Archive for the ‘Vocabulary Lessons’ Category
WHY won’t we ask WHY judges underestimate lethality risk in domestic violence cases? (papers.SSRN.com)
Before this:
I would like to personally apologize for the lousy hyphenation in the last post. I will bring this to the attention of my webmaster (when I get one). As to blogging, I’m an old dog learning new tricks. As to polishing my blogs — my life still falls under these lethality risk categories, which the abstract below refers to as “Danger Assessment” (“D.A.”, not to be confused with “D.A” meaning “District Attorney” in some jurisdictions), and has for years, and when I feel that the “survival” aspect has changed, I will probably (from thence forward) be more careful.
Til then — and I do realize partly BECAUSE long-term family law entrapments have made long-term planning a “moot point,” I will for the short-term, get them up there, period. I tried about 3 ways yesterday to get the chart within the confines here. I also know that one cannot post a link to this particular database which actually saves the search. Instead, it brings one only to the search page.
If I were a different person, I’d just slap up the article and barely commment on it. All these “Says Who?” and “Why THIS focus in such an important field?” wouldn’t resonate within my mind.
But being who I am (daughter of a research scientist who talked back to ideas, including writing his backtalk to the author in MY books), and also, no longer so credulous about the “helping” institutions / nonprofits that structure most of our environments, for any single promiment assertion — and even moreso for any “intervention” into my life on the supposed basis of helping (and PARTICULARLY) from an expert whose own life — or whose children’s, or friend’s children’s — safety, futures, and course of life are not affected — I will continue to say WHY are only THESE questions being posted, and not other, seemingly obvious ones, and post this as I can.
I‘ve found that the answer to Why Not ask THIS?” usually points to financial emotional involvement, or other vested interests between the theorist and the ongoing business that such an unsolved problem drives in the direction of these fields of theory. (In other words, conflict of interests…)
The other part of “who I am” is someone who experientially understands the profound disinterest shown by court denizens (may I use that word?), and moreso, policy-setters (including judges) in whether or not their decisions actually compromise someone’s safety or solvency, or a child’s contact with the parent who just experienced the switch from custodial to NONcustodial.
(The long sentences is bad writing. I don’t recall this coming from my father, so I’ll take personal responsibility for it. Especially the long sentences with all the parenthetical phrases, which lack a main verb, that I typically see later. I guess my brain’s RAM filled up, and the main subject just dropped off the back end somehow before I got in the matching verb. I’ll work on this, but doubt I’ll join the “Twitter” generation.)
Anyhow, sorry, it’s not on the map, to fix everything, I don’t have time. I will try to get some help on how to quote articles, though, so hyphenation happens. In former work life, I was a stickler on format, down to the commas and unseen spaces, and in fact something of a copyeditor. (Long-term exposure to trauma-producing events DOES change one’s priorities, and thinking, too).
Meanwhile, my policy is to get the information POSTED, and those who care to follow up (are highly motivated to do so) will have some more tools, and possibly ask some questions they might not have thought of before. IN short, I am leaving a track record and a paper trail, in part in CASE something untoward happens. The status quo of my case — and life — since the moment it left renewing a restraining order, and took the exit chute into family law — has been, both inside and outside the court — that if I accepted the current abusive status quo (whatever abusive, work-destroying and income-deleting level it was at), and did NOT try to enforce ANYTHING (or expose prior illegal/criminal activity), then POSSIBLY, like a good little doggie, I might get some tidbits, even POSSIBLY a glimpse of one of my daughters. If not, then escalation.
This same venue applies I believe in the courtroom arena. As domestic violence has been exposed, action on it has mostly been diverted to TALK and TASK FORCES. And publications. As thankful as I am for the developing body of research by all these experts which seemed to validate both my experience and what I wanted to happen, appropriately given the violent background of our marriage, somehow it just never did.
I now believe all this is a stalling technique. The researchers, building their reputations, often have a leisure the “participants” don’t.
The EXPERTS are generally “ABOUT” developing liaisons, alliances, conferences, and sometimes (unfortunately) cronies. The LITIGANTS are NOT invited, generally. This is the EXACT opposite of what I believe those leaving abuse need. They need to be free and self-sufficient as MUCH as possible, and not have to sell their souls — cheap, at the most vulnerable points of life — to the closest available bidder, and cheap, too.
Survivors generally don’t have that long a leash, timewise. The thing they need is safety, and a long enough break from abuse, to get free and economically independent. This goal is intrinsically opposed to what the controller/abuser/batter wants, as we gradually come to learn (I use the “we” as to that category). Any policies which require them to depend in any way upon that batterer are going to be a recipe for trouble, and a chink in the protective armor.
Anyone who has survived BOTH abuse AND then a season in family law (and if they won custody, AND maintained it under a challenge from the ex-abuser; i.e., stalking through family court or otherwise, I think there’s probably one of two main reasons:
1. They already HAVE strong alliances in this venue, and resources (which are a protective factor in leaving abuse, incidentally), OR
2. They REALLY have some savvy, or are with someone who REALLY has some savvy on the HOW to get corruption to “back off.” that requires a different, skeptical, and challenging (whether openly or not) mindset. For example, “I know who’s paying you off.”
Anecdotal:
- An acquaintance of mine (not mentioned anywhere on this blog) recently found evidence that a forensic videotaped interview of her child, one that I think was instrumental in a custody switch, had been tampered with (sections deleted / edited) illegally. That is a powerful tool for her.
- My case has had multiple transcript errors, some of then understandable, but still significant, including getting two individuals’ names confused, and then a significant deletion to a clear, coherent and concise statement I knew that the entire courtroom heard (no expletives, but a pointed comment). The mediator’s report is almost not worth a mention; every one had factual errors, and there were substantial procedural errors, also.
- The bottom line is the judge. The judge is the one who signs the order. Beyond that, in practice, there is the issue of what happens when those are ignored. (What a morass!).
If you don’t understand the dynamic of trying to “please” and “cooperate” with an abuser, or abusive (essentially meaning corrupt and intentionally oppressive, in order to achieve a private — not public — personal benefit, typically related to power or money) organization, then either talk to a woman who got out of such a relationship or pick up Patricia Evans’ “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” and read the chapters about Reality I (Power Over) and Reality II (Cooperation, or whatever its term was).
The family court language AND structures THROUGHOUT talk about sharing, cooperating, mediating, conciliation and so forth. In TRUTH, it’s exceptionally abusive and tyrannical in how this plays out.
So, here’s my attitude: I give credit for altruism where it’s due.
“In God We Trust. Every one else pays cash, upfront.”
“Pays cash”-in the form of evidence of other cases helped, or having stemmed the tide of family wipeouts, or in short whatever the case in point is — and they do so upfront, like an attorney’s retainer. This should go for attorneys and nonprofits alike. Unfortunately in this venue (once in it), often a crisis of some sort provokes a series of hearings.
Operating on hope in this venue is certifiable insanity. Don’t go that route — do your own research, even in a crisis. Do your best to NEVER get caught in a crisis. I did, but the reason was, I kept hoping in the wrong institutions. Leaning on a broken post or fence.
I would like to personally THANK the judge that provided the first restraining order, which enabled me to physically/financially PROVE that even under severe duress, and after a lot of destruction, that with a LITTLE space and a LITTLE support, I could indeed make it financially, emotionally, personally and socially, etc., and so could (have) my daughters. I have already proved that the issue was indeed the abuse, and that with this person out of my household, and not in daily contact, I could manage.
I would also like to personally thank the organization in the city where I lived (it had the word “Family Violence”) in it, even though in several aspects, the order and the process WAS a real screwup, they DID get that initial order. For that I think them, and the mistakes they made, I later called back in. I don’t see that practices have changed in the past 10 years or so. They are beholden to who pays their lease, as we all are, and which MOST people don’t think twice about, but litigants SHOULD.
Well, let’s get to today’s point, which struck a nerve with me, although it was incidental to looking up something else):
I don’t know WHY I ask questions that I don’t see getting asked VERY often among — especially not among — experts in the fields I am an “expert” (absent a Ph.D. saying I am) as to experience AND reading lots of the literature.
TOPIC:
WHY? do judges so underestimate the lethality risk in cases that involve domestic violence?
This abstract of an upcoming social science article proposes that they “just don’t understand,” as do many well-intentioned family court reform movements, which I am not part of for that reason. This upcoming appears to propose that inserting a lethality risk assessment IN the courts — although I think a good thing to publicize — might save lives.
I disagree.
The underlying premise is that the judges, including most or all judges, in these venues care.
Based on experience and hearsay, and headlines, I also disagree.
In fairly recent months, in the United States, we have had (anecdotal from my memory, some details may not be precise):
- An Illinois Governor ousted for corruption.
- Another Governor caught cheating on his wife, although WHY that is actually headline news beats me….
- 2 Pennsylvania judges convicted of taking kickbacks, depriving hundreds of juveniles of their legal rights and sending them into detention or camps at locations the same judges had financial interest in. THey DID get caught, but it took time.
- A Texas area (Fed. District) judge sued for sexual harassment, long term, of some of his female employees.
- This is older, but a NJ (as I recall) judge with last name Thompson was caught traveling to Russia for sex with (as I recall) an underage boy, and also caught substantial child pornography. This was a JUDGE.
The illusion that all people in public office, or working to protect children — or for that matter women — is a dangerous one that needs to be dropped. The motto is not appropriately, “Just Trust Me…” but the Texan “Don’t Tread on Me,” when it comes to governmental representatives on public payrolls. With the vacant space of warm fuzzy feelings of connection in one’s mind, insert principles, and phrases, from the U.S. Bill of Rights AND our Constitution, which our President is sworn to uphold, and if He or should it some day become a She, does not uphold this, He or She should be impeached or “encouraged” to resign.
Side-benefit — you’ll be better informed, and this is great for self-confidence.
This Constitution and those civil and our legal rights (in any individual custody case) are a “use it or lose it proposition.”
The social science of risk assessment may have validity, and I believe many times does, BUT the key issue should be due process in decisions, and afterwards enforcement.
An honest look — and “Let’s Get Honest” — I’ve got a start here, AND some tools on the site — at the finances of our government will show that a way COULD be found to get sufficient law enforcement of existing laws if there were a communal, a corporately communal policy will to do so.
Beyond that, the 2nd Amendment is a crucial one for survivors of Intimate Partner Violence, and it’s time we understood this. Perhaps when more abusers understood that we UNDERSTAND this, they might back off, and let us get back to the other principal issues of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness — or at least a roof over our heads, and food.
Advocacy is necessary, but we need to pay close attention of which of our advocates are advocating for what, HOW they do so (do THEY respect due process, and open communications) and what they are really about. The best advocate in any situation for an individual is the one that has the most at stake, and when it comes to DV, that is, literally, lives, honor, and fortunes, like those (OK, men), who signed, so long ago.
OK: from the valuable site, http://www.SSRN.com, free to join and informative. …. with a warning, it’s not a standalone in “family court matters” — there are major players and publishers also in the courts, whose abstracts I don’t find on here, and a warning that one needs to look at the funding, and in short, spend a good amount of time researching the people in the field to get a grasp of it, I was glad to find this database (huge) on a variety of topics, many of them within “Family Court Matters.”
http://papers.ssrn.com
Lynn McLain
University of Baltimore School of Law
Amanda L. Hitt
Government Accountability Project (GAP)
Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, Fall 2009
Abstract:
(The draft of this article is currently undergoing cite checking and revision by the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society and will be published in final format in the Fall 2009 issue of the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society.)Judges in domestic cases often underestimate the risk to a mother and her children that an angry and abusive father or other intimate partner poses. In a recent Maryland case, for example, {{CASTILLO}} two judges refused to deny a father visitation or require that visitation be supervised, despite the fact that the father had threatened suicide. During the father’s unsupervised visitation, he drowned all three of his children, then attempted to kill himself. {{THE MOTHER IN THE CASE WAS, I THINK, A PEDIATRIC DOCTOR, THE IGNORANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS OUTRAGEOUS – IT WASN”T JUST HEARSAY TESTIMONY AS TO HIS MENTAL STATE}}.{{Or in at least one Maryland case, “Castillo”}
The Danger Assessment tool (the D.A.) developed by a Johns Hopkins Nursing professor and validated by herself and other social scientists shows how much the father’s thoughts of suicide increased the risk that he would commit murder. Had the judges had that Danger Assessment, the children might have been kept safe.
NO, I say, “had the judges had — AND HEEDED — that Danger Assessment”
The attached article does something that we think has never been done before. It takes the D.A., which has been used widely to counsel domestic violence victims, and investigates whether and how it might be admissible in myriad types of court proceedings, both civil family law proceedings and criminal matters. The primary goal is to inform judges of the importance of the impact of the complex of factors in a particular case, including unemployment of the abuser, access to a gun, the presence in the home of children from an earlier relationship, and threats of suicide.
My co-author and I hope this will be a pivotal article that will lead to the taking of steps that result in heightened understanding by judges and provision of greater protection for victims and their children. We suggest (1) how the D.A. evidence may be admissible (or not) under current rules; (2) the possible advisability of amendments to current rules or statutes; and (3) judicial training on the D.A. factors.
Keywords: domestic violence, intimate partners, suicide, homicide, Danger Assessment Tool, family law, visitation, abusers, guns, weapons
JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K49, I18
Accepted Paper Series
<><><><>><><><><><>
This (still being checked for cites) informative paper is available at link above; I recommend reading it.
The “LETHALITY RISK” or “HOMICIDE /FATALITY REVIEW” is not exactly new:
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence
Warning: list of links/titles may trigger PTSD in survivors.
Can you handle this?
1985, by a Ph.D./RN, Jacquelyn Campbell
and possibly the study referred to above:
| DANGER ASSESSMENT, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, PhD, RN. Copyright © 1985, 1988. |
1990, by an attorney, Barbara Hart
Formerly @ PEnnsylvania CADV, now property of MINCAVA (Minnesota; below).
ASSESSING WHETHER BATTERERS WILL KILL, Barbara J. Hart, Esq.,
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1990,
Barbara J. Hart’s Collected Writings, Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, St. Paul, MN.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.
1999, Campbell et al.
Stalking & Femicide
Homicide Studie.
| STALKING AND INTIMATE PARTNER FEMICIDE, Judith M. McFarlane, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Susan Wilt, Carolyn J. Sachs, Yvonne Ulrich and Xiao Xu, Homicide Studies (volume 3, number 4, pages 300-316), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA: November 1999. Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications. |
2000, CDC Epidemiologist
| Maternal (pregnancy) mortality had fallen 99% this century,
except homicides….. |
|
| RESEARCHERS STUNNED BY SCOPE OF SLAYINGS: FURTHER STUDIES NEEDED, MOST AGREE, Donna St. George, Washington Post, Washington, DC: December 19, 2004. Copyright © 1996-2004 The Washington Post Company. |
In the mid-1990s, Cara Krulewitch sat in a dark, cramped file room in the office of the D.C.
medical examiner, poring over autopsies for days that became weeks, then months. She was an
epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, assigned to the District.
Krulewitch wanted to see whether maternal deaths were being undercounted, as was common
elsewhere across the country. Granted access to confidential death files, she assumed she would
find more deaths from medical complications of pregnancy – embolism, infection, hemorrhage –
than anyone knew.
What she stumbled upon instead was a surprising number of homicides:
Krulewitch dug into medical archives and came across a 1992 journal article from Chicago and a
1995 study from New York City. In both, homicide had emerged as a significant cause of
maternal death. It was difficult for the uninitiated to comprehend: Were pregnant women being
killed in notable numbers?
“I didn’t understand it at all,” said Krulewitch, whose study was published in the Journal of
Midwifery & Women’s Health.
Her research came at a time when maternal mortality rates in the United States had fallen a full
99 percent from the last century, with fewer than 500 women a year dying of medical problems
related to childbearing.
Even now, studies that analyze maternal homicide are relatively rare.
One of the most comprehensive studies came from Maryland, where researchers used an array of
case-spotting methods, expecting to find more medical deaths than the state knew about. Instead
they discovered that homicide was the leading cause of death, a finding published in 2001 in the
Journal of the American Medical Association.
In 2002, Massachusetts weighed in with a study that also showed homicide as the top cause of
maternal death, followed by cancer. Two of three homicides involved domestic violence. “This is
clearly a major health problem for women,” said Angela Nannini, who led the study.
2000, Chicago, Women’s Health Risk (collaborative)
2002, West Coast U.S.
| Women’s Nonprofit Justice Center |
| HOW TO INVESTIGATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDE – A GUIDE FOR INVESTIGATING THE PATH LEADING UP TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDES- FOR FRIENDS, ACTIVISTS, JOURNALISTS, AND ALL WHO CARE, Women’s Justice Center, Santa Rosa, CA: 2002.
|
2003, Reuters Health Report
Post-mortem when they didn’t die:
I have some commentary, so am expanding this one:
Many Women at Risk of Being Murdered Don’t Know It
By Alison McCook
Friday, November 28, 2003
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Nearly one half of women who are about to experience an attempt on their lives at the hands of a boyfriend or husband may not realize they are in danger, new research reports.
A look back at warning signs for 30 women who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner revealed that 14 did not know their lives were at risk, and said they were “completely surprised” by the attack. {{ABOUT 1 out of 2}}
Most attacks occurred around the time that women tried to end the relationship. And while nearly all women had experienced previous episodes of abuse and violence from their partners, not all instances had been severe.
These findings suggest that, in some cases, the warning signs that a woman’s life is in danger may be hard to read, lead author Dr. Christina Nicolaidis of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland said.
Nicolaidis and her colleagues interviewed 30 women between the ages of 17 and 54 who had survived an attempted homicide by their current or former boyfriends or husbands. {{NO ONE should have to undergo this!}}
All but two of the women had experienced episodes of violence or controlling behavior, such as stalking or preventing them from going anywhere alone, from the man who tried to kill them.
{{I have been reporting such behavior to professionals in my case both on AND off the record. I have signed statements of witnesses in the file. There was a prior DV restraining order, and I have sustained serious injury already. There were weapons. There has been CONSISTENT stalking, which frightens me – almost as much as the nonresponse to it by others in authority also frightens me. My last “feint” at getting an anti-stalking order was this past spring (I think). The last incident was last month. There is a reason WHY this is being systematically ignored in courts — specifically but not only family courts. But I have also been reporting this to police officers responding to an event since the year 2005 at a minimum. It is COMMON SENSE that stalking resembles the type of stalking actually done of a hunter by its prey. When it comes to people, it has a dual purpose: it may be to kill, or it may be to send a clear message sent to terrorize which (basically) it does. I have a blog here on what this did to my life, almost half a post as I recall. The absolute NON response of too many authorities to this issue tells BOTH the stalker AND the prey that the situation is uncontrolled, and (she) is on her own. I have also been stalked — and I would back this one up in court if challenged — THROUGH other people, and several of them. In order to accommodate this, I have ceased significant contact with these people, explaining why. AFTER all this, my daughters disappeared on an overnight visitation, and they were NOT informed of all the allegations in print and in person by their parent about the situation. This was not done out of love for the girls, I am sure, but as a hostage taking in this unwrapping situation.}} {{Excuse me…..}}
And while 22 of the homicide attempts occurred when women were trying to end their relationships, most women said they were breaking up for reasons other than violence.
Classic risk factors for an attempted homicide by an intimate partner include escalating episodes or severity of violence, threats with or use of weapons, alcohol or drug use, and violence toward children, Nicolaidis noted. While every woman included in the report experienced at least one of these standard signs, they were clearly not all “classic” cases, she added.
“The problem is that we often expect women to come to us describing a life filled with many or all of these risk factors, when in fact there may only be a few (risk factors) buried beneath the surface,” Nicolaidis said.
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Lorrie Elliott of the University of Chicago Medical Center writes that these findings demonstrate that counselors need to recognize that “any level” of physical violence or controlling behavior from a partner can signal a woman’s life is at risk.
{{True, BUT – — BUT – – – it’s judges, and law enforcement that I’ve found need to recognize this, as I did since I left the guy until now.}}
“Curricula on domestic violence should be revised to reflect these findings,” she notes.
{{WHOSE curricula? Because family law pretty much is being “revised” as a profession to dilute this awareness, from my experience.}}
2004, DV Death Review Team, CANADA |
|
| ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CHIEF CORONER: CASE REVIEW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATHS, 2002, Al J. C. O’Marra, BA, MA, LLB, LLM, Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Government of Ontario, CA. Copyright © 2004 Queen’s Printer for Ontario. |
2006, VPC, East Coast USA
Washington, D.C. nonprofit
Homicide Data Analysis
VPC Theme: Gun control (I believe), and Alaska is the Worst
2007 Boston Globe,“Special Report”Theme: Why they kill; Promotion: Upcoming book |
|
| CONTROL ISSUES DRIVE MEN TO KILL SPOUSES – SPECIAL REPORT, Laura Crimaldi, Boston Herald, Boston, MA: September 3, 2007. Copyright© 2007 Boston Herald Inc. Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners.
Batterers who use lethal force against their partners are engaged in a losing game of control that pushes them to kill because otherwise they have no chance of getting their partner to submit, according to a veteran psychologist.
{{As “Let’s Get Honest,” I chime in with my opinion: Except in LITERAL self-defense (not, defense of the ego, or self-concept), as in cops responding to domestic disputes, or a person physically assaulted in certain situations, and even then Killing is a choice, just as abuse is, or any other — especially repeated — criminal behavior. The mark of a person is what he or she will or will NOT allow him or herself to be “pushed” to do. PERIOD. This is pyschology talk, and while it’s true, it still falls short, making linguistic excuses.}}
{{{JUST a note: For at least — at LEAST — SOME major monotheistic religions (all 3, I believe), this is conceived of a divinely-ordained, and a requirement of women. ONE of these religions means “Submission” (I’m told). ANOTHER, this mandate is taken out of context (of itss text), but in my case, was continually “an excuse for the abuse.” ANY policies dealing with such men will have to deal with the issue that to them, failing to control “their women” is sometimes genuinely conceived of as having failed their God. Hence, the killing, to “win.” I have been personally (before separation) warned never to oppose this man or he woudl “escalated” til he wins. From what I can see, that hasn’t changed yet, that dynamic, and there is a track record to display evidence.
When here comes a venue, family law, that tells us to “reconcile” parenting, or almost anything else of importance, with a person holding such a viewpoint, it is basically consigning the relationship, the children, and the target parent, which will be the woman under this religious view, to defending her own life, as the courts aren’t going to. It’s an intolerable situation, and transmits these ideas down, another generation.}}
David Adams, co-founder and co-director of Cambridge-based Emerge, a batterer’s program, is the author of “Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners,” to be published this month by Vanderbilt University Press.
((FYI: NOTE: The other Co-founder and co-director, I believe, was Lundy Bancroft, who I often cite, have posted on, and have a link to. }}
In the book, Adams identifies five types of lethal batterers: the jealous partner, the suicidal partner, the career criminal, the substance abuser and the materially motivated partner.
Adams interviewed 31 men who killed their female partners as well as women who were nearly killed by their batterers. {{From the Horse’s mouths. If reported well, I’d listen!}}
He said the men who resorted to fatal force were “possessive,” “more controlling” and tended to come from households where they witnessed abusive fathers beat their mothers. At some point in their lives, the men decided to mold their behavior after their father’s behavior, he said.
“For many of the killers that I interviewed, some of them said that they had in effect lost – that they had lost a relationship, lost the partner that they only fought to control and the only thing left was to kill,” Adams said. “It was the ultimate act of control, but also an ultimate act of defeat.
|
June, 2009, Public Health Perspective;
The effect of TV News items on IPV deaths
Conclusion: Given the results observed in the case of IPV-related news, t
here is an evident need to develop a journalistic style guide in order to determine what type of information is recommended due to the potential positive or negative effects.
Keywords: battered women, copycat, femicide, mass media.
I’ll be back tomorrow. BUT — do we think there is a need to study the topic some more? Or to take a woman seriously when
she expresses this concern?
I am so far beyond “reporting” or being aware of these things, PAST the point where I realize who is not interested, and now
working on the WHY are they not interested in the places that have the MOST authority to do something about it.
In the meanwhile, self-defense and safety awareness skills count. A lot.
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Radical Idea — Enforce Existing Custody Laws . . and the rest…
(and, “HOW MUCH TIME AND HOW MANY EXPERTS WILL IT TAKE TO FIGURE THIS OUT?”)
This post is in response to, gradually, retroactively, discovering what was published, conferenced, said, explicated, implicated, rationalized, demonstrated, and nationalized during the past ten (or so) years since I filed a domestic violence restraining order, and found out that this person was NOT an isolated, deeply disturbed, person, but was in fact living out a systematic creed, which thrived better in certain types of schizoid linguistic neighborhoods than others — such as, faith institutions and family court.
It is not one of my better posts, except for a few graphics. HOWEVER, I do feel it’s truthful.
What one wants, in the field of Domestic Violence, is STOPPING it. Not theory, but results.
