wait, and buses, it was approximately $4.00/food benefit per hour, four hours expended in getting coupon and food.  Not including getting home with it.  A far cry from a conference.

    This line contained live people with real stories, and mostly people of color, different colors, sizes, and manners;  most of them also, women, many with children, and each with a story, and their own method of dealing with the long wait.  It was detailed and usually cheerful, this waiting is routine.  I didn’t see anyone I recognized although I’d been there many times before.

    Perhaps I should show some children crying, with a forensic child psychologist, or CPS worker.  Perhaps I should show a woman crying.  Perhaps I should show General Assistance being cut (as it is) to make way for some of the grants I’ve been blogging on, including yesterday.  

    If economic distress causes violence (I don’t believe it does) than perhaps this is partly why.  But an inane signpost over these words? – – 

     

    A New Direction for a Safer Tomorrow:  National Conference on Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange

    Yeah, that and a new specialty in the field, too. . . . . Not THAT new, but apparently . . . . 

    The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Office on Violence Against 

    Women are proud to sponsor the first National Conference on Supervised Visitation and Safe 

    Exchange. This conference will inform professionals  (WILL INFORM WHOM??  WHOM????)

     

    about how to provide supervised visitation and safe exchange services that account for (HOW ABOUT PREVENT??) domestic violence. 

     

    THink about this:  if there is a need for supervised visitation and safe exchange, that means domestic violence is already there.

    Pare

    nts who don’t threaten to abduct, or hurt a Mom without supervision, or do this (and many do), wouldn’t need this.

     

     

    National experts will provide education on safety for adult victims and children; services for diverse populations; community 

    collaboration; and advocacy, in the context of domestic violence and supervised visitation and 

    safe exchange.  The conference will highlight effective practice and programs, offer tips and 

    tools, provide an opportunity for networking, and inspire and invigorate participants. 

     

     

    Expert Faculty . . .  

     

     

     

    (I dare site visitors here to look up each and every expert and determine where they are coming from, and who pays their organization’s bills.. . . . . . )

     

    Would you like to see a similar brochure?  OK, here.  I found it (this search) at

     

    http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/domestic-violence-conference-of-decade.html

     

     

     

    California Alliance for Families and Children

    Please forward to colleagues and friends
    Family Violence Treatment and Education Association (FAVTEA)

    THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONFERENCE OF THE DECADE!

    From Ideology to Inclusion 2009:

    New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention
    With Featured Presentations By:
    Murray Straus, PhD
    Murray Straus, PhD
    * Deborah Capaldi, PhD
    Deborah Capaldi, PhD
    * Don Dutton, PhD
    Don Duton, PhD {{NOTE:  S/BE “DUTTON”}}
    K. Daniel O'Leary, PhD
    K. Daniel O’Leary, PhD
    * Sandra Stith, PhD
    Sandra Stith, PhD
    * Richard Gelles, PhD
    Richard Gelles, PhD
    Also Featuring:
    Sarah Avery-Leaf, PhD * Mohammed Boabaid, PhD * Ellen Bowen, LCSW
    Jan Brown * Wendy Bunston, MFT * Michelle Carney, PhD
    Ken Corvo, PhD * Carol Crabsen, LCSW * Christopher Eckhardt, PhD
    Lynette Feder, PhD * Richard Felson, PhD * Kimberly Flemke, PhD
    Joel Garner, PhD * Lonnie Hazelwood, MSHP, LCDC * Denise Hines, PhD
    Jodi Klugman-Rabb, MFT * Christopher Maxwell, PhD * Eric McCollum, PhD
    Daniel Sonkin, PhD * Arlene Vetere, PhD * Carolyn West, PhD
    Date: Friday, Saturday and Sunday, June 26-28, 2009
    Place: Los Angeles Airport Marriott Hotel
    Los Angeles, CA
    More info: PDF 2009 Conference Flier
    Most presenters serve on the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journalPartner Abuse, published quarterly by Springer publishing. For more information, go towww.springerpub.com/pa

    Sponsored by:
    California Alliance for Families and Children
    and
    Family Violence Treatment & Education Association

    TO LEARN MORE OR SIGN UP, GO TO:
    WWW.CAFCUSA.ORG

     
    Domestic Violence Training DVDs Now Available!
    See the founders, the pioneers, and today’s most respected experts together at the one-of-a-kind, historic conference, “From Ideology to Inclusion:.”Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence The conference was held February 15-16, 2008, in Sacramento, California.

    DID I forget, in addition to any conference fees, there’s (like any good market niche) the collateral sales market too.  Incidentally, downloading information is one of the lowest overhead, most profitable fields of direct selling around, once it’s in place.  It’s a GREAT business model.  

    Is that enough Ph.D.’s?  Surely I should just their judgments about my danger level, experience of domestic violence, and whether my kids are or are not at risk of — shall we say — parental abduction — better than my own.  After all, look at the degrees!

    I wonder whether it has occurred to any of these people that some women leaving abuse might prefer going for not just “job training” but more degrees themselves, rather than defending from the latest round of accusations through this system, or for that matter, the latests fads sweeping through it. . ..  

    Speaking for myself, I already had the degrees, I just wanted “permission to practice” what I was already trained in and couldn’t, formerly, because of the domestic violence situation.

    Remind me to get another Piled Higher Deeper (then I won’t call it that any more…), it may pay better than blogging for nothing, if I’m in one of these fixing people fields.  Which, however, I wasn’t.  I was in music, which helps heal people many times.  It changes them.  But it doesn’t approach from the point of view, unilaterally:  “You need fixing, and we will do it!”  It’s more transformative than legislative in nature.  Funding for the arts is in jeopardy, but not for family-fixing.

     

    SO, who attended THIS conference?

    Who attended this one? (Sorry folks, if you just missed it, this past June):  In the words of one of the groups above:

    The conference quickly became an international event after its announcement. This was due to all of the internationally respected experts that presented at the conference, as well as attendees that came from all over the U.S., Canada, Europe and Asia. Easily 95 percent of those who had registered and attended the conference were with state, local and U.S. government agencies, including officials and staff from the Department of Health and Human Services.  It was also attended by a myriad of public health agencies, Social Services, law enforcement, treatment providers and family law practitioners.  The list goes on. In addition, several states had representatives from their Judicial Branches attend, including judges.

    Seems to me about the only people NOT there were:  family court LITIGANTS, battered women, protective mothers, children who had aged out of the system, in the custody of an abusive parent (these young people DO exist and are now speaking out:  Courageous Kids, Alanna Krause, others.  I WONDER what my daughter will say, or realize, when she turns 18, soon.)  I don’t see the category “shelter workers” there.  I don’t see “domestic violence advocates” as a category, do you?  Family law practitioners and treatment providers, You BETCHA!


    Because of the historic nature of the conference, {{and surely not because of PR, contacts with someone at the station, or anything of a mercenary or publicity-promotion nature…}} Radio Station KFBK-AM 1530, in Sacramento interviewed Erin Pizzey, the founder of the shelter movement and one of the conference presenters  (incidentally, it seems Ms. Pizzey, daughter of an ambassador, has come to the conclusion that the shelter movement is run by radical feminists and socialists, and was turned on by them for not going along.).. . Everything is always “radical” “new” “Pioneering” and “launched” (etc.) in this field.

    Perhaps this next testimonial may explain why the D.A. was so resistant to allowing me to not lose, or help me regain, custody of my daughters when it was their FATHER, not their MOTHER who had taken them so long ago:

    After going through the post conference surveys, we learned that most attendees gave the conference overall scores ranging in the 4 & 5’s (with 5 being the highest score). We have heard directly from many attendees who are mediators and evaluators in family courts, and they called the conference the best they had ever attended on the issue. Many of them have been in the practice for 30 years. One District Attorney wrote:

    “I thoroughly enjoyed the conference and felt it was one of the best I’d ever attended (I’ve been attending DV conferences ever since the Judicial Task Force put on a statewide conference after the OJ case!)”

    (The clear and blatant theme of this one appears to be that women are equally as violent as men.  Hence, the publication “Partner” abuse (and “abuse” not “Violence’)  Title:  From “Ideology” to “Inclusion.”  

    Oops:  http://www.cafcusa.org/2008%20conference.aspx

    It appears these reviews are from the 2008 conference, which was merely “historic” and not “the conference of the decade.”  Sorry in searching on the latter term a merely Grand conference got confused with the truly Grandiose, which is about how the language goes too.  But it’s not truly likely that the same organizations, in alliance are likely to change directions themselves.  They exist, many of them, to change directions of OTHER venues, and other people’s, well, court cases.

    (Tell you what — this inclusion does not appear to work in reverse quite so well…)

     

    But, who are the real stakeholders?  

     

    Why not instead just raise funds for subscriptions for women leaving abuse to some of the publications talking about us, and our children, and our batterers, and our stalkers, and our children’s abductors, and our options, and how to intervene.  

    If we could have some “supervised visitation” to some of these conferences, I’m sure we would be competent to stand up and dispel some illusions circulating around these topics.  I have known for a long time what would and would not take this household towards safety and self-sufficiency and been asking for it from institutions that had it to offer, they said.  

    This has fallen mostly on deaf ears. So now I am more interested in talking to these people’s supervisors, and employers, which FYI, happens to be in many cases, the federal grants system.

    (note:  I talked myself into two such “Screening for Abuse (or, Domestic violence)” type conferences within recent years, AFTER I lost my kids, and while in PTSD, Poverty, dealing with stalking, and working one remaining job.  I overcame the PTSD of speaking up, and was called “brave” for doing so, in front of many strangers.   One was aimed at health professionals, and was nationwide.  ANother was aimed at custody evaluators and was not, although I would characterize BOTH of them as having analyzed the problem of abuse pretty darn well.

    It was extremely validating and didn’t make a damn bit of difference in the case, and I doubt will in a whole lot of others.  Why?

     

    Because INFORMATION is not MOTIVATION.

    EDUCATION doesn’t produce behavior change unless the MOTIVATION to change exceeds the benefits of NOT changing.

    Overcoming PTSD to speak in front of strangers, is not my definition of brave.  My definition of “brave” entails facing potential death, which I have, not facing a strange audience.  It entails facing down that man, with a loaded gun and crazy talk, in my own home, and not just once.  The bravery THAT time related to the fact I was a mother, and young children were in the home.  My definition of brave is, knowing the possible impact, telling my family to go take a hike and get a life, when they violated my boundaries post-restraining order, and made it consistently clear after this clear statement, that this was not on THEIR agenda.