However, unlike in, say music, where there is a range of audiences, many of them who pay, in THIS field, there is a fountain of funding for theorists. Not content to actually work on getting laws enforced, and saving lives, there is constant, constant tinkering, reframing, training, talking and (you get the picture). Well, if you don’t, here’s one:
This pie chart shows Federal Spending by Federal Department:
FEDERAL SPENDING FY 2009 YTD
(legend at the link). PURPLE is Health and Human Services. RUST– is Education
RUST is what we were supposed to learn from “Zero to 5” and from “K-12” (and beyond) but didn’t about behavior ethics and character, as well as the usual academic whatnot (reading, writing, counting, obeying rules, doing homework, working hard, and not joining gangs or impregnating/getting impregnated before one is, say at least 16 or 17 years old….)
PURPLE — that’s primarily catchup, at this point -_ healthy families, responsible fatherhood, early heard start, child development, and many many more things (Including some fantastic funding for more scientific research, medical, and so forth).
Despite the majority of federal spending going there, we are behind in education, and people are still killing spouses and/or children after divorce, or over the issue of child support, even. Children are kidnapped over these issues, traumatizing them and burdening society further.
Grants, once established, are like the energizer battery, and just keep on going, going, going for the most part. WHO is reporting WHAT as to the results?
Are results measured by people who go through the programs (a headcount) or by the headlines? As finances are a major predictor and risk factor in otherwise stressed relationships, perhaps we ought to find out what’s happening to these finances.
SO, I put it this way,. . . .
If a “lightbulb” going off signifies “Aha!” — understanding, my question is, . . .
How many social science, legal, and
court-associated experts does it take
to UNscrew a lightbulb?
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/light-bulb-ban.jpg
and
My experience, and others’, and the headlines, show that frequent contact with a batterer, including frequent visitation
(however supervised, however accessed, however negotiated) can be hazardous to your physical and mental health.
I never got supervised. As a consequence, I consistently was traumatized, stalked, harrassed, and lost work — and eventually children around this. Because I knew this to be a NOT safe situation, I had to choose between seeing my children, ever (even when court had ordered it), and working steadily, EVER, basically. The exchange was not a 15 minute exchange with court orders poorly written as mine, and going to court to fix this had never resulted in anything (in my case) but significant loss.
It was a traumatic and awful experience every time except for THE first time, when I finally got domestic violence restraining order with kickout and had a little space to begin repairing and rebuilding every area of life this battering thing had knocked out of kilter, including work, relationships, and physically, aspects of the house (not to mention my health).
Now, to find out later, how MANY experts had been practicing how MANY ideas in which areas of the United States (and the funding they got to do this), and how LITTLE actual input from litigants seems to have been sought — a typical list of what are called “stakeholders” doesn’t include the people affected MOST directly: Moms, Dads, and Children. No, the stakeholders, in some people’s view, are the professionals — well it’s saddening they need SO much training to figure out what I (and others) could have easily told them — and what’s already on the rules of court, samples of which I link to below.
BUT, now,
Here comes yet another federal grant to explicate, reframe, and contextualize what the rest of us know needs to be simply STOPPED:
BWJP has been invited to apply for a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women for (1) a demonstration project to develop (2) a framework to guide custody and visitation decisions in cases involving domestic violence. Research on custody and visitation determinations provide(3)troubling evidence that procedures currently in use in family courts often fail to(4) identify, contextualize and account for the occurrence of domestic violence in these cases, and if identified, (5) its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.(My numbers, and color coding, added for commentary, below)….
Let me translate:
(1)
First of all “Demonstration project” means that a few areas around the country will be targeted for experimentation with some new policies (the litigants are generally not going to be told, incidentally). Then, apart again from LITIGANT feedback, as in “we are running a demonstration project and would like your feedback”, but rather, taken from things such as mediation, evaluation, and other statistical reports-from-the-courts (etc.), someone you have never heard of will (without your input) describe, evaluate, and report on this grant. (sometimes there is an uncomfortably close relationship between people GETTING the grants and people EVALUATING the grants).
After that, depending on how that reporting went, it will be expanded nationwide, at government expense, usually.
ONE THING GETS OMITTED: Lots of poor people don’t have internet access, or time to research who’s doing what about them. One aspect of violence is isolation and intentional breakdown of infrastructure. Trust me, (or don’t), most women don’t stick around for abuse, given other viable ways to get out of it. At some point, one figures out the abuser ain’t going to change, and the question then, if not at survival level yet, becomes safest exit. If it is sensed that this exit is about to happen, the controls tighten. TRUST ME, they do.
(2)
“A framework to guide custody and visitation decisions.”
? ? ?
There already IS a framework in place: Laws, and rules of court.
A). Laws. These laws were passed by elected representatives in legislatures, and as such, that’s a fairly FAIR process. When it comes to domestic violence, SOME of these include the word “rebuttable presumption against” and are followed by phrases such as “custody” or “joint custody” and the word “batterer.”
HALFWAY or less through family court process, I figured I’d get smart and look up the pertinent LAWS. Silly me, I didn’t know about the system of federal grants, policies, and that I lived in a nation with a national religion called “Designer Families.”
My point is: There is NOT a need to continue doing this. The framework exists. The only reason to continue conferring more and more is, I can only deduce, to further undermine and restructure it. OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING. . . .. .
Here’s one law(among many) that was deliberately ignored in my case:
278. Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,or conceals a child andmaliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody,or a person of a right to visitation, shall bepunished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt power. (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a defense to a crime charged under this section.This single law was the framework that crumbled about 1-1/2 years prior to my starting this blog.
Along with the pre-existing (to that crime) employment. I guess someone had been explicating andtraining court personnel out of remembering this, and instead to reward this (criminal) endeavorwith a custody switch.The law is fairly reasonable in certain areas pertaining to domestic violence. For example, it’s either a misdemeanor or a felony.I’m not sure whether child abuse could EVER be less than a felony, but in some venues it’s getting a little hard to tell. Probably, as I say,they are conferencing about how to figure out which is which, and whether they should report, intervene, or ignore. Or apply“therapeutic jurisprudence” to the entire family unit because ONE of them committed a bunch of misdemeanor or felony crimes.
B) Rules of court. Although I was clueless that these existed for most of my case, someone was kind eventually and sent me the list of the local ones, so I KNEW what had been done wrong in my case from start to finish. Now I’m so smart, I even know who makes these rules. There are rules to insure due process, and there ARE rules directed TO mediators about the quality of orders coming out of this.
I was shocked when I read mine. The california ones are at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules
HECK, if you scroll down, you can even read the Code of Judicial Ethics, too.
| California Rules of Court | |
| Title One. Rules Applicable to All Courts (Rules 1.1 – 1.200) | HTML | PDF(190 KB) |
| Title Two. Trial Court Rules (Rules 2.1 – 2.1100) | HTML | PDF(952 KB) |
| Title Three. Civil Rules (Rules 3.1 – 3.2120) | HTML | PDF(1832 KB) |
| Title Four. Criminal Rules (Rules 4.1 – 4.601) | HTML | PDF(5819 KB) |
| Title Five. Family and Juvenile Rules (Rules 5.1 – 5.830) | HTML | PDF(3518 KB) |
| Title Six. [Reserved] | PDF (84 KB) |
| Title Seven. Probate Rules (Rules 7.1 – 7.1101) | HTML | PDF(5978 KB) |
| Title Eight. Appellate Rules (Rules 8.1 – 8.1125) | HTML | PDF(3208 KB) |
| Title Nine. Rules on Law Practice, Attorneys, and Judges (Rules 9.1 – 9.61) | HTML | PDF(549 KB) |
| Title Ten. Judicial Administration Rules (Rules 10.1 – 10.1030) | HTML | PDF(2113 KB) |
| Standards of Judicial Administration (Standards 2.1 – 10.80) | HTML | PDF(775 KB) |
| Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration | PDF (101 KB) |
| Appendix A: Judicial Council Legal Forms List | PDF (510 KB) |
| Appendix B: Liability Limits of a Parent or Guardian Having Custody and Control of a Minor for the Torts of a Minor | PDF (14 KB) |
| Appendix C: Guidelines for the Operation of Family Law Information Centers and Family Law Facilitator Offices | PDF (27 KB) |
| Alternative Format: Complete California Rules of Court in PDF format, compressed into a single .ZIP file. | ZIP of PDF Files (updated: 7/1/2009, 6.79 MB) |
| Code of Judicial Ethics Formal standards of conduct for judges and candidates for judicial office. |
(3)
“procedures currently in use in family court”
Does this mean procedures, as in those that the rules of court mandate, or procedures, as in what actually takes place?
(4)
“identify, contextualize and account for”
Excuse me, “contextualize”??? Maybe the new rules of court will explain this a little better. Does that mean, did the little child see it or not see it, or were they hit in the process? Does this mean, “in context” it was justifiable, I.e., “the devil made me do it!,” or “temporary insanity,” whereas, say, in a criminal or civil court, it would be the mundane misdemeanor worthy of some court action?
(5)
its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.
I’d have to say that’s false. Reporting and identifying this appears to have the result that custody is often switched, according to a document (which I BELIEVE I linked to from BWJP’s site, although I would have to track back on this one).
Family courts traumatize battered women and hand custody to their abusers 37 percent of the time, finds a report released today (5/2008) by the Voices of Women Organizing Project. Latest story in our “Dangerous Trends, Innovative Responses” series.
“The courts’ own rules and regulations are often not followed,” Lob said. “Those kinds of things just seem so blatantly unfair and unreasonable.”
Eighty percent said their abusers used the courts to follow through on a threat to gain sole custody of the children and prevent the children from being in contact with their mothers.
Women were advised, sometimes by lawyers, not to mention domestic violence in one-quarter of cases, and not to challenge custody for fear of worsening the situation.
“To me, that’s the shocking thing,” Lob said. “We’re in a position where it’s actually sound advice for a woman not to raise these issues.”
Fifty-eight percent of women said that asking for child support triggered retaliation from their abusers.
I have personally talked myself into two conferences which were ABOUT people like me, but not FOR people like me. While these were tremendously validating and exciting (plus I spoke some informally at one of them), I was in the heat of the battle at the time (and losing total contact with my kids, but — barely — retaining the remaining single job that had survived the last round) – – BUT, I repeat, they weren’t typically inviting people like me. You have to research, knock, call, send away and beg (generally speaking, after a certain point in the family law process, someone is going to be destitute. it is simply not possible to stay in that system, be stripped of protection, and maintain a livelihood, without some extreme support or ingenious ways of getting basic needs handled.
Add to this that some of the long, drawn-out custody battles come after leaving a systematic abuser, which before separation can really wear out a person, it gets kinda interesting maintaining some work momentum.
ANYHOW, now, being a little better networked (referring to internet access AND knowing other people), I have found many of the:
- foundations
- publications
- organizations
- websites
- key authors
- key concepts
. . . . . and so forth, that like to talk about what I call “us,” meaning, Mothers Determined to Leave Domestic Violence (WITH kids).
It’s like any other life skill, or professional skill — after say 10 years of extensive exposure (immersion style), networking, reading, and so forth, one gets a little bit of fluency. I mean, that’s how I learned math, music, langauges, other things. Same deal here.
But unlike some other fields, for example music — I don’t think people at the top of this field typically are tone-deaf or unable to play a single instrument. If they compose, often they can play many. What one wants in this field is SOUND.
There are already laws about domestic violence as it pertains to custody.
There are already rules of court about mediation, not that I am in favor of mandated mediation at any point in time.
There are rules of court about what can go in in court. For example, a judge should not be taking testimony — and making decisions based on it — from someone who is not under oath, which happened in my case.
A judge should not make a critical decision (for example, switching custody) following criminal behavior regarding custody. There should not be partiality, and in particular, when threatening behavior clearly intended to obstruct justice has been reported, that took place outside the courtroom, this should raise an eyebrow. I had reported stalking, and submitted a signed eyewitness account. It was filed and ignored.
A judge should also give the legal and factual basis on which a decision is made when directly (in writing) requested to by an attorney, which the one in my case did not.
A mediator should take a few minutes to actually ascertain readily available (and relevant) facts before spouting off.
Now, as to the niceties of IS it domestic violence, or is it NOT domestic violence, and was THAT assault, THAT court order violation, THAT threat, or THAT child abuse as reported by CPS, a D.A., or anyone else, REALLY harmful to the child? – – – why, exactly, are all these volumes of press, books, conferences, etc. being written?
I see it as simple. Don’t HIT, don’t STALK, don’t THREATEN, don’t HARASS, don’t Destroy property of, and (whatever else the protective order reads in the particular case). It’s REALLY in basic, high school English, and doesn’t require extensive interpretation, does it, REALLY?
Another one should be obvious — don’t lie in court, or on the record, then when caught in a BIG one, make up a new one. If this goes on repeatedly, do judges need to attend institutes and conferences in order to be trained how to notice this?
SO JUST ASK ME — I’ll explain it real clear to any attorney, judge, mediator, or any one else who is still unclear that the 3-letter word “law” means “law,” and that the 5-letter word “order” means “order,” and the 7-letter word “custody” means “custody.” I have been a parent, and a teacher, and I”m not TOO confused on this generally speaking. I don’t wing it constantly, veer radically back and forth between whether I actually expect a standard to count, or not count. When learning a new skill, I focus on that one and “call” it consistently (speaking in group situations) til the point gets home.
The skill someone who has been systematically been engaging in domestic violence, which is the word VIOLENCE in it, and which includes a pattern of coercive behavior that violates boundaries (and law), and generally in “order” to give “orders” to the victim. The physical attacks (threats, intimidation, property destruction, punishments, animal abuse, isolation, and a whole other array of possible intentionally humiliating and dependency-inducing behavior towards another adult — OR child) have been compared to “POW” techniques. They are not consistent, so the person is kept on edge as to what may provoke what. Sometimes, a person can’t handle this, and provokes an explosion intentionally rather than live in the tense buildup, anticipation, and fear. It may be the one thing they CAN control in the situation. BUT, overall, what it’s “ABOUT” is giving orders. Period. Hapazardly. Basically, it’s tyranny.
I never was unclear about this for long. Not the first or second time one gets hit in the home — the dynamic is basically clear.
NOW — here we are “out” and this pattern of attempting to give orders, on the part of the former batterer, continues. WHAT is the obvious safe solution? The obvious need is to send a clear, clear message to this individual that he (or she) is now NOT in control and allowed to manipulate and give orders, instead he (or she), is now in the position of TAKING orders from a higher authority — the courts, backed up by police and the threat of arrest/jail. This is THE primary need at this time.
How does family law handle it instead? I found out, the exact opposite way. So, I found myself, during exchanges, repeatedly explaining to the various personnel involved (including police officers, who failed to get it) that the any ORDERS I was now under were the existing court orders, and I expected them to be adhered to so I could live a sane life. Between me, and the father of the girls, there was never any lack of clarity in the situation. Observed over a period of years (in family law), a court order would be obtained, and violated the FIRST weekend (or day) after its issuance. He was acting like a two-year old, testing boundaries, and getting his right to violate every time.
When a woman then puts her foot down in this manner, SHE is labeled, and the whole “thing” is labeled as “high-conflict.”
Well of course it’s high-conflict! Did we expect such a batterer to lie down and play passive easily? When someone is not looking?
Someone who’s gotten away with mayhem, which brings attention and benefits (compliance), and this is confronted, there is going to be conflict. That doesn’t mean it’s a two-way conflict. If the courts would simply pay attention to the situation instead of trying to be so “smart” all the time, more people would survive. IN plain English, this means, fewer would die. NO ONE should have to die for leaving a violent or abusive marriage, and expecting their children to be protected – – and their rights respected — also.
But they do.
Domestic violence per se can be and often is, lethal. It often escalates without warning, and without intervention (including separation)
basically ONLY escalates. Mediation is inadvisable in these cases, and joint custody is a recipe for societal trauma, and debt upon debt.
Mediation is MANDATORY in my area. I can document (now) how our particular mediator violated the rules of court at every opportunity.
SOMEWHERE (i read it) it says that a “spousal batterer” IS a clear and present danger to the physical AND mental health of the citizens of (this state, although technically we are US Citizens, not State citizens).
Study after study — including of substance abusers of various sorts (i refer to Acestudy.org, again), of prostitutes, of adult abusers or victims, and people with significant difficulties later in life (including in forming healthy relationships) – – shows that a violent, battering parent is NOT a good role model. The light bulb is already screwed in for the real stakeholders — those whose lives are at stake.
But the experts are not done yet . . . . . Even though things are already in the law.
FINALLY, the lightbulbs are going off in MY understanding as to why they won’t go off in people’s understanding whose children and lives are NOT at risk in a volatile situation, and who can (safe from the hearing of litigants or custodial mothers, in particular, or domestic violence survivors — or the children who are being molested on regular exchanges with a noncustodial parent — and so forth) : If the light bulb went off, where would they publish? Who would pay them to train the advocates, the judges, the attorneys, the mediators, and the psychologists? WHO would travel around the country and the world to discuss, well people that sometimes have trouble traveling 5-10 miles down the road to see their own kids on a weekend? (case in point).
WHAT’S THE EXCUSE FOR NOT ACTING CONSISTENTLY ON THESE BASICALLY SENSIBLE LAWS?
Here’s another reference I ran across researching something else:
IT DATES BACK TO THE YEAR 2006
{{EDITING NOTE: LINKS DIDN’T COME THROUGH — I WILL RETURN AND FIX}}
The 37-page original is downloadable. These pages have footnotes. It is well worth a read. Here is the cover page:
There are organizations (and the author here is on the board of one of them) who appear — I’ll take responsibility and qualify “to me,” although I am certainly not the only person of this opinion — to be HIGHLY invested in reframing the issue of Domestic Violence (and joint custody after it) from being a terrible role model for children, and experience for either parent, into something that people can be “counseled” out of. Supervised visitation is touted as a “solution” to this problem. People have been killed around supervised visitation, and the literature on this acknowledges it. Still, it’s ordered, and sometimes used as penalties for parents reporting their fears, or hurt to their children.
One has to ask why/ The ONLY reason i can come up with, primarily, is it’s a GREAT profession talking (and publishing) about what to do, and it’s also a great profession, “parenting classes.” There is little to no substantial evidence that even domestic violence (batterers intervention) classes change a spouse highly invested in the coercive control dynamic. Newspapers OFTEN report murders occuring shortly after someone was cleared from a DV class — or had violated a restraining order multiple times, without incarceration. The latest high-profile one I can think of (in California) was Danielle Keller and “Porn King” Mitchell (which I’ve blogged about recently). One in about 2005 that absolutely frightened me was a stalker — just a boyfriend relationship — the woman he was stalking, her body was found in the car trunk a few days after passing with flying colors the latest set of “classes.”
That’s playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives. I object, on behalf of my life, and my kids, and others, to this policy, of trying to “ascertain” who could and who could not benefit from counseling. I counsel strict consequences for domestic violence, which is a lesson in itself.
Regarding Expert Conferences (this, and others, and others, and others) – – – MOST domestic violence victims simply can’t afford to attend them! We can’t afford to subscribe to their publications, and our opinions are NOT asked — in a truly collaborative sense — in these matters. If they were, we’d say, probably to a woman, as mothers: “JUST SAY NO!”
Domestic violence includes economic abuse, and often access to the internet, or internet skills CAN be an ongoing issue. I know that in my situation, I was discouraged from using the PC unless it contributed directly to family income (his), and even in one case, I had to turn down a stable source of income from home to accommodate his desire to keep me without electronic contact with the outside world. When I finally obtained it, at around $8, or was it $18 (DNR)/month, I remember shuddering with fear as the vehicle pulled into the driveway, and praying that my internet would be turned off before he got in the front door. I had at this time worked substantial office support jobs and was internet fluent.
Another reason our voices are often not heard — not really — is that we do not have sufficient funding to take the time and write, post, publish, and attend conferences. If we have children, we are taking care of them, and ourselves. If we do NOT have children, the priority is getting back to them. And if we are domestic violence survivors of any substantial length (OR are in court with such an ex-partner or ex-spouse), it is pretty well guaranteed sheer economic survival is an ongoing issue.
Currently, I am reaching an overload on some of these topics, emotionally — and also have the situation to handle, which is not yet final, either. Support systems are constantly eroded til one begins to wonder what the prime identity is. We may trust people we know individually and personally, but after a certain point, one gets very jaundiced about organizations, ESPECIALLY nonprofit organizations promising help.
One of the best primers I am aware of on custody issues with batterers is called “The Batterer As Parent” (Bancroft/Silverman, Sage, Thousand Oaks 2002). It’s coming up on 7 years since it was published. I’ve personally heard a domestic violence expert, whose job it was to testify in criminal cases, say that this is a classic. I have this book, and my copy is dog-eared. It talks about ALL the things that the family law system as a whole absolutely REFUSES to do — support the nonabusive parent in her — or his — relationship with the children. Be wary of the risk of kidnapping (in my case, the court literally not only failed to act to protect my kids from this, after I requested it, but also failed to acknowledge it — WHEN IT HAPPENED! It talks about being aware that batterers are often chronic and convincing liars, and also of the overlap with incest perpetration.
Here are some of the ‘Scholarly” cites of this book:
Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in four cities: Diversity and dichotomies
EW Gondolf – Violence Against Women, 1999 – vaw.sagepub.com
… 1283 TABLE 2 Family Status and Parents’ Behavior of Batterers in Four Cities (in
percentages) Batterer Program Pittsburgh Denver Houston Dallas Total …
Cited by 63 – Related articles – All 3 versions
Men who batter: some pertinent characteristics.
FJMS FITCH, A Papantonio – Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 1983 – jonmd.com
… The authors report statistics on five major correlates of such men: violence between
the batterer’s parents, abuse of the batterer when he was a child, alcohol …
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 3 versions
HERE IT IS IN ALL ITS 1999 GLORY AND INSIGHT, EXPERTS BACK THEN KNEW THE RISKS:
Supervised visitation in cases of domestic violence
– ►ouhsc.edu [PDF]
M Sheeran, S Hampton – Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1999 – HeinOnline
… remain: visitation centers are not a guarantee of safety for vulnerable family members;
they do little to improve the ability of a batterer to parent in a …
Cited by 23 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions
Legal and policy responses to children exposed to domestic violence: The need to …
PG Jaffe, CV Crooks, DA Wolfe – Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2003 – Springer
… REFERENCES Bancroft, L., & Silverman, JG (2002). The batterer as parent.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, T. (2000). Charging and …
Cited by 19 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions
Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor …
– ►wa.gov [PDF]
L Bensley, J Van Eenwyk, K Wynkoop … – American journal of preventive medicine, 2003 – Elsevier
… 14. L. Bancroft and JG Silverman. The batterer as parent: addressing the impact
of domestic violence on family dynamics, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA (2002). 15. …
Cited by 71 – Related articles – All 11 versions
[BOOK] Children of alcoholics: A guidebook for educators, therapists, and parents
RJ Ackerman – 1983 – Learning Publications
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 2 versions
[CITATION] The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics ( …
L Bancroft, JG Silverman – Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, Problems and …
Cited by 2 – Related articles
Batterers‘reports of recidivism after counseling
A DeMaris, JK Jackson – Social Casework, 1987 – ncjrs.gov
… had problems with alcohol, and had witnessed violence between their parents. The
small sample size, the limited credibility of batterers‘ self-reports, and the
WELL, what to do? TALK some more? Out of the hearing of women and children?
I’ve managed to talk myself into a few conferences — I couldn’t afford the entrance fees for the most part. In one, I passed as a professional, up to a point. In another, I spoke about my story, and the PTSD it triggered (I was inbetween court hearings about whether or not I’d ever see my kids again) caused me to misplace the car (and house) keys and almost have to spend a night on the streets, as I’d just lost contact with the last round of professional colleagues locally. This MIGHT have cost me the last remaining job, but a very recent contact (and a current client) pulled off a “rescue.” FYI, abuse runs in families, and families are not always there to assist in the buffer zone.
About two years later, I learned that this particlar domestic violence organization (which I mistakenly — it’s a common mistake — confused with a group that was intent in stopping violence against women, i.e., saving our lives, helping us leave situations like that — has a linguistic profile similar to the whitehouse.gov “virtually invisible in public agenda” absence of the word “mother” in its website. A glance at the funding (more than a glance, actually) showed WHY.
It’s easy to make a declaration if it’s a closed -corporation discussion. It’s not that these groups don’t ACKNOWLEDGE the problems, but that they do not acknowledge how their SOLUTIONS exacerbate the already existing problems, of a parent with a REALLY bad attitude, and some REALLy serious problems that a few classes, or even a years’ worth, may or may NOT address.
And if these classes are concurrent with a typical course of action ina faith-based institution, the effects PROBABLY will cancel each other out, when it comes to protection of women.
That’s about all the time I have to post today. I hope this is proving informative.
You cannot have fatherhood and feminists in the same government grants gene pool and expect to get further down the road. The effects will cancel each other out, and leave yet larger and larger debt.
Currently, stipulations MANDATED by the VAWA act on Supervised Visitation (safe havens) contradict — categorically — with stipulations from the Health and Human Services “access visitation” grants. There’s a history (and a financial profile) to this, and I’m reading it these days. It took a while to grasp the “why.” I had to apply a rule I thought I’d mastered earlier — don’t take ANYTHING at face value, and do your background research on who’s who and doing what with whom. It’s a pain in the neck, but wise to do. As I used to learn the field of my profession (music), the terminology, to distinguish good from excellent, and know who’s who in general in my field (and as to the organizations also), it can be done in these fields also.
Again, I am still getting nationwide and intercontinental visitors — any of you are welcome to comment, particularly if you have checked any of the links and agree, or disagree. And remember — if you’re a parent, try to stay AWAY from the child support agency and work it out some other way, especially if you begin divorce or separation as a custodial mother.
Caveat emptor. (“Buyer beware”) There is no free lunch — the bill comes in later. You pay in your freedom, and you may very well pay with your future, and your children’s.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California
After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:
TITLE OF REPORT:
CALIFORNIA’S ACCESS TO VISITATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING RESPONSIBILITY AND
OPPORTUNITY** FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENTS
2001-2003
WHO THIS REPORT WAS ADDRESSED TO:
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
WHO SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ON THE ABOVE TOPICS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
(The) Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature
pursuant to Assembly Bill 673.
Copyright © 2003 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the
Courts. All rights reserved.
This report is also available on the California Courts Web site:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v.htm
I HAVE A QUESTION:
HOW COME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR CHILD SUPPORT LITIGANTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THIS SITE
or INFORMED OF THIS PROGRAM
SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE BEING
FORCED THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS?
(FYI: “mandatory mediation” is the one of many way to achieve the grant-mandated “required outcomes”attached to this particular program funding. The “required outcome” is more hours, more time, more “accesss” going to the noncustodial parent. While “parent” is said, “father” is basically meant. Any legal process (with “due process”) that has a “required outcome” is by definition going to be, in some fashion, “rigged.”)
(It’s a rhetorical question.)
most of us are not checking up on the California Legislature while in an abusive relationship. . . . .
MANY of us cannot afford attorneys, and have come to this place through nonprofits. . . . . not police. . . .
Most of us are not rolling in extra time to do this research.
DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, I was dealing with transition from domestic violence.
It would’ve been helpful to know these processes and intents!
Brief Quote (I am running out of time to post today. . . . . )
Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded
a total of $50 million in block grants to states to promote access and visitation programs
to increase noncustodial parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. The federal
allocation to each state is based on the number of single-parent households. California
has the largest number of single heads of households (1,127,062) in the United States.3
California receives the maximum amount of possible federal funds (approximately
$1 million per year), representing 10 percent of the national funding. Federal regulations
earmark grant funds for such activities as mediation (both voluntary and mandatory),
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including
monitoring, supervision, and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines
for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of
California be further limited to the following three types of programs:
q Supervised visitation and exchange services;
q Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
q Group counseling services for parents and children
NOW, FRIENDS, FOES, AND VISITORS: HERE’S YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
READ THIS DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT (FROM OTHER YEARS, FROM YOUR STATES — I’M SURE THERE’S SOMETHING SIMILAR). “RESPONSIBLE CITIZENHOOD.”
And take a GOOD look at the “Fathers Rights” languages it’s laced with, and references to publications in footnotes on these matters.
This is social sciences through the courts. . . .
. . .
A recent study by Amato and Booth (1997), who
looked at several trends in family life and their effects on children, found divorce of all
factors considered, to have the most negative effect on the well-being of children.7
The trends of separation, divorce, and unmarried parents, have potentially adverse effects
on the financial, social, emotional, and academic well-being of America’s children.
Noncustodial parents, generally fathers, struggle to maintain healthy and meaningful
relationships with their children. A recent report by Arendell (1995) illustrates the
gradual disengagement of noncustodial parents. Contact with separated dads is often
minimal, with 30 percent of divorced fathers seeing their children less than once a year
and only 25 percent having weekly contact.8
Or, on page 6, Footnote 17:
K. Sylvester and K. Reich, Making Fathers Count, Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood
Efforts, (Social Action Network, 2002), p. 2.
In a nation where 23 million children do not live with their biological
fathers and 20 million live in single-parent homes (most of them lacking fathers)
AMONG REASONS, POSSIBLY, WHY, MIGHT BE”
(intake forms to screen and assess for safety risks; separate
orientations and interviews with parents; written child abduction procedures; policies to
respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior;
copies of protective orders, protocols for declining unsafe or high-risk cases).
(POST TO BE CONTINUED)….
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Golden State’s Gold Rush, 1998-2009, Healing Families, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
FYI: In re budget crisis……
For your viewing pleasure and information.
http://www.taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm
This unbelievably patronizing budget, focused on healthy marriages, head starts, responsible fatherhood, parenting classes, and forcing adults who separated — often for the woman’s, or the man’s own safety and sanity — to stay joined at the hip (through “access/visitation grants — more on this below), and thereafter trying to manage “high-conflict relationships” — through the court system – is (collectively) the truly most IRresponsible father(land) I have yet met.
Most irresponsible fathers will affect a family line, and those individuals who come into contact with members of that family line, through work or otherwise. This, however, respresents an unbelievably presumptuous and dishonest treatment of the portion of the American public that, by maintaining taxpaying employement or employEES, including many who populate and staff its institutions, pays its bills.
At some point it is simply responsible to admit that a relationship has failed, and separate. ESPECIALLY in cases involving battering, domestic violence, or other forms of abuse. Or even, say, ongoing promiscuity — or refusal to participate in supporting the household — on the part of one or both partners. Generally speaking it’s one more than another. One person has been “used.” This is a horrible example for any children involved, and a real drain on the community, which often has to make up the gap. But the principle of cutting one’s losses can come to the rescue, and stop the process before another family is dead, or homeless, or traumatized out of social functionality.
When it comes to hazardous JOBS, if there is an alternative, a person is allowed to of his or her own free will, QUIT.
I admit that some people take relationships casually, and perhaps when these people are identified, their LOCAL communities should address the issue. But good grief — to try to force this on an entire NATION, and bill the entire nation (those who pay taxes) to fund the concept that there should be a chicken in every pot (yet we have vegetarians), and a biologically related FATHER in every child’s life, no matter whether this is good for the kid, or the mother or not — that’s budget suicide, and sometimes suicide for him, and death for the Moms too, or children. This is the story the headlines are telling us. Some people don’t handle stress and relationships well, and are better off kept away from the person they hate to the point of having committed crimes against their partner. Rather than face their personal demons, they externalize, blame (“demonize”) someone else, and then attack and attempt to destroy them, and people associated with them.
I am sorry to say this, but this at times includes the children. When a situation has become dangerous to a parent, then to suddenly proclaim “Kids need their Dads no matter what!” is social insanity. And, presently, policy.
Why not when it comes to hazardous marriages? WHY?? oh WHY??? is the Federal Government encouraging the States encouraging the Courts (with help from “faith-based” organizations and “Community Action Organizations” and other nonprofits of dubious parentage) to rake divorcing families over the coals in order to recreate a United States in which EVERY child has a Dad in his or her life, and EVERY mother has either a MAN in her life (if he’s alive), OR the Government telling her how to raise her children and educate her children (and by virtue of this, her lifestyle? To be permanently punished for a poor choice of spouse or partner, when one has otherwise behaved in an upright and responsible citizenhood fashion, is abusive, and a sign Federal Government In Loco Parentis having totally forgotten its own origins: “of, by for the people” and “consent of the governed.” It has lost its mind — or, has NOT lost its mind, and is of a mind to leech a living off its own people by creating a constant source of conflict, between the courts, promoting this “fatherhood” thing (alongside most fundamentalist religions) and the nationwide school curriculum saying “It’s Elementary” (etc.) that some families have two parents of the same sex, and anyone who disagrees is committing a hate crime.
It seems to me that in both institutions – courts, and schools — a habitual undermining of basic civil rights, as well as promotion of a certain “religion” (in one place, the nuclear family, in the other, the dismantling of the traditional nuclear family [if indeed this ever existed], both practically and as to teaching), and at the other end — as people come of age to procreate, which appears to be a more engaging activity than the studies in many public schools — as if an afterthought, now that some of these parents are on welfare, this same government then wants to now teach them how to be parents, especially Dads. Moms are taught by default how to make babies for government studies and programs; the fodder for Ph.D. “Child Development Scholars” and other therapists.
OK, now that that’s out of my system, how this relates to
the “Gold Rush” in the “Golden State,”. . . .
I’ve posted below, for only ONE state, and only TWO “Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance” (“CFDA”), and from only ONE major U.S. Exeuctive Branch Department, “Health and Human Services.” These are (some of) the many types of grants given for redesigning the U.S. family. Apparently the also significant U.S. Dept. of Education didn’t do a good enough job the first time through (either that, or it’s them “foreigners” (meaning, any group whose feet hit these shores en masse after your particular ethnic group did, except Native Americans…). We need to constantly make and remake the family til we get it right one of these days.
Again, this is only SOME of where your funding for the local public schools, homeless assistance, or law enforcement, or other social services went. It went in large part into social engineering programs.
OH, by the way, these programs are also compromising due process in the courts ~~even in the family courts which exist primarily to compromise evidence for conciliation to start with!~~ so they are affecting civil and legal rights under the U.S. Constitution. That we let this happen is probably a factor of the educational system (and NOT accidental over the decades….), which teaches us neither, really, how government NOR the economy actually operate. Nor is it real good at uncensored history, especially the history of its own self (dating to a little while after the Civil War, and before women got the vote).
So, this time, I searched:
- CFDA #s: 93086 (healthy marriage), 93597 (Access Visitation Grants to states)
- California Only (California has largest court system)
- All Years, All Recipients, All etc..
I usually cannot get the chart to confine itself to the margins of this post — it goes off into the “blogroll” area and becomes unreadable.
It’s better to view the original site; to this end, welcome to a research tool. Don’t you want to know WHY some fathers are committing homicide/suicide in desparation over the economy, or (overentitled?) outrage at being ousted, or because they have been publically humiliated in some fashion their psyches could not or would not handle. Why a decade after this started, can’t we keep up with the family fatalities before the next generation of irresponsible (because, and ONLY because, according to this viewpoint, they were) fatherless Dads is born?
(Present CEO of the nation that styles itself as leader of the ostensibly Free World excepted).
NOTE: Mothers are used to being put down, humiliated, forced to beg, and treated like second class citizens for so long, we are not typically going off the deep end over loss of social status by murdering our kids, our spouses, or if they’re not available, someone else associated with them will do. Women as a whole or men as a whole are not culprits. We come in different colors, income levels, temperaments, and psyches. ON THE OTHER HAND, given this, a governmental attempt to define us, our relationships, and our children, is going to be resisted. It’s a recipe for ongoing conflict, and economic drain. I suggest ALL U.S. Citizens take a serious look at this. Here’s ONE underestimated tool.
In almost seven years in the system, I didn’t find ONE entity apart from this site, point me to this federal department. One humble but FULL website did. http://www.nafcj.net. The site didn’t get my attention (no gov’t grants helped its design, or press), but what it said did.
MOST organizations that say “prevention of violence” in them or “stop abuse” or “battered women” or even “family court reform” or something similar, don’t even mention this TAGGS site or point us to investigate its activities. Father’s groups naturally wouldn’t, or they could no longer claim that concerns about certain social epidemics just “emerged.” They did nothing of the sort — they were urged, publicized, promoted, and proclaimed, from Top Down, in typical government style. I have now gotten to the point of finding out UP FRONT before I deal with any nonprofit or “let us help you” group, who is funding them. You should too. Ignorance ain’t bliss. And it’s got to be a sin (faith-community or no faith-community) to fail to inform women in trauma filing protective orders about all the cooks in the kitchen.
SO . . . ..
ARE YOU A U.S. CITIZEN OR RESIDENT? THEN
THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED
IT IS A RHETORIC RADAR. IT IS A DOGMA DETECTOR.
IT IS A GULLIBILITY REDUCER**
EDUCATE THYSELF!
http://taggs.hhs.gov
**
For example, when Glenn Sacks, Jeffrey Leving, Esq. Sen. Evan Bayh, or President Obama — or any noble-sounding nonprofit (or government agency) such as “American Coalition for Fathers and Children“ [Doesn’t THAT sound worthy, and united and concerned about, well, FAMILIES??] — writes, blogs, or receives high-profile press coverage stating that we need MORE money to stop the woefully underfunded fatherhood movement (as if this was a new crisis the U.S. (i.e., taxes) hadn’t already poured millions into, without addressing, for example, how the US being the world’s largest jailer MIGHT relate to why SOME kids are fatherless) you will realize when they are simply lying.
Or, whether they are actually quoting each other and playing Good Cop, Bad Cop {{pretending to fight with each other and be more separate in intent than they actually are}} to confuse the viewers (see ACFC link above). Broad allegations and statements are made without links or cites, such as this, (date, 2007):
AUTHORS: Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick:
The biggest problem with the Responsible Fatherhood Act, however, is that it reflects its authors’ misunderstanding of fatherlessness. Obama says he seeks to “make it easier” for men who choose to be responsible fathers, but his bill ignores the biggest roadblock fathers face—CLAIM: a family law system which does little to protect the loving bonds these dads share with their children.
FACT: The duty of any COURT system [[HINT: JUDICIAL branch, not LEGISLATIVE — remember this??]] is to protect the existing laws, not re-write them. To determine and allocate consequences for people who violate laws, especially intentionally and repeatedly.
To make sure that due process happens and evidence is considered as to whether the EXISTING laws have been (a) observed or (b) violated. There are also RULES for many courts, to aid in the process.
FACT: The primary characteristic of the “family law SYSTEM” is the prominent use of outside the courtroom decision making. Even the Acronym of this organization “ACFC” is modeled after another organization “AFCC” which title means “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” an international organization of dubious tax-compliance history until someone caught them operating out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse without a separate EIN (IRS Tax) # — i.e., until they got caught in an audit — and drenched with psychologists, mediators, & custody evaluators holding international!! conferences, with judges and attorneys (conflict of interest there, anyone?) publishing, promoting, and proclaiming all kinds of theories (and making alliances) that the average low-income litigant is naively unaware of, not invited to, and not encouraged to know about. All of this is patronizingly, ostensibly, for the greater good, or the country, the families, and I suppose apple pie, too. As such, these experts don’t trouble to tell ignorant litigants about their alliances, or how much profit is made from the conferences, books, trainings, and publications.
IRONICALLY, IN 1992, per this source, the courts are drenched with:
2.Due Process Violations
a. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1994.
b. Attorneys quit prematurely in violation of procedural and ethical laws.
c. Orders issued after ex parte hearings an/or in chambers meetings or upon
the judge’s discretion without proper notice and evidentiary hearing.
d. Removal of testimony from the court (where it should be) under the guise
of mediation and evaluation.There is no control over the mediation and
evaluation processes, no public debate of the issues, and no record of evi-
dence. Once an evaluation report is issued, the court makes few discre-
tionary decisions and rubber stamps the report.
e. Presumption that the parents are “equal” upon dissolution in spite of evi-
dence to the contrary
Or, whether (possibly) having used one of themselves for a specific purpose, they then turn and backstab the same person. Kind of like a high-conflict, divorcing bitter spouse might.
Now you, too (I ALREADY DID), can have a catharsis (SHOCK) of understanding of WHY there is “Disorder in the Courts” and certain systems appear broken, when they aren’t really. They are doing exactly what they were designed to do — create a cash flow and ongoing transfer of wealth from the taxpaying public into the hands of the “experts” and away from two working parents (whether cohabiting, married, or not) to children, their offspring.
Here’s the “TAGGS” site.
Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System
(You didn’t expect to pass Big Brother 101 without learning a few acronyms, did you?)
Welcome!
The Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) is an extensive tool developed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Grants. The TAGGS database is a central repository for grants awarded by the twelve {{12, count’em, 12}} HHS Operating Divisions (OPDIVs). TAGGS tracks obligated grant funds at the transaction level.
NOTE: To actually find out what those transactions were used for will take a little more legwork, locally.
What’s New
Several new search pages have been added and grouped under the new Search menu.
TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report – The TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report is now available on the Annual Reports Page. The annual report contains summary information about the HHS Grants Programs tracked by TAGGS. The annual report is available in Microsoft Word format. TAGGS Advanced Search – The new TAGGS Advanced Search enables a very refined search through more than 500,000 grant awards. Criteria include keyword, award title, recipient name, agency, type, title, recipient name, and many other selections in a variety of combinations. Search results can be output and downloaded in Microsoft Excel format. Abstracts Search by Keyword and Advanced Search – The two new Award Abstract Searches provide a search through more than 85,000 Grant Award Abstracts by keyword or by using the Advanced Search. The TAGGS Abstracts Search by Keyword search performs a full-text search of each available abstract based on the entered keywork. The TAGGS Abstracts Advanced Search enables search criteria such as keyword, agency, type, year, and state to be used in many combinations.
A search of all states resulted in nearly 1,500 results, which I doubt wordpress could handle the pageload.
I find the pattern below (try this link for a better view — OR, select the CFDA #s 93597 & 93086 ONLY, for California, and with the column titles you see below (scroll to bottom of the Advanced Search page to select) and it should come out the same).
Before you actually LOOK at this, consider yet another Fatherhood “whine,” dating to (originally) 06/30/2007 — after Father’s Day THAT year…):
“Yet most child custody arrangements provide fathers only a few days a month to spend with their children, and fighting for shared parenting is expensive and difficult. Custodial mothers frequently fail to honor visitation orders, and while the United States spends nearly $5 billion a year enforcing child support, there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders. {{False}} In such cases, fathers must scrape together money for an attorney so they can go to court , and even then courts enforce visitation orders indifferently.
According to the Children’s Rights Council, a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents {{male, or female?}} interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.”
WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS?
This is from:
|
|
| ACFC Washington Office 1718 M St. NW. #187 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 800-978-3237 |
@@@
Results 1 to 81 of 81 matches.
@@@
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | County | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0910CASAVP | FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 942,497 | |
| 2009 | OFA | Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul | ORANGE | ORANGE | 90FR0003 | THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | OTHER REVISION | EDWARD C HARTMANN | $- 148,172 |
| 2008 | ACF | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 243,469 |
| 2008 | ACF | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | REGINA LINDNER | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHARLES GREENE | $ 481,554 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | VICKIE KROPENSKE | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE M COLEGROVE | $ 146,750 |
| 2008 | ACF | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY CAMACHO | $ 515,615 |
| 2008 | ACF | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,349 |
| 2008 | ACF | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA MCDONALD | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | FRANCES GREENE | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | M.P. P WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2008 | ACF | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CATHERINE M REED | $ 550,000 | |
| 2008 | ACF | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2008 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0810CASAVP | 2008 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 957,600 | |
| 2007 | ACF | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 243,469 |
| 2007 | ACF | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | REGINA LINDNER | $ 378,020 |
| 2007 | ACF | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARRY ZACK | $ 474,555 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | RICHARD N HUME | $ 174,034 |
| 2007 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents | EAGLE ROCK | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0085 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DR DENISE JOHNSTON | $ 384,951 |
| 2007 | ACF | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | LESLIE M COLEGROVE | $ 146,750 |
| 2007 | ACF | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MARY CAMACHO | $ 399,253 |
| 2007 | ACF | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,349 |
| 2007 | ACF | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | TANYA MCDONALD | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | FRANCES GREENE | $ 550,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | M.P. P WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2007 | ACF | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CATHERINE M REED | $ 550,000 | |
| 2007 | ACF | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2007 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0710CASAVP | 2007 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 950,190 | |
| 2006 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0610CASAVP | 2006 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 987,973 | |
| 2006 | OFA | BILL WILSON CENTER | SANTA CLARA | SANTA CLARA | 90FR0096 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | SPARKY HARLAN | $ 207,469 |
| 2006 | OFA | Brighter Beginnings | OAKLAND | ALAMEDA | 90FR0099 | PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARBARA BUNN | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC | LONG BEACH | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0065 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | KIMTHAI R KUOCH | $ 450,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC | SANTA ANA | ORANGE | 90FE0080 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | REGINA LINDNER | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CENTERFORCE | SAN RAFAEL | MARIN | 90FR0004 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARRY ZACK | $ 481,555 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0076 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HERSHEL K SWINGER | $ 500,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FR0088 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | HERSHEL SWINGER | $ 1,000,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER | LOS ANGELES | SHASTA | 90FR0071 | PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | RICHARD N HUME | $ 249,034 |
| 2006 | OFA | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | SAN DIEGO | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,342,080 |
| 2006 | OFA | Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents | EAGLE ROCK | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0085 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DR DENISE JOHNSTON | $ 461,186 |
| 2006 | OFA | Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. | FRESNO | FRESNO | 90FR0053 | POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | LISA M BROTT | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul | ORANGE | ORANGE | 90FR0003 | THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | EDWARD C HARTMANN | $ 388,193 |
| 2006 | OFA | EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0056 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOSE VILLALOBOS | $ 1,100,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT | HOOPA | HUMBOLDT | 90FN0001 | INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PL | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | NORMA MCADAMS | $ 146,750 |
| 2006 | OFA | Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program | EL CENTRO | IMPERIAL | 90FE0075 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | MARY CAMACHO | $ 479,031 |
| 2006 | OFA | Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry | SAN DIEGO | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0016 | SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JOHN R HUGHES | $ 268,449 |
| 2006 | OFA | PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER | LOS ANGELES | LOS ANGELES | 90FE0092 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BENJAMIN HARDWICK | $ 550,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. | PITTSBURG | CONTRA COSTA | 90FE0012 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | FRANCES GREENE | $ 527,664 |
| 2006 | OFA | Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. | IRVINE | ORANGE | 90FR0058 | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | M>P> WYLIE | $ 250,000 |
| 2006 | OFA | Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 90FE0015 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CAROLYN R CURTIS | $ 549,256 |
| 2006 | OFA | THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION | Berkeley | 90FE0024 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CATHERINE M REED | $ 549,999 | |
| 2006 | OFA | VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC | VISTA | SAN DIEGO | 90FR0024 | VCC CLUB DE PADRES | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | BARBARA MANNINO | $ 250,000 |
| 2005 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0510CASAVP | 2005 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 988,710 | |
| 2004 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0410CASAVP | 2004 SAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | $ 988,710 | |
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9801CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 250,805 | ||
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9901CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 139,812 | ||
| 2003 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0310CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 970,431 | ||
| 2002 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0210CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 970,431 | ||
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | RANCHO CORDOVA | SACRAMENTO | 0001CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $- 987,501 | |
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0010CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 2001 | OCSE | CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL | SAN FRANCISCO | SAN FRANCISCO | 0110CASAVP | SAVP 2001 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 2000 | OCSE | CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES | RANCHO CORDOVA | SACRAMENTO | 0001CASAVP | SAVP 2000 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | |
| 1999 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9901CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 987,501 | ||
| 1998 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9701CASAVP | SAVP 1997 | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 1,113,750 | |
| 1998 | OCSE | CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES | SACRAMENTO | SACRAMENTO | 9801CASAVP | Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs | SOCIAL SERVICES | UNKNOWN | $ 1,113,750 |
Does the word “Demonstration” raise an eyebrow for you? Are you curious what a “Demonstration Priority Area” is, and whether your residing (if so) in one either aided or compromised due process in your particular family law case (if such be), or exercise of your civic duty of fatherhood (if such be).
I wonder why a subset (Program Office OCSE) of a subset (OPDIV “ACF” — and ALL of these grants were ACF grants) of a subset (HHS) of the Executive Branch of the United States Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial)– which the “OCSE” (Office of Child Support Enforcement) indeed IS — it IS in the Executive Branch of the US Government — is doing distributin cl
I wonder whether this information is posted at courthouses, or child support offices, like an “under Construction” would be at other sites? I didn’t realize til, well, recently, that the last X years I spent in the family law system were part of someone else’s Demonstration Grant. This is what we get for minding our own business, and failing to secure enough excess time in our daily schedules to ALSO mind the business of our elected representative governments, both Federal and State.
We farmed out government to the government have ended up (our children, basically, and incomes) becoming someone else’s family farm.
Suggestion:
If fewer categories (column titles) are chosen, a search will produce interactive recipient names, or grant #s, and this will tell more about
the individual activities. And gets pretty interesting . . . . .
. . . Dang it, I just slipped into bureaucratic passive and Impassive; the language is like a pheronome, or like stale air, if you hang around it too long, you begin exhaling in the same manner: categories are chosen (I didn’t act), searches (not my choices) produced, just like a domestic dispute “arose” between two individuals, during a, er, ACF-facilitated “ACCESS” exchange between parents.
I find it interesting that the “OCSE” is administering these grants designed to help noncustodial parents get more time with their children.
OCSE is the “Office of Child Support Enforcement.” I thought it wasn’t about the money, but about the best interests of the children, who need both parents in constant contact with them. For example, nonpayment of child support is NOT a basis for withholding visitation of a child from the noncustodial parent. Women are certainly told that loud and clear when pursuing child support arrears.
Unfortunately, some parents can’t be trusted alone with their children. For example, some kids get killed or stolen on overnight visitations which are not supervised. On the other hands, some unsupervised parents (mostly Moms) also supposedly cause severe emotional distress to their children by actually following through when child abuse or other violence is reported, causing more “high conflict’ between the parties. Which is “bad.” “Bad” protective parent: Here, let us order some parenting classes for you….A common, but costly solution appears to be switching the custody to the other parent, and forcing the reporting parent to pay to see her offspring.