    Similarly SOME people need to start recognizing that surviving abuse may be luck, or it may show competence, and start getting a different attitude about who you are dealing with, when a person shows up not too coherent immediately after an incident.  Or when they show up in court (repeatedly forced to, thanks to the family law venue, which specializes on hearsay vs. evidence) also not coherent enough, possibly because of who’s present, and because of the authoritatarian and “it could change on a dime” nature of the interchange.

    At this public speaking at a conference for PROFESSIONALS in the FIELD time, I also almost spent a night on the street, because in the process of speaking up, I mislaid car keys, took a commute back home, and found out the keys were in another city.  Getting them back took half a night, and more money (of the very little I’d gotten by chance the previous day, allowing me the commute to this conference), help from two friends by phone (my own cell being off) and it was cold, too.  I then imposed on someone who was actually a music client (so to speak) to stay overnight so I might not, in the fatigue and stress, oversleep work the next mornign which at this point would’ve resulted in being dismissed.

    About a year later (this being halfway through the court cases following child-stealing) I was indeed suddenly dismissed by this same group.  Possibly they had what’s called “vicarious trauma” dealing year after year (and it was that) with my inability to get free from ONE abuser, and his friends, and the family law mishandling of a simple, simple restraining order renewal. Which I didn’t, FYI, get.)

    I want to say something:

    Since then, I have looked into the financing (funding, folks) of this same organization, and at its website.  See my post on “the amazing, disappearing word “Mother.”  (The group is not featured, but the principle applies).  It is a premiere group in the war against violence, not against “women” but, well, “family violence.”  I have to really question why in this same state, funds to shelters have been axed, but not to this group.  I have to ALSO question why I couldn’t get simple help when I needed it (and that includes, to date) from any of the entities that exist to provide it, after some of the original ones made a few policy mistakes, major ones, in designing the original custody order.  

     

    So, why not just invite us to the conferences?  Note: before, THAT, raise funds to make sure that their phone and internets stay on (and deal with on-line stalking as well).   For example, the other year, had my phone been on, I trust I could’ve found a job and retained access to a moving vehicle through what’s called “work” — even though, through family law inanity, I lost custody on an overnight over a year earlier, all my profession in the aftermath (and buildup), and all hope of collecting any child support arrears in the process.  

    You know what these conferences are to me, any more?  They are like ambulance-chasers.  They are carpet baggers.  

    They are like a person with a boat with room in it, and not too far to BOAT to shore, but too far for most people, particularly people in danger of shock, or fatigue, or not in top marathon shape — they drive by in the boat and wave.  Sometimes they grab a kid in the process.  They congregate in boats, and talk to each other about the shipwrecks.  They even SOS — the shore — for more gas, and refreshments — and “technical support” — to converse — exclusively with each other — about “how to rescue shipwrecked sailors.”  SOMETIMES some of them even pull out a child or two, or three, and give the child into the care of other people making a living off the shipwrecks — OR the other parent that helped cause it.  That’s bright.

    Then they have conferences about “shared parenting.”  Or, even about “the context of custody-switch.”  Or sometimes even about “the advisability of mediation in family law cases involving allegations of domestic violence or child abuse.”  I’ve read many of these, and they are (unlike this blog) generally copyedited, slick, and even have nice charts, sometimes color coded bar graphs, and the whole nine yards.

    But what they don’t have is the voices of the people in the water which might show where they missed the boat in these discussion.

    NOW — do I think ALL the people in ALL the conferences have impure motives and self-interest in the forefront of their minds?

    NO — I know that ALL people are imperfect and have impure motives and self-interest to some degree, including me.  

    That’s what the Constitution is about, and why any sitting President is sworn, under oath and in public, to preserve, protect, and defend it.  It’s about putting some restraint on tyranny.

    This includes tyranny by simple exclusion from policy-making conferences.  

    It should NOT be necessary for almost every mother (or father) who goes through divorce to switch professions and join one that might help him or herself defend herself in a family law custody action, and it PARTICULARLY is not fair where one partner (and it’s most likely to be the female one) has a life in the balance.  Not just an emotional economic life, but also a physical life to her or her kids.

    TRUTH has a lot of depth and nuances, but the underlying principles are basic, and basically, SIMPLE.  When we are talking about human behavior.  As a teacher of many years, and I have taught, coached, directed, co-taught, co-directed and/or performed with beginners (tone-deaf) to professionals (in 3 venues:  piano/vocal/choral), I know that the same basics work every time, as much as how people sing and their particular voices differ.  Certain basics HAVE to be there, including:  Air, vocal cords, something to sing, and to do it well — a REASON to sing.  

    Same for offices, lifestyles, businesses.  There is income, expenses, cash flow, overhead, etc.  There is some basic math involved.

    What the extended decades-long (I’m approaching 10 years, I know others who have been in longer) nonending family law venue DOES is simply divert cash flow.  It STOPS what existed before, and recreates a NEW version according to its paradigm.  Many times, it stops the process and incentive for either parent to work.  

    So, IF the actual desire is to STOP VIOLENCE, or CHILD ABUSE and SAVE LIVES:  I recommend starting to pay parents, particularly those who are experiencing stalking, abuse, or other threats, for some of these subscriptions, so we can keep up with what’s being proclaimed about us and our kids and our lifestyles, 

    Or, alternately, we could stop the conferences and get back to something halfway reasonable,  like our own businesses.  Right now, this thing is really getting out of hand. . . . .  After a few years of chasing around the experts, and being ever so happy they had “analyzed” a situation well, I began to realize this is about where it stops.   With the talk.  (Well, not really, the dynamic of the situation is changing, but the “you’re making it up” folk are cancelling out the “you’re minimizing abuse” folk.  Even when they “collaborate.”)

    I actually DO have a life (still — not the same one, but a life) to get back to, and it’s clear that this is going to go on, well, forever.  I DO have some things I wish to do in life than stop people so intent on stopping domestic violence, they have kept it going a good long while, and people so intent on sharing custody that they are not about to, ever, acknowledge that this is getting too many people hurt.  No, “supervised visitation” is NOT a good alternatives, that I can see.  For one, I was not offered it once in many years, although it would have been very appropriate given where the problems were happening in our case.  Most people I know that HAVE supervised visitation (at their own expense) are women who got it AFTER they reported abuse.  They lost custody and have to pay to see their kids.  

    Do I want to spend the rest of my life fixing this problem?  No.  I don’t think it’s going away soon.  On the other hand, do I accept what has happened and zero accountability for what was stolen from my daughters, and me, and the unnecessary destruction involved?  No.  Do I want to lose something more if I confront again?  No.  Would you?

    So. why not let the real stakeholders in on the discussions with the “stakeholders” in these systems?  Why should we have to run around studying the industry, and finding out about each new conference half of us can’t attend anyhow?  And with speakers we have already been exposed to their work, and a sometimes (I speak for myself) even know which grant or grants program is funding the thing and the policy?  Have we become a nation of actually employed experts whose very jobs are robbing from the unemployed, whom they are studying?

    (I do apologize for my sarcasm here.  But my phone is only on today because someone had a good hair day, as opposed to a bad hair day, and another dribble of child support arrears showed up, enough for phone and not much more.  In order to get some nonfoods (which is illegal on Food Stamps) rather than ask someone I know for this (again), I waited 2 hours to get a single coupon unredeemable except at one store — not nearby.  I waited til the next day to redeem it.  On that day, which involved approximately SIX total bus trips, none of them involving more than  10 mile radius total, and after having walked 2 of those miles without proper shoes, I took the baggage home (involving a sack of potatoes and more) and looked for work, a lead on charity cars, and more.  Then my phone went off (as happens when one doesn’t pay in time).  THIS MORNING, I talked the bus driver into letting me on half price, because the feet wouldn’t make a similar distance this time.  It just so happened (couldn’t have been planned around or predicted) that — just under the deadline, a deadbeat Dad paid again. I reflected at how similar this was to life when I LIVED with this man (particularly as to unpredictable access to any kind of cash, and having to dedicate half a day or more to something that would take 20 min to an hour in a car). 

    The primary difference being then that I had the joy of a little company with my daughters, who were growing up still.  I wonder where they are and what they are thinking today.

     

    So, let’s change the dynamics:

    Benefits (from OUR point of view, at least):

    • Life
    • Liberty, hopefully
    • Pursuit of happiness
    • Decreased National Debt ($1.9 TRILLION, I just heard?)
    • Safer classrooms, probably
    • Many, many more benefits.

    Detriments (possibly from publishers, conferrers, model code designers, and a WHOLE lot more):

    • Some professions would have to find a new market niche, because the problems their professions live off would likely abate.  Like those who have lived through (see subject line) they would have to be resourceful, flexible, think on their feet, and probably no longer have a “captive” audience or a steady stream of federal grants to solve problems, but enter the free marketplace like the rest of us.
    • The professed Ph.D. experts would have to move over for the actual “experts.”  An expert is one who has experienced a thing, and has a vocabulary sufficient to communicate to communicate to others what it was.  Typically, this entails knowing others involved in the same thing.  OUR vocabulary, not the expert social science vocabulary.
    • Cash and jobs would flow in a different direction.

     

    I think those would be the primary differences.  The question is, HOW would America Survive without the economy of pathology?  And the paradigm of the us/them; subject/object expertise heirarchy?

     

    What year do you think this was written?

    (Scroll to bottom for answer).

    I have pasted an entire section from an article I found on-line today, as I was thinking about the mental segmentation and disconnect between different types of justice (courts), between courts & police, between police & prosecutors (from what I can tell), between “domestic violence” professionals and “child abuse professionals” (meaning, these professionals desire to STOP domestic violence and child abuse, by analyzing and, based on analyses, communicating their results and asking for policy changes.  Then, if the policy changes, the matter comes up, is the PRACTICE changed.  Again, the typical mentality is to “train” the professionals to practice what’s right.

    Very few actually deal with the realities of human nature, namely, that there is no single branch of employment, business, and no profession, where most of the employees are altruistic, and none of them are dangerously self-serving, or motivated by, for example, basic human greed, denial, or lust for power.  

    This excerpt is a sample of what I’d call honest writing, which shows how even a “model” practice that is published — certain perspectives were omitted. I would imagine that in this case, the voices of the people with these perspectives (the victims the model code was hoping to help) were not present for the dialogue.  THAT is indeed a problem, this gap.