But one way to withhold visitation from a designated parent is if she (most likely) cannot afford to pay to see her own children in a supervised visitation situation that arose AFTER something else (such as child abuse, or other domestic violence-related issues) has been reported or investigated. I know mothers who cannot afford to see their children, after a custody switch. It does not seem to work both directions AFTER a custody switch (possibly enabled by some of these grants’ services). Where’s the “healthy families” in that scenario?
If these whole movements (Healthy Marriage, or Responsible Fatherhood & Access Visitation, meaning, it supposedly takes a Village to raise a Child and BOTH Parents (especially Dads) to also do this, which the taxpayers should then fund) are about the CHILDREN and our SOCIETY, then somehow it seems a little odd that the agency entrusted to do this is the CHILD SUPPORT branch, not another one.
The fact, and that history of the matter is that it went kind of like this, as to finances:
1. OOPS! Welfare roles are too high! (Personal Work and Responsibility welfare reform)
2. Let’s go Collect Child Support — get those paternity tests and those deadbeat Dads.
3. OOPS! A lot of them are in jail, and others just don’t want to pay, they’ve moved on in life? What can be done?
4. Enter “Access Visitation” grants, in hope that more time with kids will result in more child support collected. It’s all for the kids, after all. If they get more time with the children, we will (artificially) “flex” the amount of child support actually due.
4B. And the multiple assorted professionals all along the way, all of who are also of course in it for the kids and not the money.
5. Who picks up the tab, in the long run, and what is it? When custody switches are involved, then a parent who historically had been struggling or learning to manage a life (including a work life) around the children will then restructure the life differently, while the parent who just GOT the child will either restructure his (or her) work, or delegate the care of the child to someone else.
6. Did I mention Head Start yet?
By the way, a lot of the funding below is what i call “Designer Families,” i.e., the US Government is actually studying US families (at the expense of the same families) to determine what they DO look like, to run some tests (see “DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS” below) and then report back (not to the consumer — to the experts, of course) on what the tests showed, and then expand the scope of the practice. This, FYI, is business (perhaps not YOUR employer, but government) business as usual. Something you don’t learn in grade school, or often in high school, unless your parent was a Senator or a Sociologist.
Well, two can play that game. Who wants to come out and play?
Want some answers?
Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?
Let’s do it.
At least it would make some more interesting dinner conversation (assuming you still have dinner), or at a commuter bus stop (assuming you still have a job) than the latest office politics, or doom and gloom. You can say, “Did you know that I now spend one-quarter (one-tenth, etc. — adjust according to your payscale) of my work day, which keeps me away from spending quality time with my kids, earning money for the government to spend getting other people who won’t or can’t pay child support to spend more time with their kids, in hopes that they will? Or to keep them married when otherwise they’d divorce? Or just leave?”
Or you could say, “Where do you think the HIGHEST grant for reducing abuse, poverty, drug use, and other social ills (i.e., promoting healthy marriages) went to in our state?
They’ll probably name Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento (or other urban area known for its homicide rates, or radical agenda).
And then you can surprise them with your inside knowledge:
No: “Leucadia.”
“Leucadia? You’re kidding!”
“No, I’m not. California Healthy Marriage Coalition, out of Leucadia, California got $2,400,000 last year alone to, er, well — well, they’re not in favor of same-sex marriages, let’s put it that way. I don’t know where they stand on domestic violence, but they say — well, another group run by the same person says — he needs unconditional respect, and she needs unconditional love. And those dang feminists, you know, are putting CONDITIONS on how he expresses his love, or whether they continue respecting him, in the form of these anti-violence allegations, and so forth….”
“In 2006, The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received a five-year, $11.9 Million grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.
{{{FYI: “Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California. Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs. “}}
“As a result of these efforts, CHMC expects to see a decline in the divorce/marriage ratio, a reduction in child abuse, domestic violence, poverty, criminal behavior, and an improvement in physical, emotional, and mental health.”
HEY! IF I SAY I EXPECT TO SEE SOMETHING, CAN I GET A FEDERAL GRANT, TOO?
I WILL MAKE UP A NICE NAME, AND USE BIG WORDS, STARTING SMALL WITH A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, AND THEN EXPANDING NATIONWIDE. SEE BELOW FOR A TYPICAL PATTERN. . .
Now I’m curious. Let’s see where they are on the $11.9 million…. In 2006 I was definitely on the wrong side of the politically correct agenda, obviously, in that I was trying to get UNMarried, complete a safe separation begun years earlier…. and retain housing . . . . (Searched on “Principal Investigator,” pulled up an unrelated “Stoica”). Well, maybe not a relative…) (the name “Stoica” I picked out arbitrarily — well, actually because of the size of the grant — from the larger chart below).
| Fiscal Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Grantee Type | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | ACF | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,400,000 |
| 2007 | NCI | GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | WASHINGTON | Junior College, College & University | R03CA117467 | AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER | 93394 | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ADRIANA STOICA | $ 75,350 |
| 2006 | NCI | GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY | WASHINGTON | Junior College, College & University | R03CA117467 | AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER | 93394 | NEW | ADRIANA STOICA | $ 77,600 |
| 2006 | OFA | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90FE0104 | HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 | 93086 | NEW | DENNIS J STOICA | $ 2,342,080 |
| 2005 | OCS | California Healthy Marriages Coalition | LEUCADIA | Other Social Services Organization | 90EJ0064 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM | 93009 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 583,475 |
| 2005 | OCS | Orange County Marriage Education and Training Institute | ANAHEIM | Other Special Interest Organization | 90IJ0201 | COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI | 93009 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 50,000 |
| 2004 | OCS | Orange County Marriage Resource Center | ANAHEIM | Other Social Services Organization | 90IJ0121 | CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE | 93647 | NEW | DENNIS STOICA | $ 50,000 |
The next RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN behavior then might be to ask, for example, what a particular grant recipient is doing with some of the funds, either on line, or hey, give them a call! Say, “Hey! $50,000 is more than I make per year, and a good part of this is being garnished to pay child support already. Can you tell me what your group did last year with YOUR $50,000 — and who’s on the payroll? I’d like to see a line item listing, or a few cancelled checks perhaps. I mean, I work hard (yes, I’m sure you do), and I’d just like to know where my taxes are going. Thanks! Send the printout to _________________).” (And then install a security camera….)
Note: In the example above (where I picked one of the larger grants in the big chart, and searched on Principal Investigator)
In the next post (or so), I will, possibly, show how well all this Healing Families and getting Dads responsible has reduced Violence Against women SO much (in the same time period) that we really don’t need (?) VAWA to keep funding shelters, and other things to help them stay alive, or in one piece. The momentum of the emerging (still???) Fatherhood movement and Responsibility Movement and Shared Parenting Movement, has really worked, and we now have significantly less separation violence, fewer family wipeouts, and children in the care of the other parent, with help in care of possibly a new girlfriend, or boyfriend, are faring better. Like the 7 year old boy who was just taken off life support in Massachusetts, after his Dad came back into his life, possibly under one of these programs (although I didn’t investigate further on that one, I admit), after only 8 weeks summertime fun with his father.
In the matter of Designer Families by Federal Fiat, I think we do need to take a closer look. How’s your state doing?
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout.” Maybe–MAYBE, Forget the Restraining Orders, Remember 2nd Amendment? Or, toss a coin…
Part II of II on “Responsible Citizenhood” is in labor.
The waters have broken, and there is a flood of information and synthesis of concepts gushing forth on many topics, and my brain is dialating. They will have to be posted in stages.
Translation: I am being a Responsible Citizen (see prior posts) and exploring who is my Congress, the Constitution, who is funding whom, and finding all kinds of juicy information on whose idea was it to reinstitute a national religion called Fatherhood, funded by all of us. I have also located a few new (to me at least) search tools How many thoughts have been provoked!
But, this (relatively) recent news alert reminded me, that Part of Responsible Citizenhood might entail learning how to handle a gun, and being willing to use it during a home invasion. Even a home invasion by an estranged husband:
Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout
by Michael Rubinkam
Let’s look at this headline again. This woman fought him off, and neither she, nor any of her offspring got killed. If you look up the articles and read the details, she made a mistake, which, if you read below and see how WIGGLY Pa considers the “PFAs” when it comes to what they mean, is almost understandable. But once the situation became clear, she took QUICK action to protect her children, get free, and call for help.
This is not, folks, how it often plays out. Who knows whether, God, fortune, or luck played a role, but we DO know this woman didn’t stop to debate, and she also didn’t panic and go dysfunctional. May I propose that this woman listening to her INSTINCTS and acting on them may have prevented a higher body count. LESSON ONE: Don’t jerk around with someone who has just crossed a boundary. Don’t second guess instinct. And (next time) don’t compromise one INCH on an existing protective or restraining order — it sends a mixed message, and could lead to this.
May I propose something else? I suggest that lawmakers and courts consider that women are people too, and smarten up to having us believe the fiction and play the slot games with any intimate partner who has been battering us in the home, or threatening to, etc. May I suggest that instead of — or in addition to — DISarming him, they somehow ARM her, and if she’s not trained how to do so, get her some professional responsible training. It could be mace, it could be pepper spray, but constitutionally, it could be a gun, too, at least in the home.
Given the options, she has hope, luck, prayer, and walking around the neighborhood with her instincts on alert, her antennae up, and then trying to also rebuild a life. “LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” Now what was that first one again?
Detriment: May give a whole new picture of “motherhood” to “fatherhood” people who don’t believe women should be allowed to separate, do not have equal rights, and VAWA should go back to where it came from.
In this above statement, I omitted the comma between “fatherhood” people and who don’t believe. This is generous on my part, because I am conceding that there could be people all excited about and promoting fatherhood who DON’T believe these things. In fact, I don’t really believe this. I think that what the “fatherhood” movement is about is that the genetic / gender / biological composition of a family and household (one man, one woman, both married) is more important than the character or behavior of such families. I am not the only person who believes this. Some data is here (hover cursor for my comment. Note: This dates to 2002, almost 7 years ago. .http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf.
Now, when I married, I picked someone of the opposite gender, rather than someone of the same gender and, when it came to wanting children, either adoption or a sperm donor. This is probably because of how I like my sex, and the other versions didn’t concern me.
However, when I realized that my opposite-gender person’s main concern was my gender and household function ONLY, and not me as a person — and began physically punishing me for showing up as a person like him, and expecting to pursue some personal goals, not only the laundry/cleaning/nursing/f____ing role (in addition to supporting him in his business, and — if I wanted necessities — also working myself in and/or outside the home for pay) — I made a determination that behavior was the determinant, not gender, or a two-parent status. The MAIN reason I did this was because we had children, and it was a damn lousy role model they were being exposed to. The children were of my gender, and they were being taught how this one was somehow inferior and equipped with fewer rights, if any, and no boundaries or ability to say NO without taking retaliation for it. THAT’s a lousy role model, and he got himself evicted, not after several warnings.
I suppose you would like me to get to the story here, how THIS woman saved her life, her children’s life, but alas, not the pursuing policeman’s life, or her husband’s (although I lay that one as his responsibility — no one forced him to threaten his wife with a gun or kidnap his child, or place himself above a clear law he knew was in place upon him).
YATESVILLE, Pa. (AP) — Hobbled by a broken ankle, the estranged wife of a man killed in a shootout with Pennsylvania state troopers managed to fight him off as he threatened her with a gun before he kidnapped their 9-year-old son, the woman’s friend said.
The order of events is a little jumbled in the paragraph. The AP wanted it out fast, I guess, and so we get this:
- A. Her ankle was broken
- B. She was estranged from her husband
- C. He was killed by PA state troopers in a shootout (i.e., he was shooting back).
- D. 1. She fought him off 2. while he threatened her with a gun.
- E. He kidnapped their 9 year old son.
Having been through a FEW of the events above (not including the shootout), let me put it, I suspect, chrono.
- B. Cause of broken ankle — don’t know and probably not relevant.
- D.2 He threatened her with a gun
- D. 1 THIS MOM FOUGHT BACK.
- E. THEN (having been fought off), he grabs their son and dashes off (probably in a car).
- C. State troopers, apparently, caught up with him, and I’ll gol-dang bet he shot first. Predictably, they shot back.
- Thank God the state troopers had some firearms training, so HE got killed, not his wife and not the son he kidnapped, this time.
First of all, let’s deal with the grammar dishonesty (gender bias?) with B. “She was estranged from her husband” which has an element of the truth, and distorts the actual context. This is such common press practice in domestic violence homicide (or incident) reporting:
LEGALLY, it appears he’d acted first, and she had responded with a “protection from abuse” order. Unless the news disagrees with the judge that is THE most relevant factor in the case, apart from this incident. It most certainly is prime factual, legal and emotional dynamic CONTEXT of the incident. “She was estranged” could’ve been, she got tired of his dirty socks around home, she wanted to pursue another affair, or he did; he refused to work OR was an alcoholic, she was bored, he was using drugs or alcohol, or they had other “irreconciliable differences.” “She was estranged” already must minimized the truth. If a protective order was in place, and these reporters are not aware enough yet that this produces LOTS of hot news leads in the form of crime reporting, they need to review the job descriptions — or their editors do. (To tell the truth, I didn’t notice this the first time through the story myself, although I have always thought it an odd phrase).
B. THEY were estranged. or, better,
B. “In _____ (date) (or how recent), she obtained a PFA (say it: “protection from abuse“) order (in what court, or county), forcing him to leave the family home.
It is so typical of abusers, abuser enablers, and for that matter, the bulk of the family law system, to IGNORE THE ACTIONS and TALK ABOUT WHO “WAS” WHAT RATHER THAN WHO “DID” WHAT. IT”S PSYCHOLOGY NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS NO ACCIDENT!
From the 2002 California Family Court Report (link above): (under “Loss of Due Process”)
A. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1992.
Alas (and the emphasis of other articles on this event) — – Mad Dad was not in a compromise mood, and shot at responding officers. Terribly, he got a cop, too. Again — and these officers WERE brave, and they DID stop a kidnapping in process.
That’s about a recipe for suicide by cop. Whether or not he had thought THIS far ahead, one thing is clear: He’d pre-meditated far enough ahead to bring a gun and point it at his wife.
I experienced a decade of being exceedingly afraid of my husband in the home, being traumatized, and eventually being sure enough (because he talked about it often enough, fantasizing about this, and telling me, so, or otherwise bringing it up casually in conversation: “I’ll just have to kill you.” At this time, both our children were under 8 years old.) This has caused economic devastation upon me, my daughters, and people associated with both him, and us. It has wasted taxpayer funds year after year (in family law, where our case shouldn’t have been at the time) and taken almost 20 years of the prime working years of my life and trashed them repeatedly, under threats, stalkings, intimidations, sudden appearances at my home, and in general, one hell of a mess. He is still only working part-time, if that, doesn’t pay taxes (I don’t because I don’t earn enough), he is not financially independent yet and, because of this and unfortunately, neither am I. Our state is broke (supposedly) which is headline news, and is getting people very short-tempered in general.
I wonder, and I DO reflect — SUPPOSE I HAD FOUGHT BACK, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THREATENED BACK: IF YOU EVER DO THIS AGAIN, YOU’LL BE MISSING A BODY PART. OR DEAD! And then dropped everything until I had learned self defense.
Or, I had told been less committed to my marriage vows, and dumped his ass out on the street — in other words, brought it to a head earlier. WHY did I not do that? (a number of reasons: #1. VAWA and awareness of DV laws was not commonplace. #2. I’d never had a similar experience where I had to set a boundary with a violent man before, and wasn’t acquainted personally with such situations. #3. self-defense and handling a gun is not a typical part of the public school education, and not exactly promoted, as in, exercising 2nd Amendment rights, in general. We are not hunting our food, but buying it, for the most part (or growing it). I was not raised in urban areas, where awareness of guns and gun violence was commonplace, but in more rural; people shot deer, or sometimes squirrels, not people! I also wasn’t raised on TV.
School rewards taking orders and obeying rules, at least theoretically.
And that’s not “feminine” behavior.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WHAT IF MEN UNDERSTOOD – – – REALLY UNDERSTOOD – – – THAT EVEN WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP, A SMACK WILL BE SMACKED, BACK, HARDER, BECAUSE IT’S SO OUT OF ORDER? WHAT IF WOMEN WEREN’T SO DESPERATE TO SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY, OR FOR SEXUAL ATTENTION, OR TO HAVE A MAN ON THE ARM, THAT NONE OF THEM COMPROMISED?
WOULD THERE STILL BE FAMILIES AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?
Maybe the fatherhood guys are “right.” Maybe (from that perspective) if men are not needed to provide for and protect women,and defend them from other suitors, stalkers, or rapists, or to help them, particularly when they are more vulnerable, pregnant and raising young kids, the differences between the sexes (as to functions in life) would so blur, that, well, the drive to achieve and provide would diminish, the wheels of the economy would crumble (and a lot of faith institutions also), and life just wouldn’t have that same glow, or afterglow.
Without the primal urge, there would be no skyscrapers (9/11?) or cathedrals, and no empires, multi-national or otherwise. Maybe. life just wouldn’t have that zest and drama. Newspapers would need to find other ways to sell the products, if there weren’t crises to report.
Well, that’s a larger topic. But it seems a natural question: If the nuclear family ain’t what protects, and provides for its young, the only alternative is for equality of income. NOW, Papa Obama and the majority of Head Start, Zero to Five, Administration for Families and Children, (sorry sir to pick on you, this wasn’t your idea to start with) might be out of work. ONLY if the ONLY way to produce income is a “job” that MUST be done outside the home, ONLY then is it essential to have the other functions of raising a family: care, daytime feeding, and education — to be done by someone else, institutionally.
However the people so vigorously promoting this solution ONLY (and highly suspicious of, say, the homeschooling option which is a lot more fluid, lets mothers network and find each other’s long suits, collaborate locally to find the best teachers (including some of each other, as well as hired professionals), and fire the lousy ones — now THAT’S a plus) and actually have a better understanding of who their children are, and possibly better relationships with them, not rigidly defined ones) — these people — and I coudl show you, or you could look for yourself — are THEMSELVES either inheriting wealth, or have sufficient assets to go fund ggovernment policy, publicize and drive various programs through and teach THEIR young how to own businesses and produce passive cash flow, themselves.
Then who would work in the businesses they own? There has to be a steady population — and the majority of the population — that does NOT know how to live independently from the government, or the “employee” situation — or life would, well, it just wouldn’t work right. Who would work the factories, produce the many, many terrific products we enjoy in this country, the material prosperity, the varities of fast foods (and agencies pronouncing that fast foods are bad for you), and all that?
(Along with the domestic violence kidnappings, suicides by cop, traumatized kids, and sometimes dead people, that go along with when this doesn’t work out so well…..).
Well, that dialogue is what I get for thinking. It’s Monday night quarterbacking, I guess, “what-if” scenarios. I cannot turn back the clock in my own case. The fact is, if I hadn’t been who I was, probably the genetic and particular DNA of my two wonderful daughters (who are probably not reading this, yet), and with whom I am NOT spending any more time, would not have been born. I have already determined (and she’s spoken with me recently) that woman number two was targeted for a certain gullibility and in a certain venue, for use to get the kids away from me. He’s out on the loose again, troubling me, because I’ve been contacted, and her, because of what that indicates.
HOWEVER, the rest of this post, below, shows how the local Women’s Resource Agency describes why women should keep coming, keep asking for “PFA” orders and keep playing the odds, because, it’s after all, only about ONE out of THREE cases that violates these orders, and “NOT ALL” do “WHAT HE DID.”
Well, in school, 66% is not a passing grade. Last I heard, 70% was. We are talking 66% success rate when the other 33% (add your decimal points later) might get killed and result in this. We’re not talking about graduating from high school, but living out a normal lifespan, and not in terror, trauma, or having to before a child is ten, witness a homicide. Or two. Or being kidnapped. About officers NOT having to make that sacrifice, and THEIR children lose a Daddy also. How is THAT “promoting responsible fatherhood.”
I think that the time of restraining orders may have passed, and that we probably need to focus on both attitudes, cultural values and self-defense techniques (including weapons if necessary) that make it ABSOLUTELY clear that any such violation of a personal boundary in the form of a HIT will be met with equal, and to make a point, slightly greater responding force to emphasize the unacceptability of it.
I think local communities will have to figure out processes, not “states” they wish to achieve. And this requires being realistic about restraining order and a valid understanding of what abuse IS.
I have one: ABUSE is violating personal boundaries (and, most time, state criminal laws) in order to establish a “giving orders” situation between what should be intimate partners. As such, it qualifies as “two-year-old” behavior and should result in the adult who has regressed to it, and thinks that 2009 is, in fact, closer to 1920 (when women finally got the vote) should be treated like the two-year-old mentality of, the world should conform to you when you don’t like it, without your submitting to some process of negotiation, compromise, or humility. I would like to add that, as I recall this, I always wondered why our daughters didn’t go through the famous “Terrible Twos” {is this an Americdan term only? I don’t know…} rebellious stages. I remember this at the time also. It could be that we weren’t dumping them off in daycare, where they needed more attention, oir it just possibly could’ve been that we had a much larger Terrible Two in the home, in the form of their father, and they knew this.
Only when it’s UNacceptable throughout society to beat women, and terrorize anyone, will this stop. The only acceptable reasons for doing anything like this in defense of life’s essentials — and these do not include maintaining a status quo in which the abuser’s world is perfect, and his ego cannot handle rejection, the need to apologize, or occasional value conflicts. The heart of any really good intimate relationship would do real well to closely resemble what’s written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which most of us (and our legislators) have apparently forgotten.
I happen to be a Christian, and my faith tells me about when this will, and will not happen. I have had to often re-evaluate the duality (us/them) and domination (Christ came once and was humbled/crucified voluntarily, but will return in authority as king and by force put down all rebellion, bringing in world peace), and I assure you, in the many, MANY years I have been around and working (through music) in several faith institutions, the music is terrific, but within white (in particular, but not only) Protestantism, nondenominational especially, equality of women is “anathema” and these places are producing wife-beaters and wife-killers. They do not communally or prominently acknowledge the laws of the land in their hearts, and many (those who do not ordain women, or and hate even the concept of them in leadership, let alone of gays, or lesbians) , despite sometimes sheltering a battered woman, or helping her (i’ve been helped a few times recently), they will NOT stop sheltering the doctines and attitudes that produce more batterred women, and more overentitled men. this is behind the “fatherhood” movement, and it produces a form of social schizophrenia, in which we have a public school system where “God” is not allowed, or prayer, yet public policy where “faith-based” advice and policies are promoted. Well, which is it, folks?
That’s all the psycho- social-analysis for this post. What’s below (written earlier) relates more directly to this particular domestic violence double-homicide, kidnapping, assault, and tragedy which began with “she was estranged,” and a look at the neighborhood response.
What probably kept that woman and her children alive was her willingness to fight back. What put her at risk was compromising the existing restraining order (including drop off at curb), and (possibly) her not having the means or intent to, at ALL times since it was issued, NEVER compromise it AT ALL. ONE means might be for her husband to have understand that she understood her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, and having it in the home, AND her willingness and intent to act on it, if even 3 yards of a restraining order was violated. This sends a clear message, and would put that man back in a place to reconsider whether he wants to test the limits, or can talk or plan, or manipulate his way out of obeying that order.
The courts need to do more to communicate this necessity to women who have just separated. They need to understand that NOW, it’s OK to take a personally aggressive stance and back it up with a willingness to act if boundaries are violated. That IS, after all, WHY the “United States of America” is no longer a British colony, or any other colony (so far), and we might do well to keep communicating this principle to our young, boy and girl alike. Not to belabor the point, but our schools absolutely do NOT, do this at this point, and I say, intentionally so. You can’t “manage” people so well who understand their self-worth.
However Susan Autenreith may have been raised, at the crucial time, she found something within herself to say No, and stand up to this. Having made a mistake, she didn’t condemn herself or try to talk out of the situation. Gun meant FIGHT BACK, YELL DIRECTIONS TO HE KIDS, & CALL FOR HELP.
How Logical Is This?
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About that MOM?
Let’s go chrono, OK?
Not all (female) readers have been through the process of, say,
(1) childbirth,
(2) being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, battered, and in short abused, or other situations which tell you “Danger! Danger!,”
(3) filing and getting a PFA (domestic violence restraining, or etc.) order with kickout, indicating “Danger! Danger!” to all and “STAY AWAY!” to Dad, (and, you can’t buy guns, either, or own them), and then
(4) IMMEDIATELY after these at least actions (applying for a temporary, filing with judge, getting it signed, serving the husband (which then in effect throws him out of the house in some manner), going to court for a hearing to have it made permanent, having it made “permanent” (i.e., facing the ex in that court hearing), and meanwhile attempting to explain this to one’s children in terms they can understand why he can’t live here anymore, then — with a restraining order in effect — typically the NEXT stop is the mediator who will then proceed to act as though there wasn’t really, any serious domestic violence (other than, meetings may be separate) and say, “OK, so long as it’s peaceful communications around the children” and then design some visitation plan any other divorcing couple might have, even the most amicable divorces. Which appears to have happened in this place.