     

    it’s really a matter of language.  You see, calling an intersection of court, law enforcement, and social services workers when discussing issues that affect people who come under the category victims (i.e., of crimes) without including the victims — IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS — is exclusionary.  

    It is a larger subset of a larger divide, called “service-providers” (including the “service” of JUSTICE) vs. Recipients/clients.

    I’ve blogged on another post here about the effect of stalking on me, and including through other family members.  It is a total life-changer (and illegal).  I do not know how to sustain regular employment around the degree of it that has come into my life, and have totally switched goals in order to accommodate, if possible, the safety factor.  I know other women who have done this.  It’s NOT a game, and NOT a joke, but every law enforcement officer I reported to treated it as such, and added in some verbal abuse to go along with my attempt to report.  I have reported it to almost every agency or type of individual involved in my case, as I also reported the risk of child-stealing (which happened) and my concerns about the lethality factor in our case, a combo. of gut instinct, only to then find literature that shows my gut was right.

    It is an odd feeling to find out how much of one’s life had already been discussed and conferenced about, and how long ago, and relate this to how many women have been killed since because even this (in its own words) “flawed” model still isn’t being followed.

    Nevertheless, here it is.  It is in off-blue (not “link” color) italics.  Any bold or underlining, or variations from italic blue, are my additions,or emphases, except obviously the bolded section headings:

     

    National Institute of Justice Project to Develop Model Anti-Stalking Code for States

    Limitations of Report from Domestic Violence Perspective

    In response to the great and sudden interest in state stalking codes, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) created a project to develop a model anti-stalking code for states, releasing their final report in _________. (see below) Interestingly enough, the report does not refer to the NIJ’s history of involvement with this issue, which included the development of a model harassment code over 10 years ago.

    Unfortunately, the resource group which developed this model code included no domestic violence advocates. (An issue which continues to this day/Let’s Get Honest comments in other fields) Presumably this accounts for the fact that domestic violence, rather than being seen as a central issue in the development of the model code, is relegated to tangential status.

    Domestic violence is rarely mentioned in the report, and when it is it may be in a footnote. See, e.g., footnote 83, pages 38 – 39, which touches briefly on the overlap between domestic violence and stalking, and reports without comment on law enforcement attitudes that domestic violence stalking incidents aren’t worth much attention: “… While 77 percent of responding jurisdictions in Australia and Great Britain reported investigating stalking-type incidents, none considered stalking a major problem . High-profile cases were rare in the responding countries, and most agencies consider stalking primarily a domestic violence problem. Typical victims are women of any age escaping abusive relationships with dominant males , they reported… Stalker’s methods did not seem to vary from those used by American stalkers, and the course of events seemed to escalate from unwanted contacts to following and face-to-face threats…” (emphasis added) The message appears to be that a crime in which the primary victims are battered women is not “a major problem.”


    Domestic violence is hardly mentioned again until page 92, where one paragraph acknowledges the usefulness of drawing upon criminal justice personnel’s experience with domestic violence in formulating strategies against stalking. However, the report then lays out a research agenda which downplays the body of applicable domestic violence research which has already been conducted. The report calls for research on stalkers (i.e. their behaviors, motivations, demographics, histories), stalking as a crime (i.e. its prevalence and reponse by the criminaljustice system), and the usefulness of restraining orders in stopping stalking (i.e. how well the victim, defendant, and criminal justice personnel understand how to enforce them). Given that the overwhelming majority of stalking cases are domestic violence cases, we can already answer many of these questions.  {{I alternate emphasis so every sentence is read in this paragraph.}}

    In the discussion on sentencing, the report does not mention batterer’s counseling even once in its three-page discussion of evaluation, treatment, and mental illness, {{I’m not at this point highly enamored of batterer’s counseling, probably because of so many incidents I’ve read where counseling was ordered over incarceration; the batterer then aced the counseling, and went promptly out and murdered his former, reporting, partner.  And I believe that where even a 10% outside chance of “murder” as a side-effect of ineffective counseling happens, the chance should not be taken.  The concept that behavioral science, which is “prognosis” can substitute some how for safety, is not sound thinking, in my view. }}or in the principal recommendations where counseling is mentioned. This is unfortunate, since there is a growing body of literature on the efficacy of batterer’s counseling which would be applicable to the 70-80% of stalking cases involving domestic violence, and since there are also studies showing that most therapists are woefully untrained and uninformed in the area of domestic violence.  {{Cobblers see shoes.  Lawyers see legal issues.  Therapists see personality problems.  I have been stalked, battered, and lost access to the children through “family court matters,” so obviously this is kind of what I notice, too.  So even correcting the “training” and “uninformed” factors (imagine the expense) would still be in essence asking a professional in a field to change their outlook on the field. }} 

    The timing of NIJ’s model code report was also unfortunate. The research was done before any appellate cases on stalking had been published, before the volume of commentators in law review articles, and when very few states had amended their statutes. The model code was based on two surveys sent to police departments around the country and to four other English-speaking countries, telephone interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys, and analyzing the various state statutes on stalking and related issues.  {{THIS PATTERN IS COMMON WHEN IT COMES TO GRANT SITUATIONS FOR POLICY CHANGES.  FIRST, “DEMONSTRATION,” SOMETIMES (NOT ALWAYS) STARTING SMALL. THEN, “PROCLAMATION” BASED ON THE PRIOR “DEMONSTRATION” WHICH WERE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE PICTURE}}

     

    It is unfortunate that the NIJ report was not seen as Part I of a two-part process, since it is necessary have an in-depth assessment of how the statutes are actually working in order to evaluate the NIJ’s proposed model code.  {{This may have  been “unfortunate,” negligent, or intentional.  I don’t know which; I wasn’t there.  At least this author comments on it.  After a while, one begins to notice how many things termed “unfortunate”  — weren’t quite left up to fortune.  This word cropped up in a mediator report in my case, referring to something which had happened specifically and ONLY after repeated interventions and decisions prompted by said mediator. }}

    Analysis of utility of model code proposed by NIJ for battered women

    Benefits of Model Code

    But even with all the above limitations, the NIJ Report has a great deal of useful information and policy recommendations which could help battered women and their children.

    For example, the Report’s principal recommendations for a model stalking code include the following, all of which could be helpful to domestic violence victims:

    • a continuum of charges, including felony status
    • option of incarceration
    • orders to stay away from victim
    • counseling
    • victim notification before stalker released
    • early intervention
    • systems put in place so that civil and criminal judges know what the other courts are doing with the same case
    • a research agenda
    • a multidisciplinary approach

    In Chapter Two of the Report, the proposed model code is discused in detail. Probably the most beneficial statement is the following: “Of utmost importance is a state’s decision to require the criminal justice system and related disciplines to take stalking incidents seriously.

    {{CAN YOU NAME AT LEAT 3 RECENT INCIDENTS WHERE IT WASN’T?  TOM’S RIVER, A TOLLBOOTH IN CALIFORNIA, AND A HOME (WITH TWO LITTLE GIRLS TRYING –BUT FAILING — TO SAVE MAMA’S LIFE) WHERE THESE RESTRAINING ORDER VIOLATIONS OR STALKING OR SEPARATION DANGER WAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY?}}

    The useful elements of the proposed code include a broad definition of prohibited acts; allowing “implied threats”, as opposed to “credible threats”, to be sufficient; the use of increasingly serious penalties to deal with increasingly serious acts, and encompassing misdemeanor and felony sanctions; and the broad definition of intent: “In other words, if a defendant consciously engages in conduct that he knows or should know would cause fear in the person at whom the conduct is directed, the intent element of the model code is satisfied.” The drafters made a similar comment in regard to the fear element: “In some instances, a defendant may be aware, through a past relationship with the victim, of an unusual phobia of the victim’s and use this knowledge to cause fear in the victim… a jury must determine that the victim’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances. ” (emphasis added) This language may open the door to the introduction of evidence regarding the stalker’s past threats toward the same victim, and to expert testimony on stalking generally, which will probably be beneficial to victims.

    Similarly, Chapter Three’s sentencing provisions are also generally useful for battered women. The overall goals include protecting the victim, allowing law enforcement to intervene when appropriate, sanctions, and treatment for those defendants who can be helped.

    The requirement of victim notification, and accompanying acknowledgements that some stalkers may be more dangerous when released from prison, and that stalking behavior often escalates into violence as time passes are very important for battered women. So are the enhanced penalties for restraining order violations, use of a weapon, minor victims, or prior offenses toward the same or another victim. All of these are typical of domestic violence cases. The no-contact orders upon release are likewise key for protecting battering victims. The advantages and disadvantages of requiring convicted stalkers to wear electronic bracelets are discussed sensitively.

    Chapter Four, on pre-trial release, also contains recommendations which are generally good for battered women whose batterers stalk them. These include taking danger to the public into account, considering eliminating release on one’s own recognizance, recommended factors for courts to consider in each case, possible conditions of release, including no-contact orders, victim’s right participate in bail hearings, victim notification of pre-trial release and copies of release orders to the victim.

    Chapter Five’s strategies for implementation are also generally helpful for battered women. The emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach underlines the need for all societal systems to work together to end this problem. The recommendations about the response of the criminal justice system are good as well, including training, better police policies and procedures, strengthening restraining order enforcement, providing judges with full criminal and restraining order histories of the defendant at every stage of the case, and the need to keep DMV and voter records of stalking victims confidential.

    The NIJ’s proposed model code generally complies with the model code recommended by Susan Bernstein, which was discussed above. The NIJ code includes “threats implied by conduct”, and uses the history between the parties as a context in determining the nature of the threats. While the NIJ code does not mandate using computerized informational tracking systems, the larger NIJ Report recommends these, and also recommends the imposition of increasingly stronger penalties, including felonies. Though Bernstein’s recommendation that harassment include “unconsented conduct” is not addressed directly in the NIJ code, it appears that the NIJ drafters intended to encompass such conduct. Thus, the only key element listed by Bernstein which is not addressed by the NIJ Report is the reasonable woman standard.

    Flaws of Model Code

    On the other hand, the code has some flaws. First, threats toward the victim’s family are limited to those directed at her “immediate family”, which is defined very narrowly. It would be better to encompass the extended family, both because stalkers do not so limit their behavior, and because many ethnic groups in the US have a much broader definition of family than the nuclear version. Coverage should be provided if the stalker is threatening the victim’s aunt, uncle, grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, godparents, godchildren, in-laws, etc.