In 1992, Jack Straton, Ph.D. (NOMAS: National Org. of Men Against Sexism) recommended a cooling off period.
So far, no one has figured this out, evidently.
(5) Agreeing, after this, to a custody/visitation exchange plan which basically has a split personality:
Hey, he was so dangerous, you had to get a judge to tell him to stay away, and order no weapons in the home, BUT . . . .. BUT . . . . . it’s OK to give this same, by now pretty distraught or indignant/upset man access to the fruit of his loins, regularly . . . . After all, what about a child’s right to bond with both parents?
This, I say, gives the man, the woman, and the children a mixed message. I have also learned (the hard way) since, the courts ALSO are getting contradictory messages (and funding) about these matters. IS domestic violence a crime, or not a crime?
And so we get cases like the Autenreiths, where Dad didn’t LIKE having that protective order in place, and made this clear with a 9mm. His girlfriend helped him get a gun. Again, his girlfriend.
WHICH BRINGS UP THIS POINT: Telling a man to not own weapons, and get rid of any he does own, doesn’t prevent him — in the least — from grabbing one from a friend who has one (or in this case, a girlfriend buying one for him. I believe this is called a straw purchase, and laws exist to address this, but still, it points out that generally there is a way around the law for those who intend to find one).
(How long were they separated? How hard is it for a man with a plan to get around a piece of paper?)
in order to STOP the cycle of abuse which, without intervention, generally does one thing — escalate, until someone is killed, or more than one,
WHAT ARE THE ODDS? HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THAT MAN? HOW WILL HE RESPOND TO THE PFA?
=======
HERE IS THE RESPONSE REGARDING “PFA’S” TO THIS PARTICULAR ASSAULT, BATTERY, CHILD-KIDNAPPING, THREATS, CAR CHASE AND DOUBLE-HOMICIDE. I HAVE EMPHASIZED ANY AREAS THAT SHOW UNCERTAINTY, LOOPHOLES FOR DANGER:
WOMEN’S RESOURCES OF MONROE COUNTY (PA): PFA’s WORK IN MOST CASES
By Andrew Scott
Pocono Record June 12, 2009
A protection-from-abuse order [“”PFA”] may be just a piece of paper unable to stop the likes of Daniel Autenrieth, the Northampton County man who threatened his wife at gunpoint, kidnapped their son and led police on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal shootout in Tobyhanna.
{To review: PFA, then:
- DEAD PEOPLE — 2, OFFICER, MAN
- WOUNDED — 1, OFFICER
- VERY TRAUMATIZED — 9 YEAR OLD SON, MOM, OTHER KIDS}}
The fact remains that most people with PFAs filed against them comply with those court orders and don’t do what Autenrieth did. So although PFAs aren’t absolutely guaranteed to stop someone who’s unbalanced or really intent on doing harm, people who are being physically abused or feel threatened with physical harm in relationships still should apply for PFAs.
{{Perhaps they should also buy a Lotto ticket?}}
That was the message at a Thursday press conference at Women’s Resources of Monroe County in Delaware Water Gap. Women’s Resources is part of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which provides a network of advocacy, legal, counseling, medical and other support services for domestic violence victims.
. . .
In Pennsylvania, PFA violators can face up to six months in county jail and fines of up to $1,000, depending on the severity of the violation, said Wendy Bentzoni, a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office.
If a woman requests a PFA against her husband and he consents to the order’s terms
- Being evicted from the home he/she shares with the plaintiff/victim and having no contact with that person.
- Being evicted, but being allowed to have contact.
- Being allowed to stay in the home as long as there is no physical abuse or threat of physical abuse.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
Of the 450 PFAs granted in Monroe County last year, more than 125 were violated by defendants, Bentzoni said.
{{OK, Let’s look at that. Suppose it was 150. 150 violated out of 450 is 1 out of 3. That means for every 2 that WERE kept (as far as they know — by whether or not a violation was reported or not) 1 was not. How do you like them odds? Your PFA has a 33.33% of being violated (in which case, see above for potential risk/fallout).
In some cases, getting a PFA filed against an abuser can worsen the victim’s situation because the abuser sees it as the victim trying to take power away from the abuser{{WHICH IT IS INCIDENTALLY}}, she said. Desperate to retain that power over the victim, the abuser might become even more dangerous.
“Against someone with no fear of the law or jail, a PFA might not be the best action to take,” Kessler said. “In that case, we explore other options with the victim. The goal is to get the victim out of a vulnerable position.”
If the abuser is the sole breadwinner for the victim and their children, fear of losing the abuser’s financial support also might deter the victim from applying for a PFA, Kessler said.
Well, I know in my case it sure delayed getting one. Often economic abuse can precede physical.
Economic abuse can precedes and enables the physical AND IS PRE-MEDITATED. If the targeted person can’t afford to get away, or see how they could conceivably do so, they will take their chances staying, possibly. What a great choice — homelessness or increasing domestic abuse.
So, it seems to me if we want a less violent world, the most sensible thing would be focus on teaching children and young people how to become economically independent. In a wonderful contradiction of intent, we DON’T! The entire public schools system in the U.S.A., for the most part, consists of teaching children how to be submissive and take orders, leave the thinking up to the experts, who will grade them, and prepare them for this: College, and Jobs. Not, College and BUSINESSES. Or College, and understanding the economic principles that would help them become business owners, investors, cash-stream producers, foundation producers, and independent thinkers. How hypocritical.
And that includes independent thinking about how to survive financially should they choose to have children, or should they not choose to have children, but set up housekeeping (and sleeping) with a partner that might become sick, injured, or — face it – incarcerated. They should not have to go nurse off Dad, or Mom, or Big Brother the Welfare State, in this case. The goal should NOT be lifetime jobs, but lifetime progression towards financial independence. They cannot do this if they aren’t studying people who have accomplished this, and the basic principles of wealth.
We should also teach them not to let any partner or potential partner disarm them economically — whether it be job, or bank account, or credit, or access to transportation etc. That any such action is aggression, and dangerous to their welfare, creating an artificial co-dependence. They should know this going into relationships.
Now right there, we have a SERIOUS problems. Many world religions don’t accept this, and are not likely to.
Well, maybe they should, in the US, then lose their tax-exempt status. Believe me, I’ve thought of it. Because if they are contributing to the climate of “It’s OK to dominate a woman by any means (or weapon) that comes to hand, because it makes you more of a man,” then they should have to fork over the taxes that society might need to take care of the resulting mess.
And I’ll tell you another “secret” (not a real secret) — one I’ve been thinking about more recently. The majority of these institutions are in a co-dependent and domination relationship within their own ranks. If they didn’t dominate and under-educate them on their own sacred scripts (men and women alike), in the US, at least, many people would not be so dependent on spiritual, social, and emotional nourishment on the weekends and maybe ONE weekday. But that is another post, and probably, blog.
We ought to teach, besides, reading math writing, sport and the arts (to put it roughly) the PROCESSES and VALUES OF:
Self-sufficiency, Self-defense, and self-discipline, to the point of in-depth excellence and mastery in one primary area. With that I believe will come sufficient self-esteem not to enter into too many co-dependent relationships.
I recommend reading John Taylor Gatto’s short book called Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, in which he says, plainly, that the seven lessons he, as a teacher (and at the time NY State Teacher of the Year” actually is teaching is not “relevance” and “interrelationship” of subjects, but the exact opposite. Specifically, in order from the chapter: “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher,” they are:
- CONFUSION
- CLASS POSITION
- INDIFFERENCE
- EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
- INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY
- PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM
- ONE CAN’T HIDE.
The next chapter is called the “psychopathic school” after which he details his efforts of getting a little girl who read beautifully out of a class of bad readers. The girl (reading aloud beautifully) tells him how the administration had explained to her mother that she was, in reality, a “bad reader who had fantasies of being a better reader than she was.” Then, the author relates how the principal tried the same thing on him: how was he, a substitute to know whether or not this child could read.
MY EXPERIENCE: This actually is at the heart of the educational AND the family law system of “experts.” My “sin” was homeschooling the children, and having fantasies (as do many single mothers leaving abuse) that we could make a sound decision on behalf of our sons and daughter, after we’d made just about the soundest one around — LEAVING the situation!
Consider this:
Our form of compulsory schooling was an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted — with guns — by about 80% of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost being Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard. (p. 25,
There is more, but as I review those 7 lessons above, I can’t help thinking about the uncommon similarities between abuse — even it’s definitions — and the family law system, as well as the concept of using another abusive system to handle abuse by one person towards another in the presence of children.
Is ALL conflict bad? No, conflict involving true self-defense, or boundary violations.
Is marriage, or an “intimate partner relationship,” a person as property contract? A relationship as property contract? I believe the law calls it a FIDUCIARY relationship. As such, no one has a right to commit what in other context would be a crime, to protect loss of contact with this former sexual partner, parent of one’s children, children, or the breakdown of a relationship.
WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT OF PFAs and RESTRAINING ORDERS, the enforcement should be thorough, immediate, clear, and strong. The dialogue above illustrates why, in practice, it ain’t. SO the conflicts go on, and escalate.
I have taught lots of children (and adults) in lots of venues and classrooms, and non-class situations. There are always rules ,and in-progress negotiation about common standards, there is always a dynamic flexibility within the group, there is the matter of consensus and critical mass.
The superb choir that got me going into music was about 40 in number, and we stood in mixed quartets, holding our own parts, produced records, soloists, and in general moved mountains and kicked butt musically. It was powerful stuff. We rehearsed almost daily and worked to pay for some of our own needs (including uniforms, painting the room, and going to conferences). We associated after school (and sometimes before) and in other venues than school; we ate, played, and attended concerts together.
Since then, I have sung in (and sometimes directed) choirs numbering from approximately 12 up to over 100. The ideal size (and one of the best choirs I was in) was about 18, or very maximum 20, if they were professionals and unified. I have had a little choir of only 11 do amazing things, because it was small enough to be responsive.
I have always thought it odd that the top ensembles are generally smaller than a typical public school classroom, and many of them not much larger than a large family, with a cousin or two. It brings out the best when there is a unified goal that is reasonable (but still stretching limits) to the people involved. The best choirs also were VOLUNTARY, not compulsory. They chose challenging music (to keep the participants growing) but always taking into account that the audience might not feel so esoteric in general. They mixed and matched, but they HAD to set a fairly high standard technically and musically – or in portrayal.
How does this relate to the Wife who Fought Back?
The system they were ensared in was too large, and is ruling and prognosticating by “the odds.” MOST people (translation: men) do not violate the PFAs, after all, just over 125 out of 450 did in this particular area. Therefore, the women should keep on coming, because what else could they do? It MIGHT not result in this, after all, NOT ALL men do what Mr. Autenreith did.
And we have this growing crisis of “fatherlessness”? That’s a fatherless family, and it just made a peace officer’s kids fatherless, too. I wonder what kind of father the nine-year old will make, should he become one.
I think the doctrine is becoming a little self-defeating, if not downright dangerous. I mean, this is all about the children, right? It’s all because children in single-parent families are at risk.
Well, yeah, with some vigilantes running around the place . . . . . However, if she’d been armed and determined…
I think we (Responsible Citizens) need to take a serious look at the Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher and ask, is this what we are willing to be taught, as adults, by our elected officials? I mean, the same values ARE shared, it is the “Hidden Currriculum” overall, I’d say. And it’s downright un-American, including “parenting classes.” The government already had a shot at the majority of the children in this country, through the public school system. If it were my kids, and the teachers failed, I’d go find me a new teacher and system.
OH, I FORGOT TO MENTION — I DID. AND MY CHILDREN WERE STOLEN ON AN OVERNIGHT VISITATION (UNSUPERVISED) PRECISELY BECAUSE I DID. AND PUT BACK IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THEIR MAMA HAD ALREADY FIGURED OUT THAT THE 7 LESSONS WERE BOGUS.
This is a system that brooks no competitors. It allows some, but scoops up any stragglers, and family law is a great place to find them, and weaken them for the snatch.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Where’s Mom?” Or, “Virtually Invisible in Public Policy Agenda” — The Amazing, Disappearing Word, “Mother”!
If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
I revisited WhiteHouse.Gov/Issues/Families (again) to check my memory or whether the Change we are to hold in our national imagination, did not include — almost at all — the concept of MOTHER in association with the word FAMILY.
I was right, and will demonstrate this for you today:
Despite public proclamations that we are suffering from “father-absence,” in fact, our country’s going to hell fast unless we declare war on fatherlessness (source of society’s ills), I am here to tell you, to the contrary, public policy actually is suffering — and has been for some years now — from “MOTHER-ABSENCE.”
I mean, I went looking and the word is just about Not There! Below (skip down to the color-coded section if you are short on time) I am going to take you by the hand (so to speak) and show you this, from “whitehouse.gov.” If time and fate allow, on another day, I will show you the almost identical phenomenon on the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” website. Possibly this relates to the respectable, and long-established nonprofit having taken its funding from certain government departments (like HHS), or perhaps it relates to its Board of Directors (I did look); it seems to be a sea-change. We’ve gone so Ga-ga over Dada that it has become necessary, supposedly, to eradicate the mere mention of “Mama” from the vocabulary.
I have picked up a similar trend, possibly, in even the National Organization for Women, which I declare HAS helped me considerably in family law matters (no, I am not a member), but which appears in some respects to have dropped the ball. It seems that no one can really picture a world with the word “mother” in it, but instead daycare is in order — only. LGBT rights and Pro-Choice candidates (that means, choice to abort) are the word of the day. The fantastic background, for example, that I see on the California NOW Family Law Page, seems to have languished since about 2005. More on that later. Yet feminism, motherhood, and choice to stay home with one’s own, ARE women’s issues. That topic, I have not fully looked at yet — I am too upset by the current topic.
Women are allowed to exist, just not for the most part, “mothers.” I don’t think this is accidental.
How are we supposed to fulfill our maternal obligations in any personally responsible manner if someone one at the Top Doesn’t Remind us of it (and promise to Reward us for it, too, you know, the carrot and stick routine of behavioral modification? That is, FYI, what our government is doing these days to Fathers. It’s stroking their — egos — verbally, talking them, it hopes, into an upright, erect, and functional position within their families.
Which, apparently, do not include mothers. I mean, can YOU Find it on these pages?
I went looking again, and if you can tolerate my bad taste, off-color sarcasm (which makes me — and I’m a Momma with a bad hair day in progress — a little happier). If you can’t change it, mock it. But I mean, how come this type of talk is being taken seriously? Is our public education system, nationally speaking, worse off than I even imagined? I mean– is it that no one is LOOKING? Or is it that this is now normal talk?
You can either scroll right down past the opening (long) dialogue (again, which makes me feel a little better for having said it) to the portion where I start color-coding a page of the white house web page (I think this is called profiling, but I don’t think it’s illegal) to illustrate just how many times the word “mother” appears on a full blown description of “Families.” and the Obama Administration’s agenda for us.
I know someone who runs a blog called “Mothers of Lost Children.” (wordpress.com in case you were curious). However, this pages talks plenty about “children,” but seems to have lost a grip on the fact that before you get a single child, ANY child, somehow, somewhere, sthere has to be a delivery. And she can be cutt open, conscious or unconscious, she can push it out, with or without help, but THE second that baby comes, alive, out of her womb, SHE becomes technically speaking, a MOTHER. So IO just feel that as a good proportion of the population, and as mother of ALL of the US population, wherever we presently are, the word MOTHER should be statistically a little better represented than it currently is. Below.
Of course the reason I myself am actually LOOKING at these sites, is that I want answers for why my mothering wasn’t good enough for this court system; behaviorally, I committed no crime, obeyed the law, and shared my kids with Dad. I also worked, taught, and educated those girls. I speculate (below, top rant — not summary rant) on what the cardinal sin was. You may not be interested, but I bet the color coded guide to the Family page might be relevant to these discussions. Perhaps — this will show why I got all hot and bothered when a group from Australia surfaced, talking about the issues of domestic violence and poverty, and could actually SAY the word “mothers” in a non-negative sense. (NCSMC).
Well, wordpress takes about 4 minutes to save these days, so here it goes:
I complained about this last April, also
I know I have been picking on “President Obama” in this blog.
Well, He’s not my Daddy, and he’s not the Nation’s Daddy, He’s not the Father of all the Head Start Children, and He’s not my Webster’s Dictionary or Roget’s Thesaurus. Neither He, nor the Executive Branch of the United States, nor all 3 branches together, not one entity is my Messiah either.
You can’t tell this by reading what the White House has been saying, or taking a good look at some of the HHS budget. We are in Designer-Family mode (designer-nation mode?) Have we ALL forgotten the words, republic? Legislature? etc.? Just because some people have fancier, faster, and more interlaced internet connections (i’ve had to FIGHT even to keep mine on, post-divorce), that shouldn’t eradicate our form of government (of, by for the people, right?) How many people, specifically?
I’m a domestic violence survivor, and a vocal/choral person. My BUSINESS has been paying attention to words, for performance, and for survival. They are indicators, they are signposts, and they can incite people to different activities, including sometimes wars, or genocides. And I have studied some of these, and just as there ARE parallels between PTSD after domestic violence and PTSD after war, there are also parallels between the talk PRECEDING such things as the Holocaust and Rwanda. Hate-talk, broad sweeping declarations, and scapegoating.
I can’t figure out what’s behind scapegoating motherhood as a whole, unless someone really HAS produced an artificial womb, and we will not longer be even needed for the first 9 months or so. Whatever’s behind it, I say, wake up!
Back to our President. He’s NOT my kids, or the nation’s kids, “Daddy.”
He’s the Elected (and not by a landslide, either) President, and sworn-to-uphold the Constitution Man on the Job. I think too many Americans (perhaps we may point to our school systems?) have forgotten that document, along with the Bill of Rights, and have possibly lost our moorings among the designers of the titanic (pun intended) ship of state.
LINGUISTICALLY, I can say that language doesn’t even match biology on many of the white house sites, evidence-based practice or no “evidence-based practice.”
Upholding the Constitution and performing the office of President — and not designing and restructuring families, linguistically or any other way — IS the job description, among other things — detailed in the U.S. Constitution.
ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY
I’m a mother. I’m no longer kicking out babies to shortly thereafter kick out of my house (to go to Head Start, Early Head Start, or offer their poor little selves for a 0 to 5 program evaluation of “how children learn” or “the effect of paternal involvement on school readiness” or such.
I didn’t become a Mom:
undereducated,
poor(relatively speaking), or
unacquainted with responsible MOTHERhood,
Like many of my cohorts, I got more than a bachleor’s degree — and professional experience — before hooking up and settling down, I wasn’t clueless on how life works or how to have a healthy baby.
I also didn’t become a Mom even outside wedlock, which happened mostly to be simply part of my belief system, both common sense and faith.
I also didn’t become a Mom in my teens (or pre-teens), or even 20s, but late 30s, in fact I was 40 for one child. Nor am I at all alone in this statistical profile.
I had not been taught how instinctively to tell when wedlock might turn into a “headlock” which mine did, physically speaking. Maybe a more promiscuous lifestyle, or prostitution for that matter, MIGHT have taught me to judge men better, but I doubt it.
Now I have a rhetorical question, for Father Obama: I realize you are recently a President (although as a Senator — and in 2007, the 10th richest in the US, according to one study I read), you did not START the Fatherhood thing, and we now have a pretty good idea who. (“WE” meaning women who’ve been through what I have. Note. Most of us wouldn’t qualify for spitting out more kids for the 0 to 5 program. One thing I have recently Re-qualified for is Food Stamps.) Actually, I have two questions:
QUESTION 1:
(1) Where’s the Change in the fatherhood propanda? Aren’t we done yet? If not, why not? You are talking just like Bush & Clinton in this regard. The talk matches the budget — you don’t want the kids with Mama, and you consider OUR kids YOUR (communal) property, i.e., the “Property of the State.” While this may be appropriate for a prison uniform (only) or a courthouse, it is NOT appropriate for boys, girls, and adult mothers, or, for that matter, law-abiding fathers.
When about half the US is female, and a GOOD portion of those are OVER 21 years AND mothers, one time or another, Where’s the Representation of this word in the White House Style Sheets? Because I’ve looked, and I see “women” (though not filed, for the most part, under “families”) but I don’t see “MOTHER.”
So rhetorical question one is, that aint’ change — where’s the change in this talk, action, and budgeting?
QUESTION 2:
(2) Since you have now proved how a single MOTHER can get a son into the U.S.Presidency (and married to a Harvard grad), and since
I have now proved how a single MOTHER can get get one intact (female) child into the UC Berkeley, and graduating in the top 3% of her class, despite hell she went through from 2-8 (when I filed TRO with kickout) and MORE hell and abuse (including parental kidnapping — unchecked, unreported, and uncorrected), and I also proved how to get my entire household OFF food stamps and within plain view of solvent — withOUT taking up some of the $XX,000 of state (or is it federal?) public education funds to do so — how come YOU can’t keep YOUR administration out of MY family’s pants, purse, and pursuit of excellence, let alone happiness?
How come you can’t say the word “MOTHER” on the site “FAMILIES” in “WHITE HOUSE.GOV”
I’m now back on a Food Stamps leash (no nonfoods, no cat food, no vitamins, no fish oil, and only certain– higher -riced — stores are acceptable).
While I”m on the topic, we have recently learned that the head of “Office of Child Support Enforcement” (Nicholas Soppa) and “Project Save Our Children” is himself a deadbeat Dad in the employ of — get this – the largest federal department, you guessed it, HHS. Last I heard, he spends his weekends in jail rather than pay that money-grubbing bitch (MOTHER of his children). I doubt it’s that he can’t, or needs job training. He is himself a deadbeat Dad. And how come the HHS refuses to garnish his wages?
Why has “competent single mother” become an unpronounce-able concept? Why have women like myself become a social pariah? Because I might show someone else where certain policies are full of holes
Now, I had myself off that, and my household too, until Family Law had a better program design, a seamless, womb to tomb, morning to night, hospital to hospital (birth/death), nationalized everything plan. I didn’t want to sign up for the educational portion of this, which REALLY, I guess put a monkey wrench in the works — a solvent single mother not on food stamps and off the radar. “Help, help, get her back!” Was the sense I had.
And I was within range of getting off that child support safety (?) net too. I ALMOST made it. I called this behavior “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” which didn’t take $100K a year for me, IN fact, I have since learned, I was making somewhere around what it costs to incarcerate an adult male in my state, for a year.
But I had just not done my patriotic and Personal Responsiblity to JOIN the welfare state. I wasn’t earning enough money to fund a foundation, or REALLOY kick in some tax revenues, NOR was my family, really on welfare and as such providing fodder for the Ph.D. programs’ federal grants to study.
(NOTE: this may sound irrational. Don’t judge until you’ve followed more of the links, posts, and data I have, many of them on this site. I was stunned, too. I felt fiscally clobbered at first, finding out how, why, and pretty much by whom my household — FAMILY – had gotten legally clobbered.)
Anyhow, back to then, me as single mother, daring to pursue happiness without enough government guidance. This HAD to be stopped. I would like to note here, that the guidance counselor (unsolicited), self-appointed, for the job, and just graduated from a government (actually, state) certification program, at which time it became clear that, as wet as (he, coincidentally, not “she” at this point) was under the ears in this category, this was no deterrent. Full of age, gender, pride, and presumption, he jumped, full-immersion style, into my personal business and continued to attempt to run it against my will, even after I (politely) put him out of my house and closed the door afterwards. And said, No thank you.
In fact, it was in this person’s subsequent (again, unsolicited) essays to me, about my sins (what else?), including dire prophecies and psychological armchair insights, (and a medical diagnosis or two of me, or my children thrown in for good measure), that I noticed this linguistic tricks, and perspective-switching talk, such as calling something “dysfunctional” which had already been called “violent” and mentally erasing about 20 hears of my life history, addressing me as if I was a little ignorant child, and a wayward one at that.
Anyhow, several years ago< i was caught in the act of being Personally Responsible AND a Mother, and without a man in the house. I forgot to add, our daughters were seeing Daddy regularly, in fact weekly (unless he skipped by choice). Even though a DV restraining order was in place. We were healing, recovering, and prospering. Horrors! !!!
Enter “Family Law” venue, the reversal of the income growth chart, and back go Food Stamps, eventually. It took a little while, because I fought back. Oh yes, that’s not a responsible motherhood behavior either. No, no.
ANYHOW:
Virtually Invisible in Public Agenda
This should be not taken personally, although I am having a bit of hard time, on behalf of the many, many mothers who became noncustodial as what now seems to be an overdosage of federal fatherhood funding f–ing (excuse me..) “duking it out with” due process in the family law arena.
I have noticed this before. I thought I would visually and statistically SHOW how ODD it is that the word “mother” just went underground, in favor of “father.”
Hey, if cars are going off the road and hitting pedestrians (see my last “can we call it a Day on these “Days”? post), which they are (some of them kids, many of them women), one might look at mechanical system (laws, rules of court). One might look at the gas in the tank (VERY few do this, some do, Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net in the D.C. area being one, also people in StopFamilyViolence.now and some others have finally begun looking at the FUNDING) (see randijames.com also). FINALLY.
How many are also looking, perhaps at the carburetor? It adjusts the mix of gas and air in the inflow right? (I’m obviously no mechanic). How rich is the fuel? Is there oxygen?
Well, the “atmosphere” of the “inflow” (of gas — cf. $$) is the rarefied vocabulary of the tops, decisionmaking intake funnels of these places.
Today, we look at usage. WORDS.
WHERE’S MOM? WHERE ARE MOTHERS?
what did we do, to deserve to disappear?
I have some friends who belong to N.O.W. (I don’t) and we commented on the need to return
this issues of mothers and the courts to the dialogue. The public has a short attention, but it takes a good 18 years at least to raise a responsible father or a safe mother, or (tap on wood) perhaps both genders might make it to 21 without starting a family yet.
I personally feel that keeping the public education system both relevant and engaging MIGHT help in this matter, but that’s my private opinion.
I already did this for FVPF.org. Here, I am doing it for WHITEHOUSE.GOV/ISSUES/FAMILY.
The Message is in the Usage.
The Power of Repetition
WHAT IS THIS, GENDER/BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION PROFILING?
HOW DOES OBAMA/WHITE HOUSE/YOUR GOVT? LOVE THEE?
LET ME COUNT (and Color Code) THE WAYS.
- 1x PINK — mothers — ONE, and ONLY one, stellar appearance, (not independently of fathers.)
- 10x BROWN — Families
- BLUE — Fathers OR Fatherhood
- 4x GREEN — PARENTS
- 13x Grape — Children, Young people
- 3X RED: — Women. (“Ladies first”)
- (Never independent of “and men” or children
- 3x “and men”/1x “young men”
- “President Obama Is/was/are/will”
FAMILY
Progress
Ten days after taking office, the President established a White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, led by Vice President Biden. The Task Force is focused on raising the living standards of middle-class, working families across America.
The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided needed support to families enduring difficult times.
- The Act protects health coverage for 7 million Americans who lose their jobs through a 65 percent COBRA subsidy to make coverage affordable.
- The Act also boosts family incomes by expanding the Child Tax Credit to cover an additional 10 million children in working families and creating a new Make Work Pay tax credit.
- To help working mothers and fathers obtain quality child care, the Act includes an additional $2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion for Head Start, and $1.1 billion for Early Head Start.
- To fight hunger, the Act includes a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, as well as funding for food banks and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
- The Act increases the Weatherization Assistance Program by $5 billion to help low income families save on their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient.
- The Act increases job training funds for those who need them most, with $3.95 billion in additional funding for the Workforce Investment system, which will support green job training, summer jobs for young people, and other opportunities.
- The Act provides increased income support, including an increase of $25 per week for Unemployment Insurance recipients and incentives for states to expand unemployment insurance eligibility, as well as an extra $250 payment to Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries and new resources for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
Guiding Principles
A strong nation is made up of strong families. Every family deserves the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had – to make a better future for themselves and their children. Strong families will always be front and center of President Obama’s agenda.
Support Working Families
President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America. And he is restoring fairness to the tax code and increasing child care so that working families have the support they need.
Reform Health Care
President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctors, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Invest in Education
President Obama is committed to providing every child access to a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career. First, the President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for our youngest children, from birth through age 5. Next, President Obama will reform and invest in K-12 education so that America’s public schools deliver a 21st Century education that prepares all children for success in the new global workplace. Finally, President Obama is committed to ensuring that America will regain its lost ground and have the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by 2020.
Promote Work-family Balance
Millions of women and men face the challenge of trying to balance the demands of their jobs and the needs of their families. Too often, caring for a child or an aging parent puts a strain on a career or even leads to job loss. President Obama believes we need flexible work policies, such as paid sick leave, so that working women and men do not have to choose between their jobs and meeting the needs of their families.
Strengthen Families
President Obama was raised by a single parent ** and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.
**{{President Obama’s parent: REALLY? WAS IT A MOTHER OR A FATHER? IS THIS A PUBLIC SECRET?? CAN WE SAY “MOTHER” HERE?}}}
RELATED BLOG POSTS
MON, JUNE 22, 9:29 AM EST
A little more backstory on the famous and exceptional fathers who came to the White House for the “Responsible Fatherhood” event on Friday.
SUN, JUNE 21, 10:27 AM EST
A special Father’s Day video, and an op-ed from the President on being a responsible father.
Includes video.
FRI, JUNE 19, 7:39 PM EST
The President hosts a town hall at the White House to discuss the importance of fatherhood and personal responsibility.
Updated with video.
FROM THE PRESS OFFICE
FRI, JUNE 19, 4:15 PM EST
FRI, JUNE 19, 9:28 AM EST
Presidential Proclamation Father’s Day
FRI, JUNE 19, 8:26 AM EST
ADVISORY: President Obama to Discuss Importance of Fatherhood and Personal Responsibility
MY COMMENTARY:
Hey, I had a choice of candidates, and he got my vote, for many reasons. ONE of which was, I felt that perhaps, having been raised by a single MOTHER (translated below into the word “parent”), he might acknowledge, along with me, a single mother who, absent government interference through this family law forum, and despite domestic violence, was shouldering my “Personal Responsibility” without complaining about it, hesitating, or dodging it, either. I’m not anti–work. I also loved my children. In fact, when someone was interfering with me doing this, I actually sought help so I could continue to carry my share of work, and I already was of parenting. When their education was inferior, I also returned to the former, superior brand of it, innocently enough and reasonably so.
MORAL: NEVER, if possible get on one more than 3 governmentally organized radars simultaneously.
Little did then I know what demonstration projects had been projected upon our populace in this geographic area, and how deeply this would trickle down to the courtroom.
WHY did I not know?
Well, if your car ain’t running, would you think of looking at the atmosphere? or its mechanical operation? And how many people would go look at a federal agency (and its history) as well as a host of related credentialing and certifying organizations, and a child support agency, to figure out why this car keeps running off the side of the road (of evidence, facts, and fairness) into pedestrians? ANd yet, so extensive is the operating system these days, that this is about HOW ponderous, how networked, and how invasive and pervasive some very, very basic human processes are.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
When I did certain kinds of music, for years, I lived, breathed, talked and walked certain melodies, harmonies, vocabularies. Even in some of my mental down time (including going to, from and sometimes during school, as I took buses), and on weekends, and among my friends, this was what and who we were, enthusiastically so. We knew the jargon, and used it and could discern varieties of practice within it.
WELL, the Family Experts live, breathe, talk, and walk certain jargon with each other too. When Federal talks to Nonprofit talks to University talks to Court, guess what? that’s common air inhaled.
And where’s Mom? Where did she go? Is she hiding under “Women’s Issues?” Maybe. . . . I’ll have to go look (again) Where is the positive, federally promoted ACT of MOTHERING or being a MOTHER?
Even God, and an apostle or two, compared himself in some aspects to a nursing mother, a tender nurse cherishing. Jesus Christ compared himself one time (in grief) to a mother hen. One of his hallmarks (hey– it’s my blog! Did I say no religion? My Government hasn’t said that — they have a national religion (see last few posts) and faith-based advisories too. So, deal with it!) was that he actually NOTICED women that his disciples and others ignored: widows, women caught in adultery, (Where was the man), a broke widow casting in her last mite (for the cause), and old woman stooped over, a woman with a fever, and so forth. The reason I have noticed this is the stark contrast with many buildings, and locations, I’ve been in using the word “God,” and they not only didn’t notice women (except when their services were needed), they didn’t notice when one of the men was beating on one of his women. Or, living with him, they lacked, when he didn’t — same household. Basics.
Where did the concept of Motherhood go?
I gather, it is not wanted. We are to go to work, no matter what the wages and what the future, or hand over our children to a federal program. Alternately, we could seek to enforce child support, in which case, sooner or later, it’s quite likely that any “dude” who woudln’t willingly pay it may protest, and go grab his kids back, in which case she is STILL handing over them kids.
WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?
Look above: they are “our” children.
I want to know why the word “mother” is in disfavor, and whose policy was it to eliminate the usage. As a copyeditor, I know that there are “style sheets” and that these differ with different publishing houses.
As an educator, I read “The Language Police” (about the text publishing industry, telling how self-censorship affects even the proposal level of textbooks, for political correctness. I also know that, as in courts, California leads the way, along with Texas, in this arena).
So, HOW COME a private nonprofit (well-funded) dedicated to prevention of violence against families, including WOMEN, has now gone all gaga over fathers? And how come this reminded me of the whitehouse site as well?
How many people here noticed that the incoming “change.gov” did not have a hyperlink for (correct me if I was wrong), “women.”
How dare anyone talk so much about families, which requires 9 months (usually) of gestation, followed by labor for even one baby, to come to suck air, and sometimes this even can occur outside a hospital or without a doctor, and the child survive, or thrive, yet not say the word “mother?”
SHARE THIS POST on...
Responsible Citizenhood – What’s Health, Which Humans, What Services: (Welcome to “HHS”)
NOTE: Post in progress, likely to be split into two. Right now, it’s rough riding
My “Save to Draft” link vanished, so I either “publish” or all this “perishes.” Sorry to Pile it Higher and Deeper. Check back later if you don’t have galoshes on today. Check it out now, if you are an investigative sort, I”m chock full of hot links (trails to follow — trails to where $$ are being spen)t.
The article from IWF talks about Head Start. It’s at the VERY bottom. Being me, I had to illustrate where “Head Start” and “Early Head” start lay, federally speaking. Head Start is a huMONGOUS Federal Investment, almost as much as hauling Dads out of prisons and putting them back in touch with the kids, in exchange for lowered child support payments to make the welfare rolls look better. If this results in a few familywipeouts, well, there are other government entitites to clean up, investigate (supposedly) and propose further incursions on the 2nd Amendment, and other civil rights, ONE of which is to be alienated from money you earned, or determining how to spend it, either — I suppose, to help protect us from ourselves in a bulletless manner.
<><>
Normally I am not on the same page as IWF Independent Women’s Forum. Why? I’d pinpoint it as this — they’re not on the same page as me when it comes to the importance of VAWA — I’m as independent as the best of ’em, but I’d like to speculate that if a number of these libertarian-style writers had actually been the target of abuse, or had children kidnapped or parentally-stolen, and were unable to get justice for their retrieval, I think the tune would go a little differently. A close friend of mine, who witnessed much of what happened, and how it affected me, commented that the libertarians are great with the THEORIES, and are mostly theory too, no compassion.
Whether or not that’s so, I’ve had a busy few days, and will let this Policy Brief “to the contrary” on the megalith of Head Start as being pushed by our current President, speak for me. I do agree on this matter.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) provides a full listing of all Federal programs available to State and local governments (including the District of Columbia); federally-recognized Indian tribal governments; Territories (and possessions) of the United States; domestic public, quasi- public, and private profit and nonprofit organizations and institutions; specialized groups; and individuals.
Head Start is CFDA “93.600”
Fiscal Year: 2009
| CFDA Prog. No. | Popular Title | CAN Award Amount |
| 93.600 | Head Start | $ 5,772,627,164 |
| Total: | $ 5,772,627,164 | |
And we’re in June. Here’s 2008:
Fiscal Year: 2008
| CFDA Prog. No. | Popular Title | CAN Award Amount |
| 93.600 | Head Start | $ 6,677,528,436 |
| Total: | $ 6,677,528,436 | |
And that’s not counting “ARRA Head Start” or “ARRA Early Head Start.” which you can look up separately.
. . OK, since you begged me:
Fiscal Year: 2009, ARRA Head Start
| CFDA Prog. No. | Popular Title | CAN Award Amount |
| 93.708 | ARRA – Head Start | $ 20,191,359 |
| Total: | $ 20,191,359 | |
and for good measure:
While we are at it, I’m feeling ornery, so I’m going to post the DISCRETIONARY grants, by type, for FY 2009 only.
Le’ts hope our government is indeed full of prudence and discretion (wisdom) in the matter of the total at the bottom of this chart:
This report shows the number of discretionary grants and associated dollar values organized by the four major activity types shown below, and their subcategories.
Research – Includes traditional research projects by individual investigators and other broadly based traditional and other research as well as research career programs. NIH awards about half of these grant dollars.
Services – Includes grants to deliver health or social services, treatment and rehabilitation programs, education and information programs, and programs to detect health problems. ACF awards the majority of services grants.
Training – Includes research and health professions training programs, education projects, and rural area health care training. NIH and HRSA award most training grants.
Other – Includes construction projects, grants for the planning and development of health programs and health resources, evaluations, and health infrastructure awards—a small percentage of the total discretionary grants.
FY: 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
| Activity Type | Number | Dollars |
| Research | ||
| SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | 45 | $2,134,706 |
| SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | 30,574 | $10,705,113,249 |
| Research Subtotal | 30,619 | $10,707,247,955 |
| Services | ||
| DEMONSTRATION | 917 | $545,381,046 |
| HEALTH SERVICES | 2,662 | $1,198,502,612 |
| SOCIAL SERVICES | 2,048 | $6,029,628,475 |
| Services Subtotal | 5,627 | $7,773,512,133 |
| Training | ||
| TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 38 | $1,356,536 |
| TRAINING/TRAINEESHIP | 3,591 | $544,297,132 |
| CONFERENCES (INFORMATION TRANSFER/TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER) | 12 | $71,811 |
| Training Subtotal | 3,641 | $545,725,479 |
| Other | ||
| OTHER | 3,875 | $4,169,016,838 |
| PLANNING | 7 | $0 |
| CONSTRUCTION | 13 | $0 |
| FELLOWSHIP/SCHOLARSHIP/STUDENT LOANS | 2,003 | $57,647,835 |
| KDA (KNOWLEDGE/DEVELOPMENT/APPLICATION) | 174 | $15,011,235 |
| Other Subtotal | 6,072 | $4,241,675,908 |
| Grand Total | 45,959 | $23,268,161,475 |
(For those of you who came out of the US Public Education System, that’s $23 with a B as in Billion.
Aren’t you curious about the “other” category? I am….)
Some (not alll) agencies. The FIRST number to right of name is number of OFFICES< then SECOND is the number of PROGRAMS:
Of these 17 “Offices” (a functional, not geographic term)typically known by their initials (Cf. “FDA”) are these. Again, the number to the RIGHT represents the # of programs under this “office.”
In terms of dollars (see below, 2008), only CMMS (Medicare and Medicaid) had more than ACF:
HHS Grants By OPDIV
This report shows the total number of grants (mandatory and discretionary) and total number of grant dollars awarded by each HHS operating division (agency). It also shows the percentage of the total number of grants, and the percentage of total grant dollars that each agency awarded with respect to the total number of grants and grant dollars awarded by all HHS agencies. Of the total HHS grant dollars, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) awards about two-thirds; the Administration for Children & Families (ACF) awards about 20%; and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards less than 10%.
(FY displays as 2011 for some reason, but these are 2008 figures).
FY: 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004
| OPDIV | Number | #% | Dollars | $% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACF | 7,799 | 10.28% | $46,151,691,513 | 17.40% |
| AHRQ | 307 | 0.40% | $84,085,143 | 0.03% |
| AOA | 1,141 | 1.50% | $1,385,629,076 | 0.52% |
| CDC | 3,486 | 4.59% | $4,424,589,279 | 1.67% |
| CMS | 1,000 | 1.32% | $181,153,208,973 | 68.29% |
| DHHS/OS | 631 | 0.83% | $877,067,242 | 0.33% |
| FDA | 142 | 0.19% | $36,823,882 | 0.01% |
| HRSA | 6,137 | 8.09% | $5,870,873,213 | 2.21% |
| IHS | 673 | 0.89% | $1,203,106,391 | 0.45% |
| NIH | 52,057 | 68.59% | $21,113,804,312 | 7.96% |
| SAMHSA | 2,525 | 3.33% | $2,973,765,742 | 1.12% |
| Total | 75,898 | $265,274,644,766 |
OK, let us now look at those 70 ACF programs:
Below, the # (93.###) is the “CFDA” Number used in the TAGGS database cataloguing usage of grants — down to who got them, and at least a nominal description, as well as, er, how much was allocated and when. So those CFDA #s are a research tool for the informed citizen. Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA, get it?)
I’ve colored, highlit, italicized, and bolded many of them. How MANY of these programs overlap with each other, and are VERY much entwined with the topic of this blog — family court matters.
For example, if child support were consistently enforced, PERHAPS more Moms could stay home with infants, saving money at Head Start centers. However Motherhood is not in consonance with “promoting Fatherhood/”health marriages” policy of late, which means, bring Dads back, more access. This means sometimes Moms then have to go out and replace that child support she just lost at custody-switch time, which then, if Dad also has full-time work and not a stay-at-home second wife, would necessitate possibly more child care, right? See the merry go round?
Of course, see also the article on the Boyhood project, and the commentary that the US is the world’s largest (by per capita) jailor, which is probably a factor in so many fatherless families, maybe even as much as them danged feminazi’s saying, stop hitting us! and letting women out of abusive situations.
I want us to see the incredible breadth and scope of activity under this department. And to make a note of research tools, and to understand, the next time your local state, county, or city says they’re broke, that there may be some federal reasons why. ALL of these are under the Executive Branch of government. Responsible Citizenhood entails learning about them — before you become desperate for services from one or more of them!
DIVISIONS (Programs) under Administration of Children and Families:
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Administration For Children And Families
Below, you may now see why IWF might be squawking about whether More, Earlier, Better (0-5 actually helps, or for that matter, is best. For that, please (now) see the next post (date: 06-19-09)
SHARE THIS POST on...
An Oral Fixation on Fatherhood as it relates to Bovine Growth Hormone?
Family Law Adjudications affecting infant health. . . . .
This is an extension of the previous post on the poor Australian kids that had to adjust weekly from cow’s to human milk because of a 2006 law about Shared Parenting. That’s not sharing, that’s kid-kickball. That’s jug-juggling. What set of men (and 2nd wives) dreamed that one up?
Inspired originally by Daniel Slack, whose Newsvine seed said this:
I do not understand why it would be OK to drink from a cow Teat, but not from a human Teat. I have found evidence to the detrimental effect of cow’s milk with Bovine Growth Hormone. One study not only shows evidence that it leads to obesity and excessive male breast development, but suggests that drinking nonorganic milk will give women a 42% higher chance, and men a 20% higher chance of developing Breast cancer.
Mostly, I wrote the article so that people will start questioning why we believe what we believe is OK. Society says it is OK to drink cow milk. Society also says we should expect politicians to lie, judges to take bribes, and car dealers to try to rip us off. How far back are we personally willing to push the boundaries of what society says is acceptable? Is it worth it, to improve your health?
If the government could so intervene in and screw up one of the most basic human instincts, other than making babies (or trying to, or trying NOt to, but still going through the motions), such as eating, specifically sucking it down (“raw,”) perhaps we can learn, individually and communally to stop sucking down the dialectic straight from the government teat, grow out incisors, molars, and wisdom teeth, and chew our own data.
And nurse and educate our own kids, too.
(I promise to stop milking this analogy — in the next post. Not this one. It’s just SO appropriate. . . . )
In this post, we progress (discursively, that is), from Human Milk to Cow’s milk (raw), through pasteurization, the regulation of the stalwart “we want it raw” farmers (by the federal government, who else? Protecting the rest of us from Common Sense, or Independence) and then through the natural battle some people, and farmers, go through to SELL it, Raw, and eventually will land back to the topic of how can a separating couple in Australia navigate these treacherous, debate-ridden waters of whose milk to feed, or express, for their growing offspring, after they grew emotionally apart as adults? Mom’s or Cow’s?
I got to remembering this book, “The Milk of Human Kindness (Is not Pasteurized).” One benefit of homeschooling, I forgot to mention, is that time to read and browse bookstores (half-priced ones especially) and libraries, helped improve my own literacy level, as well, and that was coming in with two college degrees and professional experience itself pretty varied. But what about LIFE experience, and then reading up on that?
Sometimes things I read years ago leap alongside my thinking to contribute to the present dialogue. When thought is actually processed, this happens more and more.
WHAT does this have to do with Fatherhood (proclamations) and oral fixations?
Well, I think that SOME fathers and men, have a fixation on orating about things of which they have insufficient personal experience.
And it shows in this topic of one basic human nutrient — not Dad, but food.
Paternal Pro/Efficiency (expertise, regulation) vs. Maternal Nurture
I think that ideally the world should be ruled — in small sections only, and somewhat fluid ones — by a balanced partnership between men and women. I do not think women should rule the world. I do not think ALL men are tunnel-vision, efficiency-obsessed, better at getting things done (and more callous about who gets hurt in the process), and we already explored that maybe their Corpus Callosus is NOT skinner than ours (and if so, it may or may not be relevant). I think that the idealized, ritualized, stereotyped MYTHs of MANHOOD (as opposed to manliness, or masculinity which, believe it or not, I DO appreciate, so long as choice is involved and gender stereotypes (his, and mine) is not rammed down my throat, allegorically speaking) (and which would be a pretty comprehensive description of the previous “marriage”) are deleterious to us all. The widespread acceptance of these myths (added to pornography), and now enshrined in government declarations, resolutions, policies, and initiatives, show us that the genuine article is probably in short supply. (Or, is otherwise, and more productively, occupied).
OK< . . . .
“John Stoltenberg (1945[1]-) is an American radical feminist activist, scholar, author, and magazine editor.[2] He is the managing editor of AARP the Magazine, a bimonthlypublication of the United States-based interest group AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), a position he has held since 2004. Although he formed a relationship with and eventually married Andrea Dworkin, he considers himself gay.[1]
Hmmm. I’ll have to think about this a little more. I know the book “The End of Manhood” (as a virtual concept) spokes sense to me, a woman whose humanity had to disappear while her sole defining characteristic, allowable in marriage, was my gender, thereby I gather helping bolster a husband that was less secure of himself than he appeared initially. I will put it together with this one (whose author has actually been decorated by the Fatherhood promoters, like the above book, the title to this one is also misleading: “Hating Women.” My copy is dogeared and underlined.
Review excerpt:
Boteach’s book is primarily a discussion of image and perception, which he sums up in eight archetypes, four female and four male. He then gives examples of his stereotypes via the media and through his experiences working as a rabbi and counseling. Anecdotal as some of this stuff may be, it’s still powerful.
(SToltenberg) He holds degrees in divinity and fine arts. He is well known as a feminist activist and author. He has written a series of books and articles criticizing traditional concepts of manhood or maleness, such as “Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice” (Meridian, 1990), “Why I Stopped Trying to be a Real Man,” [1] and “The End of Manhood: A Book for Men of Conscience” (Penguin USA/Plume, 1994).
He created “the Pose Workshop,” which entailed men adopting the poses that women strike in pornographic shots (intended partly for men attending Christian retreats), a version of which was broadcast on BBC television. He was Andrea Dworkin‘s life partner for thirty-one years. They began living together in 1974; in 1998 they married. He was a founder of the group ‘Men Can Stop Rape’ [2] and conceived and creative directs the group’s ‘My Strength’ [3] campaign which aims to educate young men on sexual relationships, consent and rape.
Stoltenberg is credited with the quote “Pornography tells lies about women. But pornography tells the truth about men.” The quote is from the essay The Forbidden Language of Sex in his book “Refusing to Be a Man: Essays on Sex and Justice” (Meridian, 1990).
SUFFICE IT TO SAY (don’t laugh!), I am much more interested in relating to genuine human beings with more than the stereotyped posturing to offer in their dealings with me. These could be (and have historically been) either male or female. The topic of Me Tarzan, You Jane is temporarily interesting only, and in certain contexts only, and cannot sufficiently handle all that life requires of all of us these days. While our sexuality certainly affects and influences the rest of us, JUSTICE should not be tied to GENDER. And one gender should not have a national totalitarian power to define ITself, the OTHer gender, Childhood, or for that matter, parenting. Or, as today’s topic is, nutrition, either. The more I look at the major institutions in this country, the more inhuman they seem to be in origin.
They are like false idols, bending reality to fit theory, even when it comes to infants, and like the bed of Procrustes, that fits EVERYONE (he says, to potential guests). “Come on in.“
I will say that some are, and too many of these orally fixated on making pronouncements folks happen to have found an outlet, if not calling in religion, and from there to politics, and from there to regulatory agencies coaching government. All along the way they are pronouncing esoteric truths, some of which a lowly MD or so will later then expose as, well, not waterproof.
Format of this post: MOST of it is quotes, generally the titles are the URL, with chronology (years) as headings. Generally speaking, any emphasis (italic, bold, color) is mine. Summary comment at the bottom, as usual. This first, blue, segment, is me, though:
MILK, CONSIDERED
Milk is so basic as to be considered essential to the beginning of life. It is a noun, literal and figurative, and the verb is also literal, for some involving human contact, and for others, mass-produced mechanical teat-receptors. The figurative use, “milking the moment” (which I am, in this topic) relates back to the basic format, person milking cow. By hand. So let’s consider how this plays into what type of THINKING permeates (or is that saturates) the family law field?
I am old enough (or was raised rural enough?) to remember a milk truck, with cold bottles delivered early, and cream at the top, and old ones turned back in. Now, homogenization is the rule, in education as well as in milk, as well as in legislation.