    Second, “[t]he model code language does not apply if the victim fears sexual assault but does not fear bodily injury.” The drafters discuss the risk of contracting AIDS or being injured for resisting, and state that states may want to include fear of sexual assault in their statutes. However, the idea that sexual assault is not bodily injury in and of itself is ludicrous, and any historical distinction between these two types of injuries should not be maintained.

    Third, the drafters propose that states allow for either restitution to the victim, or civil causes of action. It is unclear why victims should not have access to both remedies, since they are not interchangable: restitution is ordered by the criminal court, and covers only out of pocket expenses, while tort suits are under the control of the victim, and also allow for awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

    Return to top of the page


      

    Effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women

    We last turn to the question of the effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women. On the one hand, such codes can be useful. They serve as an acknowledgement that stalking behavior is wrong, and should be criminalized. They contribute to societal awareness that stalking is often part of the overall pattern of domestic violence. They may be an additional charge which prosecutors can use. In some cases, stalking laws can stop the cycle before more violence occurs by criminalizing behavior which otherwise would be non-actionable. On the other hand, there are many limitations to the efficacy of stalking laws in preventing abuse and violence. In some jurisdictions, stalking laws are the latest fad: they represent feathers in the caps of legislators and criminal justice system personnel, without attempting to solve the underlying problems of men’s violence toward women generally and domestic violence in particular. Secondly, there appears to be a belief in some locations that stalking statutes will be a panacea, that if the legislators can merely write the magic combination of words, they will be able to stop this offense. Such viewpoints fail to take the big picture into account — i.e. without fundamental attitude changes on the parts of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, juries, media, therapists, and the general public, the same old attitudes about domestic violence will attach to stalking cases and result in inaction, undercharging, light sentences, and ineffective orders.

    In order to be effective, stalking statutes must be one piece of a much larger coordinated community response. Key pieces of such a response would include in-depth training and written policies addressing domestic violence and stalking, and would be an integral part of the criminal justice system, health care system, educational system, and other social stystems. The training and policies would state that domestic violence is wrong, criminal, and not tolerated. An additional key piece of the response would involve cooperation between all the different parts of the above systems, such as protocols for cooperation, regular interdisciplinary or inter-agency meetings, and death review teams, reflecting the reality that everyone has to work together if we will ever be able to stop domestic violence.

    But even with a true coordinated community response, anti-stalking laws are still a limited tool in preventing domestic violence.Even with severe sanctions, some stalkers, like some batterers, will not stop or will repeat this behavior with other victims when released from jail. And some victims may still be reluctant to cooperate with prosecution because protections they are offered by the criminal justice system are inadequate to prevent retaliation. They may also feel sorry for the stalker, love him, want him to get counseling, etc., or they may be forced to deal with him for years to come because they have children in common. It is notable that many state stalking statutes do not cover situations where the former spouse/stalker has visitation rights. This is a major problem for battered women, whose batterers often escalate the violence after separation and transfer their attempts to control the woman to the custody/visitation arena.

    In conclusion, anti-stalking laws are a step in the right direction, but in and of themselves will not solve the problems of battered women or other stalking victim.

     

     

    MY SUMMARY:

    (I only commented on top part of article, for a pattern of asking questions.  ALL of it brings up good points, and I hope was read).

     

    I COME BACK TO CONCEPT OF SELF-DEFENSE, AND a Survive! mentality for women.  (See my Toms River, NJ post).  Don’t break any laws, but do like the Boy Scouts, “Be Prepared.”  AND, prepare to survive.  I suggest that women pretty much be very pro-active in figuring this out themselves and with their own resources, until such day arrives where model codes are appropriate, or if appropriate, enforced, and if enforced, enforced seriously.

    I deeply regret the years of my

    (1) calling out for others to help me, while

    (2) trying to maintain and help myself both, and immediately leave the situation.

    I would have been BETTER engaged in time and energy not to have bothered with the first part.  Unfortunately, like many women leaving abuse, economics was a huge issue, not just recovery and safety.  This is why any effort to address DV issues not taking into account economic issues is simply unrealistic.  At this point, i also believe that any discussion of domestic violence which does NOT discuss the negative impact that the realm of family law has had upon all the research, all the laws, and all the protective meaures in place, will not make a major difference.  The efforts cancel each other out.

     (Verbal Confrontation, or even taking protective action, on  my part just brought greater escalations and punishments.  In fact, this was typically where it got physical).  I am talking about both IN the battering relationship (in my case, called “marriage, co-habiting years” AND in the afterwards years (taking a stand as  a separate woman, with children in the household.).  I remember one year of emotionally healthy, solvent, sanity — while a restraining order was in place.  There was a storm brewing, but the majority of the situation was a sense of growing prosperity and strength, and — apart from the source of this — peace.  This was BEFORE I’d had a few hearings in the family law venue.

    The only benefit I can see from the whole process is that I now caution women to avoid absolutely every facet of it possible, and go about establishing their own:  Safety, solvency and self-determination.  It is also necessary to understand that doing so is not just a threat to one’s ex, potentially, but also to the entire “SYSTEM” if you don’t do it “their” way.  Which means becoming dependent on aspects of this for safey, solvency, and forking over self-determination to a parenting plan (or something similar) obtained through a custody evaluator or mediator, who are influenced by forces one doesn’t normally have input to deal with, in part because one doesn’t know they exist to start with.

    Now, as to my doing this myself, it may entail abandoning this blog, also.  However, speaking out is part of a healing process also, and it’s a vital part.

    While advocates from more than once side of the fence now dialogue and collaborate with each other (as women and thereafter sometimes men (including men who killed them) continue to die, and children continue to suffer abuse, and some go missing — the one side of the fence that is often not heard — IN the policymaking discussions, IN print IN the publications on these matters, IN the professional organizations that make a livelihood dealing with these matters, and basically on the IN, not the OUT, in these discussions — will continue to be the people with most at stake — their lives.

    It is common sometimes to list the “stakeholders” in each new conference.  I have looked at many of these lists.  Rarely are the actual parents, targeted child, or targeted spouse (when it comes to child abduction or domestic violence or stalking, ALL of which are related, by the way) invited to confer.  And if they did, and what such people said WAS published, or broadcast, what about retaliation?  Ever think about that?

     

    WHEN WAS THE EXCERPT WRITTEN?

    About 15 years after Toms River, NJ – – 1994:


    Found at:

    http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/bwjp/stalking/stalking.html#id2355674


    Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse

    Domestic Violence & Stalking: A Comment on the Model Anti-Stalking Code Proposed by the National Institute of Justice

    Nancy K. D. Lemon
    Battered Women’s Justice Project

     

     

    Publication Date: December 1994

    (And the blank date in the excerpt was Oct. 1993).  


     

    Ocean County NJ — 2009, it “spiraled out of control,” 2008, “a perfect storm of DV”, but $86 mil still for “NJ Public Law & Safety” 2007-2009

    with 6 comments

    (More on the dangers of love and romance in New Jersey, and in faulty misplacement of trust in law enforcement, prosecution, and public safety entitites:)


    This wide-ranging post comes from asking more “why?” on the Frisco/Zindell murder-suicide and a third article on the topic is enclosed, along with my usual comments, conclusions, and wide-ranging observations.  WHY did the court release Frank Frisco without paying his past-due support, if this was the  basis of holding him?  Who has a copy of that order?  Within 5 hours, he had his revenge; seems to me the authorities knew this man.  Ocean County has a low homicide rate, and a major one happened like it (same result — let out, killed the girlfriend) in only January 2008.   Likelihood or no likelihood, sad or not, just FYI — I haven’t heard of a witness to the killing(s), and I haven’t heard WHY he was released.  Have you?  If so, please comment and send a link.  
    Although this incident wasn’t entirely a “family court” matter — this couple had no children together — the man did.
    Keep in mind also — statements are made, but what weight to give them, in context.  Is there evidence?  Was there a witness?
    Also, seeing this, I decided to add another website page (in process), showing prior decisions in prior cases that went south.  The bottom line, of course, is be strong, think smart, and stay alive.  We are entirely too passive and dependent in this society, which mindset “exports” the basic aspects of life (of which self-defense and self-defense smarts) is one.  When the system fails, we try to fix the system.  Endlessly.
    (Now THAT’s a market niche . . . . . )  Better, know thyself, know they friends, know the landscape and help each other.

     

    BUT FIRST, A FEW SERIOUS WORDS — and this is not a help site, but I feel it’s important:


    • A 30 year old woman (sorry, I care less about the man that killed her… and himself) in NJ who had a real track record of success behind her, a passion to serve, smarts — but not enough of the right kind, here — and hope, a desire for a family — and her own family was down a father, recently, she also didn’t have brothers in sisters.  She was working in a Department of NJ that dealt with children and families.  
    • This young lady was smart enough to say “no” to following through with the marriage, but somehow neither she nor all the surrounding experts had “SURVIVAL” attitude to realize how severe a “SURVIVAL” situation she was in.  There was SOME realization, but not enough follow-through to keep her alive.  
    • Below is a link to US Army training manual, 1992.  I just looked it up.  yes, it’s about wilderness survival, but Chapters 1 & 2 count.  You want to learn how to “survive”??  Learn from the principles here — because clearly all the lethality indicators, domestic violence indicators, and millions of $$ to “prevent violence against women” are not reliable to save women’s lives, and men’s and children’s.  They may and I bet DO help, but are they reliable enough to stake one’s life on?  Would you stake someone else’s life on them?  How about children’s?  In this case, speaking up and trusting someone else to handle it proved fatal!  Would you stake your life on these, then?   $86 million of help to NJ, or not?
    • I’d say, no.  
    • I am preaching to myself also in this matter, because I am having diffficulty with “indecision” in some issues here also.  I recommend, though, overall, being 150% safe if possible, and then you’re also a better person for it.  PART of 150% safe is knowing one’s teammates.  Ms. Zindells’ teammates loved her, cared about her, warned her, and helped, her, but did not save her.  Nor did she save herself.  I can’t say I would in her situation (and am probably her by the grace of God only, as well), BUT – — perhaps we can learn what NOT to do for the next 53 women, in this state alone, that have similar situations to deal with.
    • This isn’t even current, but it has some common sense in it.  Not “expert theory.”  But hey, Boy Scout motto, “Be Prepared,” right?