The Exodus of Insight:
For example, in California, it used to be possible to get raw cow’s milk. There was a concerted effort to outlaw it. This had nothing to do with health and everything to do with politics. Pasteurization may clean things up, but it also (due to heat) destroys enzymes, which we NEED. And the presence of pasteurization, this book asserts, ended up covering up some pretty squalid additions to cow’s milk, on the basis it was all sterilized to s start with.
Nursing, then has (d)evolved in this country, I gather, from Mom’s mammaries, raw (although I’m sure the word “raw” dated closer to pasteurization, to Cow mammaries, RAW, to Cow mammaries, Pastuerized, and then sooner or later we have Dr. McDougall, among others probably, being an M.D., noticing a few things about pasteurized milk.
And we then have…
1985
The Milk of Human Kindness, even if Bovine, is Raw, not Pasteurized, and here’s why:
According to “TheMilkBook.com
(Review:) The Milk Book – The Milk Of Human Kindness Is Not Pasteurized –
The Milk Book – How Science Is Destroying Nature’s Neatly Perfect Food. Children are denied whole milk because pediatricians are obsessed with the cholesterol myth. These same gutless wonders don’t say anything about children drinking half-a-dozen bottles of Coca-Cola a day, stating before breakfast! But kids can’t get a decent glass of milk. Adding vitamin D to milk is a risky business. The New England Journal of Medicine reported many cases of vitamin D intoxication resulting from excessive fortification of commercial milk. Today, you can’t get a decent glass of milk. Even if you buy whole milk, thinking it is better than that sickly blue stuff called skim, you can’t win, because all of the commercial milk is homogenized. I am convinced that homogenization is even more detrimental to the nutritional quality of milk than the heat processing called pasteurization.
– William Campbell Douglass II, MD (I believe this book,which I have read, came out about 1985.)
What is the logical thing to do then? Outlaw raw (cow’s) milk, naturally. Dirty, natural, dangerous stuff, just a step above, say, breastfeeding from a human. Disgusting! In Mad Cow Loco mood, the Federal Government squirts some sense into the populace:
NOT TO BE OUTDONE,
1986
“In 1986, the federal government banned all interstate shipments of raw milk, cream and butter.”
1989
- ScienceDaily (Aug. 5, 2005)— An analysis of 21 studies that have investigated the link between ovarian cancer and the consumption of milk products and lactose has found some support for the hypothesis that high intake is associated with increased cancer risk. The results of this analysis, published online August 5, 2005 in the International Journal of Cancer, the official journal of the International Union Against Cancer (UICC), found that support was stronger in cohort studies, compared to case-control studies, which offered varying results. The article is available via Wiley InterScience at http://www.interscience.wiley.com/journal/ijc
- Since a positive correlation between ovarian cancer risk and the consumption of milk products and lactose was first reported in 1989 , many epidemiological studies have further examined the relationship. However, these studies have yielded conflicting conclusions.
- To better understand the uncertain relationship, researchers led by Susanna C. Larsson of the National Institute of Environmental Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, conducted a meta-analysis of relevant case-control and cohort studies., many epidemiological studies have further examined the relationship. However, these studies have yielded conflicting conclusions. To better understand the uncertain relationship, researchers led by Susanna C. Larsson of the National Institute of Environmental Medicine at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, conducted a meta-analysis of relevant case-control and cohort studies.
2003 (URL):
Ron Shmid, ND, a naturopathic physician, outlined the laws governing sales of raw milk in his 2003 book The Untold Story of Milk:
“Twenty-five states technically allow on-farm sales of raw milk, but nearly all place restrictions on the farmer by limiting the amount he may sell, banning advertising, imposing excessive fees or regulations, or allowing local town Boards of Health to ban sales. Two of those 25 states limit sales to raw goat milk… Eleven of these 25 states have provisions allowing for some retail sales, but in most such sales are limited by many of the same restrictions… In practice, however, raw milk is available in stores only in Arizona, California, Connecticut, and Maine…
Six states allow sales of raw milk for animal consumption only, without requiring the addition of dyes… Two states make all sales of raw milk illegal with the exception of raw goat milk when prescribed in writing by a licensed physician… In two states, Montana and Washington, the situation is murky. Regulations could be interpreted to allow sales of raw milk but state officials do not follow these interpretations… Sixteen additional states and the District of Columbia make all sales of raw milk illegal…
In 1986, the federal government banned all interstate shipments of raw milk, cream and butter.”
[Editor’s Note: ProCon.org received an e-mail from the Weston A. Price Foundation on Sep. 27, 2007, alerting us to the fact that as of Dec. 1, 2004, the states of Washington, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina also began allowing the sale of raw milk in stores. That brings the total to eight states that allow in store sales of raw milk (This information was confirmed by ProCon.org through additional research in Sep. 2007 and again in Sep. 2008). For a listing of all state laws pertaining to raw milk please see (etc.)
2004, Dr. Mercola:
Joseph Mercola, DO, an osteopathic physician, stated in his April 24, 2004 article “The Real Reasons Why Raw Milk Is Becoming More Popular,” published on his website:
“Raw {COW’s} milk is a highly health-promoting food… While it is certainly possible to become sick from drinking contaminated raw milk, it is also possible to become sick from almost any food source. But it seems that raw milk has been unfairly singled out as a risk, when only a very small risk exists…
Raw milk is an outstanding source of nutrients including beneficial bacteria such as lactobacillus acidophilus, vitamins and enzymes, and it is, in my estimation, the finest source of calcium available…
People who have been allergic to pasteurized milk for many years can typically tolerate and even thrive on raw milk. Raw milk is truly one of the most profoundly healthy foods you can consume, and you’ll feel the difference once you start to drink it.”
2005
Well, 20 years later, the local yokels are fighting back, some. Here’s commentary:
(TOM PHILPOTT, 11/28/2005)
RAW MILK, HOT COMMODITY
Despite a recent crackdown, Washington State’s raw-milk policy might point way forward.
In a nation riddled with diet-related maladies like obesity and diabetes, the official fear that greets raw milk is impressive.
You can waltz into any convenience store and snap up foods pumped liberally with government-subsidized high-fructose corn sweetener, deep-fried in government-subsidized partially hydrogenated soybean oil. Yet in many states, teams of bureaucrats devote themselves to “protecting” us from raw milk — and imposing onerous fines on farmers who dare sell it.
Some states ban raw milk outright; others have erected elaborate barriers between farmer and consumer. Here in North Carolina, for example, I have to pretend I’m buying animal fodder when I visit a nearby dairy farm to pick up a gallon or two of raw milk.
Even so, consumers are increasingly demanding it, banding together with farmers to form Prohibition-like cells from New York City to Portland. To me, it tastes better, more alive, than even the best pasteurized milk; and I tend to believe the health claims made for it.
According to this AP article, Washington State is stepping up enforcement of its raw-milk restrictions, which are actually relatively enlightened. The article says that in Washington, farms that sell raw milk must be “licensed through the state, which requires monthly testing of the milk and inspection of the farm and milk bottling room.” Further, “each bottle must contain a warning label saying it may contain harmful bacteria.”
However, a law that went into effect July 1 allows the milk to be hand-bottled. That means farms don’t have to lay out large investments in bottling equipment — a requirement that would eliminate milk sales as a potential revenue source for many small operations.
As long as compliance costs are low, Washington’s raw-milk code could actually help build the market for the product. While I think that consumers are their own best health inspectors — I wouldn’t buy raw milk from a farm I hadn’t inspected myself, or whose operator didn’t have a top-notch reputation in his or her community — many people don’t feel comfortable consuming something as potentially dangerous as raw milk without government oversight.
(There is of course a bitter irony here: The government has long shown itself to be more responsive to corporate dictates than public-health concerns. To cite just one example: The FDA continues to countenance the use of hydrogenated oil, despite decades of evidence of its deadly effects.)
Direct-marketed raw milk is a potential boon to dairy farms that have languished for years under the heel of rising costs and stagnant prices for their goods. Consolidation in the dairy-processing industry means that in most places, a single buyer exists for a farm’s milk output. By selling direct to consumers, farmers have more leverage to get a decent price.
2006
California, too!
(Sept. 2006)
First, bags of spinach were found to be contaminated with E Coli, which made people sick. The strain of E Coli in the spinach (0157:H7) was the same strain found in those people who were sick. Now four children who consumed raw dairy products from Organic Pastures dairy have become ill with E Coli as well. At least one of these children had the strain 0157:H7 confirmed on lab tests, the same strain present in the contaminated spinach. However, tests of the raw dairy products have failed to detect any E Coli in samples.
Nonetheless, the California State Veterinarian, Dr. Richard Breitmeyer, has placed a temporary ban and recall of all raw milk products from Organic Pastures as a precautionary measure
Like most foods, the less processing that dairy products undergo, the more nutritious it is. Although pasteurization will kill potentially harmful bacteria in milk, it also destroys bacteria and enzymes that help people digest and absorb nutrients in milk. The benefits of consuming raw milk have been advocated by many groups. The website www.realmilk.com (operated by the Weston A. Price Foundation) describes these many benefits (www.westonaprice.org). Others are critical of dairy product consumption by humans in any form (www.notmilk.com).
An alternative to raw milk is organic, non-homogenized (cream top) pasteurized milk. Homogenization distributes the fat in milk throughout the solution, but also makes the fat unavailable. The fat is needed for calcium absorption and is a good source of saturated fat for children.
Parents who have found that switching to raw milk products solves the problems associated with processed milk, may have more difficulty now obtaining raw milk, and will get more pressure to use pasteurized dairy products. And the whole issue of dairy product consumption is a hotbed of controversy.
It is illegal for dairies to produce and sell raw milk in 23 states. Consumers have found ways to get around these laws by buying milk directly from farmers. And in California and other states where raw milk is legal, dairies have been able to supply consumers with their products through health food stores. But state health departments frown on raw milk production and often go after dairies.
In California the health department has forced the Organic Pastures dairy to indefinitely stop all distribution and recall all raw dairy products from stores because of an alleged connection to four children who have E Coli illnesses.
So far, this is still about the condition/quality of COW’s milk (just a reminder)
2008
From: , Organic Consumers Association, More from this Affiliate
Published April 7, 2008 08:22 AMCalifornia Threatens to Outlaw Sales of Raw Milk
California raw milk producers warn that a new law to impose strict requirements on raw milk, will outlaw and require the disposal of perfectly safe milk. AB 1735 requires that all raw milk sold in California be tested for 10 coliform bacteria per milliliter or less. But raw milk producers and activists say that most coliform bacteria is perfectly safe, and that tests are already carried out for a handful of such bacteria, including E. coli 0157:h7 and Listeria monocytogenes, that can cause disease in humans. The new law does not require testing for those bacteria.
“My customers’ choices are now being limited by a law that makes no sense,” said Mark McAfee, owner of the country’s largest raw dairy, Organic Pastures. “Why test for coliform bacteria when you can test for pathogenic bacteria directly?”
“Officials cite health risks to raw milk, but once milk has been pasteurized, all the anti-microbial and immune-supporting components are reduced or destroyed,” said Sally Fallon, founder of “A Campaign for Real Milk.”
. . .
And here’s an interesting discussion, pro, con, complete with testimony and statements from propononents and opponents:
Is raw (cow’s) milk more healthful than pasteurized milk?
(A few links above led here also):
Now, back to Mama and MOTHER’s MILK (NB: I think you need to have been a mother, or at least pregnant, before you can produce, although not having tried myself before I became pregnant, I can’t say for sure.) Anyhow, for the sake of consistency, I prefer “Mother’s” to “Human” milk.
2009
The Milk of Human Kindness – Uses for Human Breast Milk
News Type: Event — Sun Apr 26, 2009 12:19 AM PDT
Every year, the citizens of the United States drink on average 21 gallons of milk. Most of this milk is from cows. Ever since I heard that PETA wanted Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream to use human milk, {{For the record, yes, I DO object, women are not cows! We are already being treated as surrogate mothers in the courts, and sometimes functioning as them in life. Let’s keep it to the first part of life, and OK? STOP the ObamaInterventionProgram to get them babies away from them Mamas and into child care (and her into WalMart or somewhere else) and put them back with their Moms. It’s better for Moms, too. Let’s learn how to take care of our relationships, for once in our life!}}{{There are already ads enough for women and men of a certain age to sell their eggs and sperm;DNK if blood; too bad I missed them while trying to collect child support arrears}}
I {author, not blog author} have been researching about the advantages and uses of it. Here is what I have come up with.
)Human Breast Milk has been used as a medication for thousands of years. In the ancient world, breast milk was sometimes consumed as Medicine, in Fertility Rituals, and in other religious ceremonies. The Ancient Egyptians used are honey and human breast milk as medicine. Not only did they have medicinal values, they also are believed to have been used to ward off evil spirits and demons. It is even theorized that our ancestors not only breast fed their children during long migrations, but also breast fed their men too!
7) It helps fight off long term health problems. Breast milk can help prevent ear infections. People who drink it are less likely to develop asthma, Multiple Sclerosis, and help prevent some food allergies. It is said that Breastfeeding protects against cancer, helps prevent heart disease and even relaxes tension caused by stress . People with GI disorders and organ donation recipients also benefit from the immunologic powers of human breast milk. Talk about a health drink!!
Antibodies (also called Immunoglobulins) are made by the body’s immune system in an attempt to protect it from harmful substances such as bacteria, viruses, fungus, or animal dander. The antibodies work by attaching to these substances so that the immune system can destroy them.
There are five major types of antibodies: IgA, IgG, IgM, IgE, and IgD. All are found in breast milk. IgA antibodies protect body surfaces that are exposed to outside foreign substances. They are found primarily in the nose, breathing passages, digestive tract, ears, eyes, vagina, saliva and tears. This makes IgA particularly important for babies who are always putting things in their mouths.
In patients that are suffering from immunilogical diseases, such as AIDS, Leukemia, or Hepatitis, or patients recieving a therapy that deteriorates the immune system, such as chemo or radiation therapy, have shown the benefit when supplimenting their diets with human breast milk.
For more information:
http://www.breastfeeding.com/allabout.html6) People are always complaining in the USA, about stupid people doing stupid things. People cutting us off, insulting us, and even lacking common sense. Well, turns out that Human Breast Milk may actually increase intelligence. Studies show breastfed infants have higher IQ s than bottle fed infants.
For more information:
http://www.breastfeeding.com/all_about/all_about_iq.html5) Breastfed babies grow up to be leaner than bottle fed babies. Maybe it has to do with the fact that babies digestive systems are still in development. Then again, it maybe just that babies are trying to fill a psychological need with food. When a baby nurses with its mother, he is learning the basics of relationships. He is learning the recognize boundaries for good behavior, and what is not acceptable. The closeness that develops during breast feeding carries over to any relationships later in life. We, as Humans, learn by example.
Read more at:
http://www.schizophrenia.com/sznews/archives/004125.html
{{NOTE: this is a MAN speaking! He’d never qualify for a government post….}}
There are more and more people considering the advantages of breast milk not just for the treatment of illness.
4) PETA wants Ben and Jerry’s ice cream made from Human Milk. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals sent a letter to Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, co founders of Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc., urging them to replace cow’s milk they use in their ice cream products with human breast milk, according to a statement recently released by a PETA spokeswoman.
http://www.wptz.com/news/17539127/detail.html3) Swiss restaurant to serve meals cooked with human breast milk . The owner of the Storchen restaurant in the exclusive Winterthur resort will improve his menu with local specialties such as meat stew and various soups and sauces containing at least 75 per cent of mother’s milk.
2) In France, a “dairy” produces Human Milk Cheese. Founded in 1947, the cheese Cosma was able to recover the wealth of a farmer ancestral tradition Ardennaise forgotten until then. Indeed, the Petit Singly, the only cheese with woman’s milk , has long remained in the shadow of specialty cheeses, ordinarily milk cow, goat or sheep.
In France, no other product of this quality is listed, the Petit Singly has managed over time refining its taste thanks to the expertise of the master cheese maker, Patrice Cosma. Tinged with a touch of hazelnut and a subtle caramel color, sweetness and its basis will only tempt you.
For more information on this:
http://membres.lycos.fr/petitsingly/1) A Business in Miami, FL wants to promote the virtues of Human Breast Milk Ice cream. U.S. citizens consumed an average of 23 gallons of bovine milk in 2001. Quite an astonishing amount when you consider that Homosapiens are the only organisms known to consume milk beyond infancy. Even more extraordinary is the fact that humans are the only organisms that consume the milk of other animals!
Female mothers in the Class Mammalia produce nutrient-rich milk for consumption by their own newborn babies. Humans have attained the unique (and bizarre) position in the food web from which they exploit the reproductive cycle of other animals (particularly Bovidae) for food. Adding to the cultural mystique of milk consumption is the widely held taboo against consumption of human breast milk either by unrelated individuals or persons beyond some generally unspecified age.
It is the mission of MMICCo. to challenge the traditional paradigm that there is nothing abnormal about conversion of mammalian milk into luxury food items. Mother’s milk is a natural creation that we should celebrate, but is the milk of other species truly fair game for human consumption? If so, why isn’t human milk? Our hope is to provide a delicious frozen product while framing this conversation in a way that leads to fruitful progress in consideration of the ecological niche of Homosapiens.
For more information on this:
http://www.bio.miami.edu/muscarella/mothersmilkicecream.htmlI do not understand why it would be OK to drink from a cow Teat, but not from a human Teat. I have found evidence to the detrimental effect of cow’s milk with Bovine Growth Hormone. One study not only shows evidence that it leads to obesity and excessive male breast development, but suggests that drinking nonorganic milk will give women a 42% higher chance, and men a 20% higher chance of developing Breast cancer.
Mostly, I wrote the article so that people will start questioning why we believe what we believe is OK. Society says it is OK to drink cow milk. Society also says we should expect politicians to lie, judges to take bribes, and car dealers to try to rip us off. How far back are we personally willing to push the boundaries of what society says is acceptable? Is it worth it, to improve your health?
Here are some more informative sites for further information:
This one is the world famous La Leche League, promoting Worldwide Awareness to the benefits of Brestfeeding
Legislative records show that raw milk dairies were specifically discussed during the debate on AB 1735, but neither raw milk producers nor consumers were consulted on the legislation
Hmm, there is a certain parallel to the low-income parents who were being randomly studied, categorized, and legislated about when it comes to family law, as well. Not to mention, I do not recall a NATIONAL poll at any time on the wisdom of fatherhood becoming the new state religion, moreso than, say, motherhood. I wonder how many of the about 50% of the US population (women, i.e.) were indeed consulted by the legislators (primarily male), governors (I believe ditto), and pastors (probably still so), etc. promoting these policies.
Finally, my last “find” on the issue of, at least, cow’s milk. Be sure to check out the study on link to cancer:
http://www.milksucks.com/index2.asp
A question comes up, as to pushing milk in the school cafeterias. I have worked in an urban area (more than one, actually), where it could be sarcastically but with some relevance said, the major health risks were homicide and diabetes. Some people, and populations, have allergies to cow’s milk. The aspect of the public schools as a dairy-dumping ground comes to mind.
Just because it can be mass-produced doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
I think this commentary goes for almost any primary aspect of life, including parenting, education, families, fatherhood, and nursing.
I think trying to indoctrinate an entire country from the top-down is an oppressive, fat burdensome Big Brother. Or is that, “Mama”?
Only, it ain’t motherhood, these days, it’s fatherhood. Time to let go of the oral fixation on making pronouncements, in private, and enforcing them upon the general public. And when they don’t work out as planned, making more pronouncements, and telling the general public, we’re out of funding.
Let’s get off that virtual teat, OK?
And create (how?) a brave, new, world than this one.
On reflection, I omitted an important year, in my chronology of human food, above:
1984
Like George Orwell’s 1984, this novel (Brave New World) depicts a dystopia in which an all-powerful state controls the behaviors and actions of its people in order to preserve its own stability and power. But a major difference between the two is that, whereas in 1984 control is maintained by constant government surveillance, secret police, and torture, power in Brave New World is maintained through technological interventions that start before birth and last until death, and that actually change what people want. The government of 1984 maintains power through force and intimidation. The government of Brave New World retains control by making its citizens so happy and superficially fulfilled that they don’t care about their personal freedom. In Brave New World the consequences of state control are a loss of dignity, morals, values, and emotions—in short, a loss of humanity.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Responsible Citizenhood Part I of II includes knowing where your tax $$ are going
PART I of II:
(PART II of II is how to answer: “what foundations/funds are telling my government to fund what it does?”)
Now — it took some time, but – when I want to know what is my government funding? I have a good idea where to look.
For example, see blogroll to the right. For example, in prior posts, I have introduced a link showing that the Federal Dept. called “Health and Human Services” is THE largest one, and recently accounted for over 50% of government outlays.
Under this are welfare, child support enforcement, Head Start (and “Early Head Start”) and the bulk of the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage grant system.
I also showed in a recent post that the average ANNUAL cost for housing an adult male prisoner in the US, per a “postsecondary.org” newsletter of 2006, was (I believe in 2005) somewhere around the discretionary (not the majority, just the discretionary) grants level of the HHS — i.e., over $40 billion/one year.
I also noted that in a certain year, allocation to Homeland Security virtually disappeared, and the same year, the HHS allotment jumped upwards by almost the same %. Hmmm
So, if you are smart enough to remember 3 letters “HHS” and that the Government sites end in “.gov” and not “.com”, you could get to:
http://www.hhs.gov
and take it from there. For example, you could explore how faith-based initiatives are being sought as solutions to various problems, including substance abuse:
http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/funding/#OpportunitiesforFaithBasedandCommunityOr
This page seeks to connect faith-based and community organizations with current funding within HHS. Additionally, it provides resources to assist faith-based and community organizations looking to partner with the Federal government.
- Current Funding Opportunities
- Opportunities for Faith-Based and Community Organizations at the State and Local Levels
- Catalogs and Tools to Search for Grants
- Become A Grant Reviewer
- Frequently Asked Questions about Grants and Funding for Faith-Based and Community Organizations
***(Am I the only one around who questions what kind of mentality is behind the term “Human Services”? As opposed to what — animal? Yet, from what I can see, the mentality driving many of these programs is that humans ARE animals, to be trained, behaviorally — and measured, labeled, incentivized, educated (of course) and in general be induced by either punishments or rewards to behave in a certain, government-endorsed manner. This is absolutely foreign to the founding principles of the United States, which views men as having Certain Unalienable Rights.
I have been a teacher (one sort or another) most of my adult professional life. In dealing with children, I found — uniformly — that the more I dealt with them as Individual Beings — with souls, spirit, if you will, needs, emotions, and wills — and less as a pack of animals: in other words, the closer I got to mutual respect — the better the results, musically and otherwise.
The carrots and sticks approach is not ideal of adult human beings with enough vision and self-restraint to run their own lives. I find, on closer inspection, that the Federal Government services many times infantilizes the entire populace in many ways. Naturally, this meets with resistance. It’s an insult to the soul.
The detachment in it is a little odd. For example, if those being served are “humans,” who are those designing, and executing the services — “immortals”? Or automated beings? Language tells a story, and sends a message about the speakers. I think that detachment is indeed the order of the day, at least organizationally. This was also my perception on browsing a number of the professional / educational backgrounds on some o the principal (grants) investigators. They started publishing, many of them, before the Ph.D. was added to the title. It brings up the question, how can someone become an “expert” on ANYTHING straight out of 6-8 years of college? Except theories one learned IN college?)
Or, if you can in addition remember another 5-letter acronym, “Taggs” you could find out how woefully underfunded the fatherhood movement has been, which is why we need ANOTHER initiative to promote this concept nationally, at:
http://www.taggs.hhs.gov
This is a database of over 500,000 grants, searchable by a number of categories. I have been working with it quite a bit. By search, click, google, read, think — many interconnections will show up. Here’ s a casual search I just did, choosing which columns to display, not specifying years, and on the words “responsible fatherhood” only. If I were you, I’d be curious about the ones that were over $1,000,000 each. I came up with 231 results.
Of interest should be the words “demonstration” and also “Community Action Program.” “Demonstration” means, if this one passes someone’s muster, it will be duplicated, probably nationwide.
This search is NOT exhaustive, and covers 1995-2009.
Responsible Citizenhood . . .
would entail taking with a grain of salt, complaints that fathers, as a group, are being taken to the cleaners financially and morally by our government, moreso than, say, mothers. It seems to me that within one year of the formation of the “National Fatherhood Initiative” (1994?), the concept was being taken quite seriously at a federal level.
Without researching all of these, I hope that the image of this table should also be kept in mind with the next news release on how we need more fatherhood initiatives. And there are more upcoming, believe me.
I have had some trouble adjusting column widths below. If this doesn’t read well, best advice I have is to go do your own search.
Please note that under the search Advanced “Responsible Fatherhood,” Award Classes are either Discretionary or Cooperative.
The CFDA Numbers, except the top one, and first few (see bottom of chart), are 93086.
93086 = “Healthy marriage and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood”
A search on that # alone would produce more results, for example:
http://taggs.hhs.gov/”Healthy Marriage Resp Fatherhood Grants 2006-2008 total over #353,000,000″
(I searched by # only. This produces interactive list by recipient, with zip codes. Which group is local to your area?