     

    U.S. Army Survival Manual FM 21-76 (link)


    June 1992

     

    I attached Chapter 1 — Intro & a few excerpts.  There’s a Chapter 2 – psychology, also.

     

    S U R V I V A L

     

    S — SIZE UP YOUR SITUATIONS

    U – USE ALL YOUR SENSES – UNDUE HASTE MAKES WASTE

    R –  REMEMBER WHERE YOU ARE

    V –  VANQUISH FEAR AND PANIC

    I –  IMPROVISE

    V – VALUE LIFE!

    A – ACT LIKE THE NATIVES

    L – LIVE  BY YOUR WITS, BUT FOR NOW LEARN BASIC SKILLS.

     

    (SOME EXCERPTS & COMMENTS)

    S – Size Up the Situation 

    If you are in a combat situation, find a place where you can conceal 

    yourself from the enemy.

     

     

    OK — this was not a domestic dispute, it had just suddenly changed to, literally, a “combat situation,” although this may not have been immediately evident. . . . . When she confronted this man and said NO, when his hopes and intensity had been so high on YES, her entire terrain immediately changed.  Her teammates needed to really “see” this, but fact is, most of our society is NOT structured this way.  It is structured with top-heavy government doing the dirty work (alas, alas, when they fail, each time, and back to expecting them to do it right next time).  Groups who attempt to not rely on this are castigated and sometimes outcast, in various areas of government expertise (I’m thinking about schooling, among others). . . .  

     

     

    Remember, security takes priority. Use your senses of hearing, smell, and sight to get a feel for the battlefield. What 

    is the enemy doing? Advancing? Holding in place? Retreating?

     

    {{Boy, THOSE are not terms you hear so often in domestic violence counseling or treatment, or issuing of restraining orders, right?}}

     

    You will have to consider what is developing on the battlefield when you make 

    your survival plan. 

     

    Size Up Your Surroundings 

    Determine the pattern of the area. Get a feel for what is going on 

    around you. Every environment, whether forest, jungle, or desert, has 

    a rhythm or pattern. This rhythm or pattern includes animal and bird 

    noises and movements and insect sounds. It may also include enemy 

    traffic and civilian movements. 

     

    There is definitely a pattern to the “field” of domestic violence, expert talk about it, and prosecutor, etc. responses to it. That “pattern” is that women are still getting killed when they leave, or going homeless.  Another “pattern” is that men leaving one wife need a 2nd one either to live, or to justify the first failure OR (case in point) for money, not just a warm bed or a companion.  The pattern IS that there was probably more than one side to the story of why he left that bitch, the mother of his kids.  . . . Right now, this issue has come up with the home my children are in.  The woman there is intently sure that I’m still the culprit, but has also acknowledged that her “man” (father of our children) wasn’t what he put himself out as, and, what’s more apparently targeted her for a certain function in his life.  At least, that was one conversation.    


     

    Size Up Your Physical Condition 

    The pressure of the battle you were in or the trauma of being in a 

    survival situation may have caused you to overlook wounds you received. 

    Check your wounds and give yourself first aid. Take care to prevent 

    further bodily harm. For instance, in any climate, drink plenty of water 

    to prevent dehydration. If you are in a cold or wet climate, put on 

    additional clothing to prevent hypothermia. 

     

    Size Up Your Equipment 

    Perhaps in the heat of battle, you lost or damaged some of your 

    equipment. Check to see what equipment you have and what condition 

    it is in. 

     

    The “equipment” of this situation, for Ms. Zindell included:  restraining order, courts, prosecutors, friends (for safety) car, and so forth.  The “equipment” included many things, suddenly needed, that a normal life otherwise wouldn’t need.  Like — I still wonder how much warning she was given about this person’s release, and whether she actually got it and became poperly alarmed enough.

     

     

    Now that you have sized up your situation, surroundings, physical condition,

    and equipment, you are ready to make your survival plan. In doing 

    so, keep in mind your basic physical needs—water, food, and shelter. 

     

    {{Guess what:  in this situation, job wasn’t a basic physical need, priority wise.  She was smart, and let go of the house, but . . .. . }}

     

    U – Use All Your Senses, Undue Haste Makes Waste 

    You may make a wrong move when you react quickly without thinking 

    or planning. That move may result in your capture or death. Don’t move 

    just for the sake of taking action. Consider all aspects of your situation 

    (size up your situation) before you make a decision and a move. If you 

    act in haste, you may forget or lose some of your equipment. In your 

    haste you may also become disoriented so that you don’t know which 

    way to go. Plan your moves. Be ready to move out quickly without 

    endangering yourself if the enemy is near you. Use all your senses 

    to evaluate the situation. Note sounds andtemperature changes. Be observant. 

    VANQUISH FEAR AND PANIC

    The greatest enemies in a combat survival and evasion situation are 

    fear and panic. If uncontrolled, they can destroy your ability to make an 

    intelligent decision. They may cause you to react to your feelings and 

    imagination rather than to your situation. They can drain your energy 

    and thereby cause other negative emotions. Previous survival and 

    evasion training and self-confidence will enable you to vanquish fear 

    and panic. 

    {{AND THE REST YOU CAN READ ON THE SITE, OR FIND ELSEWHERE.  BUT  KNOW THAT IT’S FIRST AN ATTITUDE, AND SECOND TRAINING TO UNDERSTAND PRINCIPLES, AND PRACTICE THEM.  THIS WOULD REQUIRE HELP.}}

    A woman ending a romantic relationship of some depth — particularly if the reasons doing so relate to safety or fear- / violence — is in a changed landscape, and needs to recognize this quickly and act appropriately.  Note:  The institutions involved do not encourage this attitude, and it’s challenging, after the isolation of perhaps the relationship, to then understand a different way of thinking while it is ending and until the danger is past.  It took me a long time to realize the difference in urgency between the groups I sought help from (their concern:  funding, grants — it’s a bottom line;  mine:  justice, safety — its my bottom line).

    Back to my regularly scheduled post. . . . 

     

    • You can’t judge a rolling stone by its cover:  Best to ask for ID. . . . .  This dangerous, middle-aged loiterer without ID (or the mike) was picked up by two young policemen in the NJ shore area last Saturday, so they took precautionary measures:

    Saturday August 15, 2009, 8:08 AM

     

    http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/08/bob_dylan_stopped_by_long_bran.html

    The police officer drove up to Dylan, who was wearing a blue jacket, and asked him his name. According to Woolley, the following exchange ensued:

    “What is your name, sir?” the officer asked.

    “Bob Dylan,” Dylan said.

    “OK, what are you doing here?” the officer asked.

    “I’m on tour,” the singer replied.

    A second officer, also in his 20s, responded to assist the first officer. He, too, apparently was unfamiliar with Dylan, Woolley said.

    The officers asked Dylan for identification.

    This incident ended without incident and, presumably the concert afterwards.   The Times, they are indeed a-changin’.

     

    • A young bank robber (Ocean County) last April was caught and imprisoned, as was the girlfriend who enabled it.  They were put in jail and kept there a while:

     

    Ocean County man is sentenced for robbing bank Print E-mail
    Ocean County man is sentenced for robbing bank while girlfriend waited with kids 
    by The Associated Press 
    Saturday April 04, 2009, 11:42 AM       

    An Ocean County man will spend at least the next nine years in prison for robbing a bank last year while his girlfriend waited outside with her two young children. 

    A state Superior Court judge in Ocean County has sentenced Jason Conway to 11 years for robbing a Bank of America branch in Brick. The 32-year-old Conway will have to serve at least 85 percent of the sentence. 

    Prosecutors said Conway went in to rob the bank while girlfriend Jessica Faulkenberry waited outside with her two children and a change of clothing for Conway. 

    Police dogs eventually tracked Conway to the apartment where the couple lived. 

    Faulkenberry, who is 23, was sentenced to three years in prison after she pleaded guilty to two counts of child endangerment

     

    Which goes to show, prosecution can happen, and crime often requires some enablement, somewhere along the line.  

     

    • Child sexual abusers (sometimes) are kept in prison even too long, on the basis of their danger to society:

    Supreme Court to review sex offender law

    The top court agrees to assess a law that lets the US government indefinitely detain sex offenders even after they have served their sentences.

    By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

    from the June 22, 2009 edition WASHINGTON – The US Supreme Court has agreed to decide the constitutionality of a law that allows the federal government to indefinitely detain a person deemed “sexually dangerous,” even after that person has finished serving a full prison sentence.

    The issue arises in the case of a man who has been confined to a North Carolina federal prison for more than two years after completing his three-year sentence for receiving child pornography. The man, Graydon Earl Comstock, has no firm release date.   (When it comes to child safety in particular)  {{WHO WAS DISTRIBUTING IN THAT CASE?}}

    The provision in question was passed as part of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. It authorizes the attorney general to seek the court-ordered, open-ended civil commitment of any “sexually dangerous person” already in US custody.

    The measure is controversial in part because it relies on anticipation of future dangerousness to society, rather than actual or planned violations of law.

    Although this is being appealed, someone decided to keep the person in jail, just as they decided to check out Bob Dylan.

     

    • However, the buff, stalking Frank Frisco with a criminal record was released, to allegedly commit murder & suicide.  So much for nearly 20 years of lethality assessments from experts.  5 hours later, she were both dead, making him a murderer.  He then hung himself.    Was it the mental hospital time?  The indignation of being arrested for a crime?  The distraught rebuffed suitor?  The debt?  The inability to handle loss?  

    • Who knows, but it WAS someone letting this man out of jail before that woman was truly safe.  

    Go figure…  

     

    Now let’s have an honest talk about expecting protection from public officials or actions, after reading this editorial (not article) on the same murder/suicide that happened 5 hours after he was released, obviously hopping mad on a few accounts:  marriage cancelled, thievery being caught (he’d stolen from his fiance), public humiliation at last-minute cancellation of the marriage, probably anger at child support arrears, and being caught at THAT, plus being called on his behavior in public.  He had been twice rejected (or failed) in marriage and was apparently not about to “get some” in the home front, and in short, the guy had been confronted on his behavior.  I also read (elsewhere) that Ocean County employment was 6.2% last year, and 10% this year.  Who knows what the terms of his divorce were?  But this does not appear to be the type of guy who is going to go too long without a woman companion (judging by the overlap between EX and NEW).  

     

    [Same murder/suicide, Toms River, editorial]:  Tighter Restraints Needed on Domestic Violence:  app.com editorial


    A police-officer friend of Letizia Zindell says she “did everything right” in abiding by the rules of the permanent restraining order she had against her ex-fiance. Each time he violated it, she called the police and he was arrested. That didn’t stop him from getting out of jail on obscenely low bail and killing her. . . . 

     

    STOP!  Correction!  Was it a jailbreak or was he let out on obscenely low bail?  I read, he made bail and was then kept longer due to child support arrears, and then “inexplicably” — and until I see a court document or minutes of a hearing or decision, I don’t have the explanation) he was released.  This required an order, and someone following an order.  I also haven’t seen or heard how or when this woman was notified of his release. 

     

    Earlier last year [2008], Ocean County Prosecutor Marlene Lynch Ford vowed to change the way domestic violence cases were handled in Ocean County after a Stafford woman was stabbed to death by her ex-boyfriend two hours after he was released from jail when charges against him for a domestic violence incident were downgraded. One assistant prosecutor called the events leading up to the murder a “perfect storm of domestic violence.” Sadly, Zindell’s murder shows perfect storms aren’t rarities.

     

    In other words — it not being their lives, their families at stake — the prosecutor reframed the truth back then, too, diverting the discussion away from system failures to the generic term “domestic violence.  This does not appear to have stemmed the flow of federal funds to stop exactly this type of event (see subject line, see resources at end of this post).


    The similarities in the two cases are striking. Bruce Burgess, who killed Tesha Lightsey on Jan. 8, 2008, was arrested on consecutive days for domestic violence disturbances. He was released from jail five days later, after the Prosecutor’s Office decided not to pursue an indictment on charges that he threatened her. Frisco, who was arrested repeatedly and phoned and e-mailed Zindell after his restraining order was made permanent, also was released after five days. He met bail on domestic violence charges the Friday he was arrested, but was held in jail until Wednesday because he owed more than $25,000 in back child support. Inexplicably, he was released without paying any of it.

    When Lightsey was killed last year, concerns were raised that the brief jail time for domestic violence offenses was looked upon by the justice system as a “cooling off” period. In the Lightsey and Zindell cases, those five days were more likely a time of festering emotions – emotions that culminated in two deaths only hours after the attackers were released.

    State Sen. Robert Singer, R-Ocean, sits on the Health, Human Services and Senior Citizens Committee. He should work with the county Prosecutor’s Office and state law enforcement groups to develop legislation aimed at better protecting victims of domestic violence from their abusers.

    Zindell did everything right. It wasn’t enough to save her life. The laws need to be changed to prevent others from suffering a similar fate.

     

    No, Zindell did not do everything right.  First of all, she had everything going for her, was still relatively young (maybe not in shore culture, but she was!) and went picked the wrong man — or let him pick her.  Why become involved with an older man, an ex-wife, 3 boys and debt?  What was the prior history with relationships — was he the first significant one?

    She lacked information to realize who this man was, and apparently didn’t run a criminal background check on the guy before he moved in.  She was still young (relatively) and perhaps didn’t realize what this guy had at stake in “winning,” and like a lot of 2nd women is taken in, thinking the difficulties perhaps must have been that first “bitch” woman treated him wrong  Of course I have no idea of Ms. Zindell thought this, but I’ve seen it plenty.  There are vulnerabilities.

    I can understand her not wanting to give up a  good career and move out of state.  But this ended up with loss of life (so much for job first).   She possibly (been there, done that) was thinking that sending a clear message would be heard by this person.  She thought the police would do the right thing, the prosecutors would do the right thing, and being probably involved in her job, wasn’t paying close attention to the statistics, the “DV” stuff that someone who’s gone through it might.  I cannot say of course anything about what wa sin the mind, but the fact is, the responsibility to protect DOES lie with the individual, and one of THE most dangerous things any woman could do (or attitudes to adopt) is to think that anything less than full safety and full protection is acceptable.  She did not have children by this man (which changes dynamics).   She didn’t have sufficient people around her urgently enough (or trusting them if they were urgent) to know a good one from a bad one based on behaviors, or past behaviors.   

     

    Even so, Ocean County screwed up, and doesn’t seem very apologetic about it.  Judge accordingly, if this is a situation of someone you care about, or yourself.  Assumptions are not bliss, facts are.  

     

    Let’s read this account — there are a few points where more vigilance might have saved a life — do you know or see what they were?  Do you see how the vulnerability?  The following is the most complete article I’ve seen yet, giving more of her background, more details on the arrest record (although NOTHING on why he was released!), and who she packed up and was moving out.

    http://beta.app.com/article/20090814/NEWS/90815005/1401/news05

     

    . . . . 

    She was an only child.

    She was a young superstar with a  big heart, obviously, and dedicated in social service and helping others (like this dude, too).

    Her father had died, after approving the marriage to this man (DAD, where was YOUR head at?)

    A male friend left her alone after she packed some things to move out.  DID SHE KNOW HE”D BEEN RELEASED?  REALLY?

    Although someone posted bail for the theft, bad checks and restraining order charges, the court ordered him held on outstanding child support of $25,870.36, officials said. The court then released him Wednesday without the payment. {{THAT”S WHAT TO INVESTIGATE!}} On Wednesday at 5:10 p.m., Zindell learned he was being released, authorities said.  {{This is hearsay, at least to us.  Where’s the proof?}}

    That evening, she and a male friend went to her Lafayette Avenue home and she packed some of her things. They parted about 10 p.m. — ((And that was the last fatal mistake.  Better to “book it” with the clothes on her back — and out of the area, FAST, NOW — then think later.  #2 — if her friends knew, why was she ever left alone, especially being so popular?  A woman’s life was at risk — surely someone could have taken her in, or a shelter….  )) the last time she was seen alive, police said.

     

    Now, about that NJ $86 million for public safety and law  . . . . . 

     

    WIKIPEDIA:

     

    The New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety is a governmental agency in the U.S. state of New Jersey that focuses on protection of the lives and property of New Jersey residents and visitors. The department operates under the supervision of the New Jersey Attorney General. The department is are responsible for safeguarding “civil and consumer rights, promoting highway traffic safety, maintaining public confidence in the alcoholic beverage, gaming and racing industries and providing legal services and counsel to other state agencies.”[1]

     

    Notice:  public confidence in (several income-producing industries in NJ) and providing legal services and counsel — not to individuals, but to state agencies.  Atlantic City (Southern Jersey, where this crime occurred) is a center of these industries.  

    (The NJ Attorney General is an office, per wikipedia, that goes back to 1704, pre-U.S., and is too colorful to deal with here, although I note that in recent years, a Latina Attorney General, “Farber” was forced to resign over driving and traffic ticket and alleged ethical violations but in the larger context, well, she wasn’t Republican….. . .Despite the traffic record / behaviors, she sounds like an amazing person, having come from Cuba at age 16 to later become Attorney General of NJ!   

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zulima_Farber 

    NJ.Gov Offfice of Attorney General Bio

    However, my interest in this department comes from the amount of federal funds it is receiving under prevention of Violence Against Women, including “formula grants” to prevent violence against women.  I want to know why Frisco was given a low bail.

     

    This department prosecutes public corruption as in (this just in Aug. 14th):

    Morris County Sheriff’s Officer Pleads Guilty to Extortion for Demanding Money from Inmate for Special Treatment in Jail

    TRENTON – Attorney General Anne Milgram announced that a suspended Morris County sheriff’s officer pleaded guilty today to demanding $60,000 from an inmate in the county jail in return for giving him special treatment.

    According to Criminal Justice Director Deborah L. Gramiccioni, Lee C. Maimone, 43, of Mount Olive, pleaded guilty to second-degree theft by extortion before Superior Court Judge John B. Dangler in Morris County. Under the plea agreement, the state will recommend that Maimone be sentenced to five years in state prison. The state required him to forfeit his job as a sheriff’s officer and be permanently barred from public employment in New Jersey.

    In pleading guilty, Maimone admitted that he demanded that an inmate in the Morris County Jail pay him $60,000 in return for favorable treatment. Maimone admitted that he offered to provide favorable testimony or information about the inmate in disciplinary matters in the jail if he was paid, but threatened to withhold such information if he did not receive the money. Maimone admitted that he accepted $2,000 as partial payment of the money from an undercover New Jersey State Police detective posing as the inmate’s girlfriend.

    Maimone has been suspended without pay from his job with the Morris County Sheriff’s Office since Feb. 26, when he was charged by criminal complaint.

    Maimone was charged as a result of an investigation by the New Jersey State Police Official Corruption Unit, the Division of Criminal Justice and the Morris County Prosecutor’s Office. The Morris County Sheriff’s Office assisted in the investigation.

    Kind of makes you think, eh? Why wasn’t Frisco’s behind in jail?  Another article I reviewed showed that WITHIN about 5 hours of his release, he had killed Ms. Zindell.  Ms. Zindell was staying with “friends” however, he had been at a rehearsal dinner, and likely knew who some of her friends were.  See donnasavage.com — Victim Safety Plan.  

     

    OR, announced August 5, 09 (2007 crimes)

    Hillside Police Officer Pleads Guilty to Stealing Funds from Homelessness Prevention Program

    TRENTON – Attorney General Anne Milgram announced that a Hillside police officer pleaded guilty today to stealing funds from the Homelessness Prevention Program administered by the state Department of Community Affairs.

    According to Criminal Justice Director Deborah L. Gramiccioni, Vitor “Victor” Pedreiras, 32, of Hillside, pleaded guilty to third-degree theft by deception before Superior Court Judge Robert Billmeier in Mercer County. The charge was contained in an Aug. 14, 2007 state grand jury indictment.

    Now, this was the tip of the iceberg, apparently in stealing from the “Homelessness Prevention Program (HPP) by Dept. of Community Affairs (“DCA”) — read on:

    Judge Billmeier scheduled sentencing for Oct. 29. The state will recommend a sentence of 364 days in county jail as a condition of a term of probation. The judge today signed an order removing Pedreiras from his job as a police officer and permanently barring him from public employment. He had been suspended by the police department since the indictment was returned.

    In pleading guilty, Pedreiras admitted that he falsely submitted – and assisted his girlfriend in falsely submitting – four fraudulent applications for grants totaling $14,963 under the Homelessness Prevention Program. Pedreiras’ girlfriend, Joana Pereira, 27, of Newark, formerly known as Joana Rodrigues, pleaded guilty on Feb. 21, 2007 to charges of third-degree theft by deception. Under their plea agreements, Pedreiras and Pereira are required to pay restitution to the Department of Community Affairs of $14,963.

    Pereira, a landlord, admitted she submitted the four fraudulent HPP applications with one of her tenants, Tashime Mitchell, 35, of Irvington, who shared the proceeds with her. Three applications listed Joana Pereira as landlord and listed as tenant either Mitchell, a relative of Mitchell, or a fictitious person. The fourth listed Vitor Pedreiras as landlord and a relative of his as the tenant. Pereira is scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Billmeier on Sept. 3.

    The false applications were submitted to Robin Wheeler-Hicks. Wheeler-Hicks, 50, of Elizabeth, who was formerly the DCA-Union County senior field representative who had responsibility for processing HPP cases in the county, pleaded guilty in March 2006 to stealing more than $866,000 from the Homelessness Prevention Program.

    Let’s run this one by again:  The “senior field representative responsible for processing these cases in the county, stole more than $866,000 from Homeless People who the program existed to serve! 

    She is also scheduled to be sentenced by Judge Billmeier on Sept. 3. The state will recommend that she be sentenced to seven years in state prison.

    The Homelessness Prevention Program (HPP) provides grants to eligible individuals and families who, through no fault of their own, are in jeopardy of becoming homeless. It provides money to pay rent to keep a family in a current home, and provides applicants with two months rent and security deposit for a new residence if they have been forced out of their home.

    Guess what — were this my state, this would refer to me.  I do not feel responsible for any of the crimes committed against me, for failing to report them, and failing to avoid becoming a target of them.  Nevertheless, there is this other system, called “family law” which does not fully recognize criminal behavior as criminal.  A major organization and conferencer, publisher, writer, and (some of us have recently learned) co-recipient of grants to STUDY domestic violence, has itself stated, in its own “about us” history, that it wishes to de-emphasize the “old-fashioned” terminology in criminal law in favor of, well, more behavioral terminology.  The systems of grants affects this.  

    Pause for Homespun wisdom:

    Public service does indeed attract public servants, as a field.  Fields of public service which entail a lot of authority over others’ lives also attract people who really LIKE a lot of authority over other people’s lives.  AND, grant streams attract both public servants, who wish to help the intended recipients of those grants, AND people of criminal intent (or act least actions) who realize they can DIVERT such funds for themselves, relatives, girlfriends/boyfriends, and so forth.  This goes up to judge level and attorney level, and at some point, one has to understand and accept that human nature throughout society runs the gamut from bad to good.  The assumption that all in certain programs are “good” is simply naive.  And all too common.  

     

    I found out about this AFCC after years of criminal behavior towards my daughters and me, and one other relative, resulting in chronic poverty from chronic employment loss, underemployment, related distresses (including PTSD, which was gone, and returned in a certain year), and returning to an “at-risk” situation I wasn’t in beforehand:

    WHO IS AFCC (briefly, organization website):

    What is AFCC?

    AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.**  

    {{NOTE:  THIS DOES NOT SAY “LAW” OR ENSURING JUSTICE.  Though many court professionals are AFCC members, law and order are not — not even on the mission statement — of this organization. }}  {{i.e., They are a self-appointed, evangelistic in nature organization on a mission to heal families.  That’s fine, but that’s not what the legal process is about, which is ensuring due process and a just decision based on the facts in evidence.}}

     

    **Quick Glossary/jargon primer:  Remember last post, when (at bottom), I mentioned that the word “abuse” is a downgrading (minimization) of the word “violence” when referring to “domestic violence”???  Well the word “conflict” is a further downgrading of the same word.  Even though “family conflict” {which attributes mutual responsibility} gets people killed, the truth is, People kill People, not abstract nouns!   In the purpose of government and “unalienable rights” the FIRST one of them is “Life.”  After that, Liberty and pursuit of happiness.  So the rule is, FIRST, protect LIFE.   That’s what government exists for, at least a modicum of protection of human life, both male and female, young and old. 

    (Seems to me Ms. Zindell fell in the cracks somewhere between first and second marriages, and a host of agencies well funded to protect her, and education public, and others, about what to do in these situations, PLUS even more agencies funded to “promote healthy marriages” (nationwide) AND another agency to collect child support on behalf of Mr. Frisco’s 3 (now fatherless) boys – – and this might be partly why.  

    Things just keep getting rephrased and reframed.  Or, correctly phrased, and framed, but when a situation develops, the right actions — the safety actions — don’t happen.  When lives are at stake, mistakes are unacceptable.  Just as when housing (above) is at stake, racketeering, and stealing funds from the program to prevent homelessness by a program employee is not acceptable, either.  And that time, got caught.  . . . . . .

    So back to AFCC (and yes, this DOES relate)…..

                   AFCC members are:

    Judges Lawyers
    Mediators Psychologists
    Researchers Academics
    Counselors Court Commissioners
    Custody Evaluators Parenting Coordinators
    Court Administrators Social Workers
    Parent Educators Financial Planners

    [[What about “parents” ?? Are they invited/welcomed/recruited, too??]]

     

    {{As such, these professionals, about whom many litigants are blissfully (til their decisions are handed down) unaware, are participating in an organization which has a mission to transform society and use the legal venue for behavioral science purposes.  This, it has done.}}

    That’s a whole lot of people dedicated to addressing family conflict.  (And a whole lot of livelihoods.  If this issue of family conflict were actually fixed, or drastically reduced, what would these people then do for a living?).   Incidentally, the term “court commissioners” is where the child support appears to come in, at least in my state. This also seems (to me) to show a certain conflict of interest.  Do you see the category “parents” in there?  While many of these, naturally ARE themselves parents, one has to wonder how the parents themselves, the litigants, are going to be able to financially sustain the burden of all those professions.

    The good news is, they don’t.  See federal grants to states.  

    The bad news is, the federal government still gets its money from taxes.  And when AFCC professionals faced with a divided interest between AFCC goals and US Constitution goals, they are as likely as you or I to say, what’s in it for me, where’s the money, and go with those they know better and have longer-term social and professional relationships with.  In other words, it’s an ethical issue.

    They push through policies without clearing it with the American public.  This is an “in loco parentis” situation, and wrong.

     

    Maybe these conflict of interest, or diversion of tax funds (by artificially prolonging court cases, and referring jobs to cohorts) is just a sporadic exception, and not really significant.

    Kind of like domestic violence.  I mean, abuse.  I mean family conflict.  I mean a domestic dispute.   Like that one that erupted recently at a California toll plaza.  Oops, excuse me, the 2nd article said it was a cold-blooded setup, not a hot-blooded distraught person.. . . . . .  Maybe it’s not that common. . . . . 

     

    OK, CONTEXT:  AFCC wishes to downgrade the use of criminal language in family conflict contexts:

     

    The [Family Court] Review began to establish itself as a significant publication, having grown in size and scope and served as a harbinger of things to come for family courts worldwide.  The September 1970 issue featured an article titled, “The Modern Family Rescue Team—Judge, Lawyer and Behavioral Scientist,” by Andrew S. Watson, M.D. (M.D., not “J.D.” !!) . . .

     In that same [1970] issue, Jack Bradford and Jean Brindley, marriage counselors from the Third Judicial Circuit in Detroit, wrote about group orientation and group intake processes, a precursor to the parent education programs that would proliferate so dramatically two decades later.

    In 1975, Review Editor Meyer Elkin editorialized on the language of family law:

    Why do we continue to use the language of criminal law in family law? Is it primarily tradition that causes us to continue to use the old words in family law? ..We need to develop new words…Family law is entering a new period.  There is now present an opportunity [sic] for introducing new practices and procedures—and words that will represent the combined expertise of both law and the behavioral sciences . . . 

    No thank you.  The law has a form of reason in it, and procedures and safeguards.  The behavioral sciences are a created industry with a humanistic view, and in the hands of people with religious zeal to transform society — well the history of religion has its own bloody footprints.  No thank you.  I’ll go for sound reasoning and truth, every time — factual truth.  As did this prosecution team which caught a county employee for a homeless program stealing money from the homeless it was intended to serve!

    . . .

    who, after all, are equally concerned and have similar goals {{false!}} regarding the strengthening of the family. {{false!  The law is about due process and justice, for individual torts (civil) and crimes (penal codes)}}.   Let us now start the search for the words.

    AFCC members and courts continued to lead the way in developing new services throughout the 1970s.  In 1973, the Los Angeles Conciliation Court began a pilot program to mediate custody and visitation disputes.  ((When criminal violence and life-threatening or injury-causing behavior has already occurred, it does not comprise the situation “disputes” and calling it that is a falsehood, and intentional twisting of meaning for a desired purpose)).

     

    Back to:  Hillside [NJ] Police Officer Pleads Guilty to Stealing Funds from Homelessness Prevention Program, in context of NJ Dept. of Public Law & Safety, and their $86 million to save people like Zindell and Frisco, and the others listed in my last post, state of NJ, 1998-2008, one newspaper’s accounts only, excerpts only:

    Mitchell and Renita Livingston, 35, of Hillside, previously pleaded guilty to assisting Wheeler-Hicks in submitting numerous false HPP applications. Mitchell pleaded guilty to bribery and was sentenced on Nov. 3, 2006 to five years in prison. Livingston pleaded guilty to conspiracy and was sentenced on Dec. 15, 2006 to three years in prison. Mitchell was ordered to pay $29,000 in restitution, and Livingston, $10,500.

    The charges resulted from an investigation by the Division of Criminal Justice and New Jersey State Police. Nine other defendants have pleaded guilty, including two former DCA employees who received probation and four corporations. All of the defendants were required to pay restitution to DCA.

    HAVE they?  Are the other defendants in jail?  If so, why are the former DCA employees on probation and not in jail.  Are the four corporations still doing business, and where can the NJ public be told who they are?

    The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) alerted the Division of Criminal Justice when program officials uncovered questionable applications and transactions involving the Homelessness Prevention Program in Union County. The DCA provided administrative resources and investigative assistance to the Division of Criminal Justice and State Police throughout the investigation.

     

    In other words, although fully 5 DCA employees were corrupt, we got lucky and the DCA self-reported this corruption.  Maybe it was a few good eggs.  Maybe it was enough good eggs afraid of being associated with the bad eggs.  This is why I MUCH prefer the, let’s have the citizens go get accountability for programs involved in our lives — ourselves — rather than hope some appointed, funded experts are doing it.  This isn’t Disneyland, and our minds shouldn’t be living there.  Maybe Disney has something to do with why public minds went one way, while criminal minds, the other, I don’t know.  

    NJ, admittedly, has its hands full with “real” crimes, as opposed to domestic family disputes — drugs, gangs, and so forth, as was (coincidentally, same day as this article on the homeless program embezzlements) announced earlier this month:

    Governor Corzine Announces Dramatic Decline in Homicides in Camden City

    as Statewide Violence Reduction Initiative Nets More than 980 Arrests in 14 Months

    Homicides in Camden this year down 46 percent

    GOVERNOR’S STRATEGY FOR SAFE STREETS AND NEIGHBORHOODS (MAP SHOWS NJ HOMICIDES BY COUNTY)

    Governor Corzine and Attorney General Milgram Announce Dramatic Decline in Homicides in New Jersey as Statewide Violence Reduction Initiative Nets More than 4,200 Arrests in 14 Months
    New CrimeTrack program unveiled

     

    Yet there was funding to help this situation coming to NJ, per the OAG website.   I had some trouble with select, copy, paste, and encourage viewers to check the URL instead:  I just saw several that related to violence against women, that’s all:

     

    • STOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA)

    The STOP Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Grant Program provides the State Office of Victim-Witness Advocacy (SOVWA) a formula grant allocation under the Violence Against Women Act, authorized for funding in the 1994 Crime Bill. Federal rules allow 10% of the total VAWA award to be used to administer the grant program. The balance of the funding must be allocated as follows: 25% to law enforcement, 25% to prosecution, 30% to victims services, 15% discretionary and 5% to courts. Pursuant to new federal regulations, in 2003 the Division of Criminal Justice and SOVWA formed a statewide VAWA Advisory Committee to develop a Three-Year Implementation Plan, approved by the Office of Violence Against Women, to ensure continuation of services, opportunities for program expansions and introduction of new program

     

     

    • VOCA Victim Assistance Program
     

    The Office of Victims of Crime (OVC) provides the State Office of Victim-Witness Advocacy (SOVWA) formula allocations under the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Victim Assistance Grant Program. SOVWA awards these funds to subgrantees who provide direct services to crime victims. VOCA guidelines allow for up to 5% of each year’s grant to be used to administer the Program. State grantees also have the option of retaining up to 1% of each year’s grant for conducting statewide and/or regional trainings for victim services staff. VOCA enumerates the types of direct services eligible for funding under this grant program. A minimum allocation of 10% must be awarded to subgrantees providing direct services to crime victims in each of the four categories: sexual assault, domestic violence, child abuse, and underserved populations as victims with disabilities, language barriers, living in isolated locations and homicide survivors (as determined by the state grantee). This allocation requirement may be waived if the state grantee can document to OVC that a category of crime victims is currently receiving a significant amount of financial assistance from the state or other funding sources, a smaller amount of financial assistance or no assistance is needed or crime rates have diminished for the particular type of crime. VOCA funds are awarded to each of the 21 County Prosecutors’ Offices of Victim-Witness Advocacy, SANE/SART programs and DCJ programs (NJ VINE, Bias Crimes, Victim Services). SOVWA also provides direct funding to non-profit victim services agencies through the competitive Notice of Availability of Funds (NOAF).

     

     

    • NJ Victim Assistance Grant Program

    The federal Office for Victims of Crime provides the State Office of Victim Witness Advocacy (SOVWA) formula allocations under the VOCA Victim Assistance grant program. These funds are used by the SOVWA to provide direct services to crime victims. The Victims of Crime Act enumerates the kinds of services that are eligible for funding under this grant program. Funds from this program are awarded to the county offices of Victim Witness Advocacy in each of the 21 county Prosecutors’ offices. Additionally, the SOVWA also provides direct funding to victim services agencies through the competitive Notice of Availability of Funds (NOAF) process.

     

    Were there not program initiatives to help Ms. Zindell make a healthier marital choice?  I mean this is definitely a going concern:  
    Healthy Marriages and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.  Here are the current grantees, nationwide, under both categories (BUT- – one program#, making it a little hard to differentiate fatherhood programs from abstinence programs, from what-nots.   

    NJ’s only recent “current” grants — although this is only relative to the website above) Fatherhood program was:

     

    5 New Jersey Department of Corrections Trenton NJ $334,366

    Maybe that might take a little consideration — are we missing something, between the Steven Stosny’s Compassion Boot Camp philosophy, as expressed through court-ordered batterer’s treatment programs run by Catholic Charities, and going into prisons to teach fatherhood, but somehow, something missed Mr. Frisco in the mix.  I guess choice still exists…

     

    I think it possibly likely that Ms. Zindell did not see herself as a victim of domestic violence, although it’s clear she took protective measures.  She was living with, but not married to this man.  The amount of resources by county, available in NJ, is almost stunning:

    http://www.state.nj.us/dca/divisions/dow/resources/countyresourcesdv.html

    However the only reference in OCEAN county is to Catholic Charities. Even so. . . . one needs the vocabulary and understanding to take action.  In looking at these NJ departments, there are some for “Children and Families” and for “Human Services” but none that actually SAY  “Women” on them.  There is a Victim Services department.  Typically, we do not exist as a gender, only as a family function, too often (I say).  There are no children without women’s participation.  And yet, we don’t have an identity.  “Children” do.  “Families” do.  Interesting.

    http://www.state.nj.us/nj/gov/deptserv/

     

     

     

     

    Some funding that went to NJ Public Law and Safety — straight to the government, per a site “USASPENDING.GOV”

    (use with caution, but it’s at least  an indicator).

    The bar chart represents the years this database covers:  2000 – 2009

    Bar chart: info duplicated below as table

    Federal dollars: $86,760,774
    Total number of recipients: 4            

    (actually, this is one recipient with

    4 different versions of its name;

    there is a common recipient ID number for this database that I used to search on).
    Total number of transactions: 39

    Categories of assistance (these are “program ID” numbers).

     

     

     

    16.803 $29,754,315
     16.575: Crime Victim Assistance $19,037,000
     16.738: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program $10,412,521
     16.588: Violence Against Women Formula Grants $9,335,840
     16.540: Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States $3,176,040

     

     

     

    Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located Known Congressional District help link

     New Jersey 04 (Christopher H. Smith) $85,588,583

    Top 10 Recipients

     New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safet $84,274,079
     State of New Jersey, Department of Law & Publ $2,263,250
     State of NJ, Dept. of Law & Public Safety $188,445
     State of New Jersey, Department of Law and Pu $35,000

    Recipient Type

    Government $86,760,774
    Other $0
    Nonprofits $0
    Higher Education $0
    For Profits $0
    Individuals $0

     

     

    This is all I can handle for today.  I just reviewed some of the scams caught by this agency.  I still think $86 million is a lot to account for, and wonder “what happened” in this incident.  However, by the time someone figures out, there will be more, and similar.  Take care of those closest to you and assume nothing.  

    As to faith-based institutions, NJ at least caught these folks.  . . .  BUT — notice the fields they earned money in!

     

    Pastors of Morris County Church to Reimburse Congregants for Misappropriated Donations

    NEWARK – The pastors of a Randolph-based church who were accused of diverting congregation donations for their own personal use, including purchase of 78-foot schooner and a $1.6 million property in Mendham, have agreed to reimburse donors and immediately resign from the church’s board.

    Additionally, a fiscal monitor will take control of the banking and financial accounts maintained by Church Alive, Inc., which also is known as Randolph Christian Church, Inc. The church is a non-profit corporation located at 791 Route 10 in Randolph.

    Eric Simons and his wife, Marianne, who are pastor and assistant pastor of the church, and Philip DuPlessis, an assistant pastor at the church, also are barred for 10 years from serving on any financial board. DuPlessis’ wife, Sharon, is an assistant pastor at the church but she is not a respondent in this settlement.

    “These church leaders asked for donations for the betterment of the congregation but in reality they misused these monies for their own personal gain,” Attorney General Anne Milgram said. “We remain vigilant in enforcing the state’s charities laws and we will continue to hold accountable those who attempt to cheat donors.”

    Congregants were told their donations would be put into a Building Fund. Instead, the donations were comingled with other church funds that were solely controlled by the Simonses and DuPlessises. In addition to the schooner and property, they paid themselves “honorarium” totaling $150,000 and also spent $39,395 on “life-coaching” classes and a “life-coaching” license for Eric Simons. Simons operates a for-profit “life-coaching” business. The church itself holds the license.

    <<GEE, sounds like National Fatherhood Initiative (same business!)>>


    “These pastors violated the trust of donors, claiming the donations would fund a new building. Instead, by controlling the donated funds without any oversight, they spent lavishly on themselves. Donors need to be vigilant and check with our Charities Registration Unit before giving their hard-earned dollars to any charitable or non-profit group,” said David Szuchman, Consumer Affairs Director.

     

    {{{DOES THIS ALSO APPLY TO OUR FEDERAl, STATE, COUNTY & LOCAL GOVERNMENTS GIVING TO CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS?}}

    The church is required to appoint an official board within 30 days, under terms of the Consent Order with the state. The board is required to review the employment status of all church employees, including the Simonses and DuPlessises, as well as all financial records and report back to the Division of Consumer Affairs.

    The board will determine the sales prospects for the Mendham property, which is located at 14 Kingsbrook Court. The Simonses currently reside there.

    The DuPlessises are required to repay the church $125,000 and turn over title and registration to the schooner. Eric Simons and Philip DuPlessis each must repay $50,000, the honoraria which were used to purchase the schooner.

    Eric Simons and Philip DuPlessis also must repay a total of $14,495 as reimbursement for “life-coaching”education. The state will be reimbursed $60,917 for its investigative and legal expenses.

    Deputy Attorneys General Anna M. Lascurain, Chief, Securities Fraud Prosecution Section, and Isabella T. Stempler represented the state in this legal proceeding. Supervising investigator Larry Biondo led the investigative work.

    An online directory of charitable organizations registered in New Jersey can be found atwww.state.nj.us/lps/ca/charity/chardir.htm. Consumers also can call the Charitable Registration Hotline at 973-504-6215. Religious organizations are exempt from having to register but they must comply with the state’s Charities and Non-Profit Corporation laws.