I would want to know, for example, why a group called “Trinity Church, Inc.” out of Miami, is getting grants. I would be curious about why one particular group, “Public Strategies, Inc.” received in the same 3- year period, over $11,000,000, whereas the average 2006-2008 grant ran from very minimum $400,000 (on average) through $1,500,000 or even $2,000,000 (average seems to be pretty much around 1 milion).
Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 73116
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
| 2006 | 90FE0026 | 1 | ACF | 0 | 09-24-2006 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2006 | 90FH0001 | 1 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2006 | $2,000,000.00 |
| 2007 | 90FE0026 | 2 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2007 | $997,864.00 |
| 2007 | 90FH0001 | 2 | ACF | 0 | 09-21-2007 | $3,250,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0026 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FH0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-29-2008 | $3,250,000.00 |
| 2009 | 90FH0001 | 3 | ACF | 1 | 03-26-2009 | mce_marker.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $11,497,864.00 | |||||
Who is this? (Note: I have an idea, and will follow up).
Also from the huge range of TYPES of recipients, it seems quite a few groups are getting in on the cash flow. How come, however, when I went as a working woman, and called High and Low, all kinds of agencies, nonprofits, and government entitities, I was unable to get help (1) enforcing child support (arrears) (2) help establishing or enforcing a restraining order to make a safety zone for me, as a single mother, to work in, when family of origin had been turned away by my ex-batterer, and churches are pretty much a washout when it comes to acknowledging domestic violence within their ranks (being instead a source of the problem, not a solution to it!). Many of the entitites I called for help, it seems, already knew about these programs. And why is it that our schools are suddenly underfunded and struggling, while we have funds for these activities. Moreover, in the past year (2008) I was also searching high and low for a group that would simply provide help with phone service (cell phones), in the context of stalking — and found none; ones that existed before had been shut down.
There are many questions that SHOULD BE ASKED by the general public as well as specific individuals, when this amount of funding is routine, and increasing year after year.
The letters “ACF” stand for one (and ONLY one) “OPDIV” (operating Division) of the HHS. The words mean “Administration for Children and Families.”
Every single grant below, I believe, came under the “ACF” so I omitted that column.
The CFDA # 93647 can be looked up on the site also. My point is to show the scope of the programs, and encourage people to investigate.
http://taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm
|
Fiscal Year |
Grantee Name |
City |
State |
Grantee Type |
Award Title |
CFDA Number |
Award Class |
Principal Investigator |
Sum of Actions |
|
2009 |
Native Pride |
CORRALES |
NM |
Welfare Dept |
THE GOOD ROAD OF LIFE: RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93612 |
Discretionary |
DR CLAYTON SMALL |
$ 2,000 |
|
2008 |
Archuleta County Dept of Human Services |
PAGOSA SPRINGS |
CO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ERLINDA B GONZALEZ |
$ 200,000 |
|
2008 |
BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. INC. |
FALLS CHURCH |
VA |
Other Educational Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KHANH T TRAN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
CENTERFORCE |
SAN RAFAEL |
CA |
Other Social Services Org |
HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CHARLES GREENE |
$ 481,554 |
|
2008 |
CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC |
TUCSON |
AZ |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
GREG JOHNSON |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
MANCHESTER |
NH |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MICHAEL R OSTROWSKI |
$ 315,830 |
|
2008 |
CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC. |
PALMA CEIA |
FL |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BRIAN MCEWEN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
CHILD DEVLOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. |
NORGE |
VA |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
SHERI C OBSORNE |
$ 249,999 |
|
2008 |
CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE |
PROVIDENCE |
RI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
TERESA DEBOISE |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC |
LOS ANGELES |
CA |
Vocational & Training School |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
HERSHEL K SWINGER |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC |
LOS ANGELES |
CA |
Vocational & Training School |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
HERSHEL SWINGER |
$ 1,000,000 |
|
2008 |
CIRCLE OF PARENTS |
CHICAGO |
IL |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
CYNTHIA SAVAGE |
$ 1,000,000 |
|
2008 |
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES |
DENVER |
CO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
RICHARD BATTEN |
$ 2,000,000 |
|
2008 |
COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC |
ANCHORAGE |
AK |
Indian Tribal Council |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DEBORAH L NORTHBURG |
$ 418,832 |
|
2008 |
CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES |
HARTFORD |
CT |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ANTHONY J JUDKINS |
$ 1,000,000 |
|
2008 |
Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. |
FRESNO |
CA |
Other Special Interest Org |
POMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LISA M BROTT |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
Denver Indian Family Resource Center |
DENVER |
CO |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ISABELLE MEDCHILL |
$ 198,280 |
|
2008 |
Detroit Workforce Development Dept |
DETROIT |
MI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LUCIUS A VASSAR |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster |
SCRANTON |
PA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ANGELA SEIBERT |
$ 225,608 |
|
2008 |
Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse |
FORT PIERCE |
FL |
Welfare Dept |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD CLASSES WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS. CONCURRENT WORK WITH MOTHER/CARETAKER OF CHILD, TO LEARN RESP |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DOUG BORRIE |
$ 242,822 |
|
2008 |
FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC. |
TULSA |
OK |
Other Social Services Org |
F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
GAIL LAPIDUS |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER |
SEATTLE |
WA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
TERRENCE LEWIS |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
Family Services of Westchester, Inc. |
PORT CHESTER |
NY |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MARISSA MALETT |
$ 497,812 |
|
2008 |
GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
ATLANTA |
GA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
$ 225,000 |
|
2008 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC |
ST PAUL |
MN |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ANDREW FREEBERG |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL TEXAS, INC |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JENNY C FRITZ |
$ 240,000 |
|
2008 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH |
PITTSBURGH |
PA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ERIC YENERALL |
$ 225,000 |
|
2008 |
GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER |
BUFORD |
GA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NANCY F FRIAUF |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
HEALTHY START, INC. |
PITTSBURGH |
PA |
Other Health Org |
HSI RESPONSBL FATHERHD LEVEL 1 – A COORDINATED EFFORT TO RECRUIT AND ENROLL FATHERS AND EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY ABOUT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CHERYL FLINT |
$ 900,000 |
|
2008 |
Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JACQUELYN HENRY |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
Indiana Dept of Correction |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Welfare Dept |
IDOC APPLICATION FOR THE PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD GRANT FOR THE PREP PROGRAM |
93086 |
Discretionary |
STEPHEN T HALL |
$ 400,000 |
|
2008 |
Indiana Dept of Correction |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
STEPHEN T HALL |
$ 249,896 |
|
2008 |
Indiana Youth Institute |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
RICHARD GORDON |
$ 999,000 |
|
2008 |
LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NATALIE WILLIAMS |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA |
SIOUX FALLS |
SD |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
THOMAS P WALSH |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
BALTIMORE |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JOHNNY RICE |
$ 899,991 |
|
2008 |
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
BALTIMORE |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MEDGER L REID |
$ 441,514 |
|
2008 |
Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry |
SAN DIEGO |
CA |
Other Social Services Org |
SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSBL FATHERHD INITIATIVE |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JOHN R HUGHES |
$ 268,349 |
|
2008 |
Montrose County Health and Human Services |
MONTROSE |
CO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JON MERRITT |
$ 249,552 |
|
2008 |
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC |
WASHINTON |
DC |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ESTHER KAGGWA |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY REGENTS |
LAS CRUCES |
NM |
Junior College, College & University |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RITA C PARRA |
$ 218,336 |
|
2008 |
Native Pride |
CORRALES |
NM |
Welfare Dept |
THE GOOD ROAD OF LIFE: RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93612 |
Discretionary |
DR CLAYTON SMALL |
$ 150,000 |
|
2008 |
New York Youth At Risk, Inc. |
NEW YORK |
NY |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CLAUDETTE C FAISON |
$ 225,000 |
|
2008 |
OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES |
PONTIAC |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NATALIE MARCHIONE |
$ 200,170 |
|
2008 |
OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY |
PONTIAC |
MI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LYNN A CROTTY |
$ 368,555 |
|
2008 |
Osborne Association, Inc. |
Bronx |
NY |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMORING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH GAYNES |
$ 448,856 |
|
2008 |
Osborne Association, Inc. |
Bronx |
NY |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH GAYNES |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF WESTMORELAND FAYETTE INC. |
GREENSBURG |
PA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JOHN E SPROULL |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
PUERTO RICAN FAMILY INSTITUTE, INC |
NEW YORK-NEW YORK |
NY |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD: BUILDING PATHWAYS FOR LATINO FATHERS |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ABIGAIL KARIC |
$ 900,000 |
|
2008 |
Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. |
SAINT LOUIS |
MO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KATE A MCGILLY |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
REGION II COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
JACKSON |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CHRIS KILMER |
$ 203,854 |
|
2008 |
REGION XIX EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER |
EL PASO |
TX |
Other Educational Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BLANCA E ENRIQUEZ |
$ 900,000 |
|
2008 |
RIDGE Project, Inc |
HOLGATE |
OH |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CATHERINE TIJERINA |
$ 412,000 |
|
2008 |
ROSALIE MANOR |
MILWAUKEE |
WI |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ALISON SERGIO |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
Read To Me International Foundation |
HONOLULU |
HI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LIANE K AKANA |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. |
IRVINE |
CA |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
M.P. P WYLIE |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
Resource, Inc |
MINNEAPOLIS |
MN |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD SINGLE ACTIVITY GRANT, LEVEL 1: MEN IN THE MAKING |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH L MCMILLAN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
Resources for Children`s Health |
PHILADELPHIA |
PA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JEANNE CIOCCA |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC. |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RACHEL ROSALES |
$ 460,000 |
|
2008 |
ST MARY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
FRANKLIN |
LA |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ALMETRA J FRANKLIN |
$ 230,092 |
|
2008 |
Shelby County Division of Corrections |
MEMPHIS |
TN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DAVID BARBER |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
Shelby County Division of Corrections |
MEMPHIS |
TN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
FRANCHISKA L DORSE |
$ 485,000 |
|
2008 |
THE FAMILY HEALTH AND EDUCATION INSTITUTE, INC. |
SEABROOK |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MELVIA L WALLACE |
$ 500,000 |
|
2008 |
THE VILLAGE FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN, INC` |
HARTFORD |
CT |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ALDWIN ALLEN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families |
COLUMBIA |
SC |
Welfare Dept |
STRENGTHENING RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME, NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS -LEVEL 2 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN |
$ 499,456 |
|
2008 |
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES |
LITTLE ROCK |
AR |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PATTI A BOKONY |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
UPPER DES MOINES OPPORTUNITY, INC |
GRAETTINGER |
IA |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD- PRIORITY AREA #3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MIKE SIMCHO |
$ 225,000 |
|
2008 |
Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation |
MINNEAPOLIS |
MN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PRISCILLA BROWN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION |
BURLINGTON |
VT |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
SUSAN LANDSMAN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
WAYNE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
Wyandotte |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CYNTHIA CARRUTH |
$ 250,000 |
|
2008 |
WOMEN’S OPPORTUNITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC. |
MISSOULA |
MT |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NAOMI S THORNTON |
$ 212,399 |
|
2008 |
WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC |
FREMONT |
OH |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JACQUIE S WELLS |
$ 249,492 |
|
2008 |
YORK COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION |
SANFORD |
ME |
Community Action Org |
‘BEING THE DAD’ RESPONSBL PARENTING PROJECT TYPE OF PROJECT: RESPONSBL FATHERHD SINGLE AC |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BRAIN CLARK |
$ 245,333 |
|
2008 |
YouthLaunch, Inc. |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RUSSELL SMITH |
$ 243,315 |
|
2007 |
APOLLO THEATER FOUNDATION, INC. |
NEW YORK |
NY |
Other Social Services Org |
HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROMOTION AND RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93647 |
Discretionary |
ADRIENNE N EDWARDS |
$ 50,000 |
|
2007 |
Archuleta County Dept of Human Services |
PAGOSA SPRINGS |
CO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ERLINDA B GONZALEZ |
$ 200,000 |
|
2007 |
BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. INC. |
FALLS CHURCH |
VA |
Other Educational Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KHANH T TRAN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2007 |
CANGLESKA, INC. |
KYLE |
SD |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KAREN M ARTICHOKER |
$ 400,000 |
|
2007 |
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF IDAHO, INC. |
BOISE |
ID |
Welfare Dept |
IDAHO DADS MATTER! RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KRISTAN SCHLICHTE |
$ 379,753 |
|
2007 |
CENTERFORCE |
SAN RAFAEL |
CA |
Other Social Services Org |
HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BARRY ZACK |
$ 474,555 |
|
2007 |
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH |
CHICAGO |
IL |
Health Dept |
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROGRAM, PRIORITY AREA 2 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DARYL J MURPHY |
$ 325,000 |
|
2007 |
CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC |
TUCSON |
AZ |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
WENDY SABATINI |
$ 352,000 |
|
2007 |
CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
MANCHESTER |
NH |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MICHAEL R OSTROWSKI |
$ 245,830 |
|
2007 |
CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC. |
PALMA CEIA |
FL |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BRIAN MCEWEN |
$ 100,000 |
|
2007 |
CHILD DEVLOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. |
NORGE |
VA |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
SHERI C OBSORNE |
$ 214,000 |
|
2007 |
CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE |
PROVIDENCE |
RI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
TERESA DEBOISE |
$ 212,000 |
|
2007 |
CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC |
LOS ANGELES |
CA |
Vocational & Training School |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
HERSHEL K SWINGER |
$ 500,000 |
|
2007 |
CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC |
LOS ANGELES |
CA |
Vocational & Training School |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
HERSHEL SWINGER |
$ 1,000,000 |
|
2007 |
CIRCLE OF PARENTS |
CHICAGO |
IL |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
CYNTHIA SAVAGE |
$ 900,000 |
|
2007 |
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES |
DENVER |
CO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
MARY E ROBERTO |
$ 2,000,000 |
|
2007 |
COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC |
ANCHORAGE |
AK |
Indian Tribal Council |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
M J LONGLEY |
$ 319,832 |
|
2007 |
CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES |
HARTFORD |
CT |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ANTHONY J JUDKINS |
$ 1,000,000 |
|
2007 |
Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. |
FRESNO |
CA |
Other Special Interest Org |
POMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LISA M BROTT |
$ 250,000 |
|
2007 |
Denver Indian Family Resource Center |
DENVER |
CO |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ISABELLE MEDCHILL |
$ 209,308 |
|
2007 |
Detroit Workforce Development Dept |
DETROIT |
MI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CYNTHIA BELL |
$ 370,000 |
|
2007 |
Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster |
SCRANTON |
PA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ANGELA SEIBERT |
$ 223,808 |
|
2007 |
Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse |
FORT PIERCE |
FL |
Welfare Dept |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD CLASSES WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS. CONCURRENT WORK WITH MOTHER/CARETAKER OF CHILD, TO LEARN RESP |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DOUG BORRIE |
$ 198,565 |
|
2007 |
FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC. |
TULSA |
OK |
Other Social Services Org |
F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
GAIL LAPIDUS |
$ 210,000 |
|
2007 |
FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER |
SEATTLE |
WA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PAULA JONES |
$ 215,000 |
|
2007 |
Family Services of Westchester, Inc. |
PORT CHESTER |
NY |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MARJORIE LEFFLER |
$ 497,812 |
|
2007 |
GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
ATLANTA |
GA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
$ 85,000 |
|
2007 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC |
ST PAUL |
MN |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KELLY MATTER |
$ 475,000 |
|
2007 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL TEXAS, INC |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JENNY C FRITZ |
$ 240,000 |
|
2007 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH |
PITTSBURGH |
PA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ERIC YENERALL |
$ 225,000 |
|
2007 |
GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER |
BUFORD |
GA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NANCY F FRIAUF |
$ 224,640 |
|
2007 |
HEALTHY START, INC. |
PITTSBURGH |
PA |
Other Health Org |
HSI RESPONSBL FATHERHD LEVEL 1 – A COORDINATED EFFORT TO RECRUIT AND ENROLL FATHERS AND EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY ABOUT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CHERYL FLINT |
$ 600,000 |
|
2007 |
Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JACQUELYN HENRY |
$ 500,000 |
|
2007 |
Indiana Dept of Correction |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Welfare Dept |
IDOC APPLICATION FOR THE PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD GRANT FOR THE PREP PROGRAM |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KATHY LISBY |
$ 398,740 |
|
2007 |
Indiana Dept of Correction |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KATHY LISBY |
$ 215,000 |
|
2007 |
Indiana Youth Institute |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
RICHARD GORDON |
$ 999,000 |
|
2007 |
LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CARLOS VERA |
$ 250,000 |
|
2007 |
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA |
SIOUX FALLS |
SD |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
THOMAS P WALSH |
$ 422,924 |
|
2007 |
Love in the Name of Christ Fairbanks |
FAIRBANKS |
AK |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DENNIS EAMES |
$ 205,834 |
|
2007 |
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
BALTIMORE |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MEDGAR L REID |
$ 550,451 |
|
2007 |
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
BALTIMORE |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MEDGER L REID |
$ 252,547 |
|
2007 |
Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry |
SAN DIEGO |
CA |
Other Social Services Org |
SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSBL FATHERHD INITIATIVE |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JOHN R HUGHES |
$ 268,349 |
|
2007 |
Montrose County Health and Human Services |
MONTROSE |
CO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PEG MEWES |
$ 249,552 |
|
2007 |
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC |
WASHINTON |
DC |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LEROY HUGHES |
$ 250,000 |
|
2007 |
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY REGENTS |
LAS CRUCES |
NM |
Junior College, College & University |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RITA C PARRA |
$ 218,335 |
|
2007 |
New York Youth At Risk, Inc. |
NEW YORK |
NY |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CLAUDETTE C FAISON |
$ 225,000 |
|
2007 |
OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES |
PONTIAC |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NATALIE MARCHIONE |
$ 188,828 |
|
2007 |
OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY |
PONTIAC |
MI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LYNN A CROTTY |
$ 283,555 |
|
2007 |
Osborne Association, Inc. |
Bronx |
NY |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMORING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH GAYNES |
$ 398,856 |
|
2007 |
Osborne Association, Inc. |
Bronx |
NY |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH GAYNES |
$ 215,533 |
|
2007 |
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF WESTMORELAND FAYETTE INC. |
GREENSBURG |
PA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JOHN E SPROULL |
$ 202,000 |
|
2007 |
PUERTO RICAN FAMILY INSTITUTE, INC |
NEW YORK-NEW YORK |
NY |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD: BUILDING PATHWAYS FOR LATINO FATHERS |
93086 |
Discretionary |
SOFIA OVIEDO |
$ 599,372 |
|
2007 |
Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. |
SAINT LOUIS |
MO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KATE A MCGILLY |
$ 212,500 |
|
2007 |
REGION II COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
JACKSON |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MARY CUNNINGHAM-DELUCA |
$ 203,854 |
|
2007 |
REGION XIX EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER |
EL PASO |
TX |
Other Educational Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BLANCA E ENRIQUEZ |
$ 510,000 |
|
2007 |
RIDGE Project, Inc |
HOLGATE |
OH |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CATHERINE TIJERINA |
$ 412,000 |
|
2007 |
ROSALIE MANOR |
MILWAUKEE |
WI |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ALBERTO CAAREO |
$ 500,000 |
|
2007 |
Read To Me International Foundation |
HONOLULU |
HI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LIANE K AKANA |
$ 214,203 |
|
2007 |
Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. |
IRVINE |
CA |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
M.P. P WYLIE |
$ 250,000 |
|
2007 |
Resource, Inc |
MINNEAPOLIS |
MN |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD SINGLE ACTIVITY GRANT, LEVEL 1: MEN IN THE MAKING |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH L MCMILLAN |
$ 230,000 |
|
2007 |
Resources for Children`s Health |
PHILADELPHIA |
PA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JEANNE CIOCCA |
$ 250,000 |
|
2007 |
SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC. |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JUAN J SANCHEZ |
$ 460,000 |
|
2007 |
ST MARY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
FRANKLIN |
LA |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ALMETRA J FRANKLIN |
$ 210,092 |
|
2007 |
Shelby County Division of Corrections |
MEMPHIS |
TN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DAVID BARBER |
$ 965,000 |
|
2007 |
THE FAMILY HEALTH AND EDUCATION INSTITUTE, INC. |
SEABROOK |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MELVIA L WALLACE |
$ 500,000 |
|
2007 |
THE VILLAGE FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN, INC` |
HARTFORD |
CT |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CANDIDA FLORES |
$ 212,000 |
|
2007 |
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families |
COLUMBIA |
SC |
Welfare Dept |
STRENGTHENING RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME, NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS -LEVEL 2 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN |
$ 499,456 |
|
2007 |
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES |
LITTLE ROCK |
AR |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PATTI A BOKONY |
$ 224,562 |
|
2007 |
UPPER DES MOINES OPPORTUNITY, INC |
GRAETTINGER |
IA |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD- PRIORITY AREA #3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JEAN A DREY |
$ 225,000 |
|
2007 |
Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation |
MINNEAPOLIS |
MN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MARK-PETER LUNDQUIST |
$ 220,000 |
|
2007 |
VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION |
BURLINGTON |
VT |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
J C HINDES |
$ 250,000 |
|
2007 |
WAYNE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
Wyandotte |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CYNTHIA CARRUTH |
$ 250,000 |
|
2007 |
WOMEN’S OPPORTUNITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC. |
MISSOULA |
MT |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NAOMI S THORNTON |
$ 212,399 |
|
2007 |
WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC |
FREMONT |
OH |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JACQUIE S WELLS |
$ 249,492 |
|
2007 |
YORK COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION |
SANFORD |
ME |
Community Action Org |
‘BEING THE DAD’ RESPONSBL PARENTING PROJECT TYPE OF PROJECT: RESPONSBL FATHERHD SINGLE AC |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BRAIN CLARK |
$ 245,318 |
|
2007 |
YouthLaunch, Inc. |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RUSSELL SMITH |
$ 243,173 |
|
2006 |
Archuleta County Dept of Human Services |
PAGOSA SPRINGS |
CO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ERLINDA B GONZALEZ |
$ 200,000 |
|
2006 |
BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. INC. |
FALLS CHURCH |
VA |
Other Educational Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KHANH T TRAN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
CANGLESKA, INC. |
KYLE |
SD |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KAREN M ARTICHOKER |
$ 400,000 |
|
2006 |
CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF IDAHO, INC. |
BOISE |
ID |
Welfare Dept |
IDAHO DADS MATTER! RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KRISTAN SCHLICHTE |
$ 449,753 |
|
2006 |
CENTERFORCE |
SAN RAFAEL |
CA |
Other Social Services Org |
HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BARRY ZACK |
$ 481,555 |
|
2006 |
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH |
CHICAGO |
IL |
Health Dept |
CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROGRAM, P |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DARYL J MURPHY |
$ 500,000 |
|
2006 |
CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC |
TUCSON |
AZ |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
WENDY SABATINI |
$ 500,000 |
|
2006 |
CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
MANCHESTER |
NH |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MICHAEL R OSTROWSKI |
$ 316,854 |
|
2006 |
CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC. |
PALMA CEIA |
FL |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BRIAN MCEWEN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
CHILD DEVLOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. |
NORGE |
VA |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
SHERI C OBSORNE |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE |
PROVIDENCE |
RI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
TERESA DEBOISE |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC |
LOS ANGELES |
CA |
Vocational & Training School |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
HERSHEL K SWINGER |
$ 500,000 |
|
2006 |
CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC |
LOS ANGELES |
CA |
Vocational & Training School |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
HERSHEL SWINGER |
$ 1,000,000 |
|
2006 |
CIRCLE OF PARENTS |
CHICAGO |
IL |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
CYNTHIA SAVAGE |
$ 900,000 |
|
2006 |
CO ST COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION |
DENVER |
CO |
Educational Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
MARY RIOTTE |
$ 2,000,000 |
|
2006 |
COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC |
ANCHORAGE |
AK |
Indian Tribal Council |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
M J LONGLEY |
$ 414,832 |
|
2006 |
CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES |
HARTFORD |
CT |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ANTHONY J JUDKINS |
$ 1,000,000 |
|
2006 |
Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. |
FRESNO |
CA |
Other Special Interest Org |
POMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LISA M BROTT |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
Denver Indian Family Resource Center |
DENVER |
CO |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ISABELLE MEDCHILL |
$ 209,308 |
|
2006 |
Detroit Workforce Development Dept |
DETROIT |
MI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CYNTHIA BELL |
$ 500,000 |
|
2006 |
Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster |
SCRANTON |
PA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ANGELA SEIBERT |
$ 223,808 |
|
2006 |
Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse |
FORT PIERCE |
FL |
Welfare Dept |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD CLASSES WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS. CONCURRENT WORK WITH |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DOUG BORRIE |
$ 227,734 |
|
2006 |
FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC. |
TULSA |
OK |
Other Social Services Org |
F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECT |
93086 |
Discretionary |
GAIL LAPIDUS |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER |
SEATTLE |
WA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PAULA JONES |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
Family Services of Westchester, Inc. |
PORT CHESTER |
NY |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MARJORIE LEFFLER |
$ 497,812 |
|
2006 |
GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
ATLANTA |
GA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RUSSELL EASTMAN |
$ 225,000 |
|
2006 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC |
ST PAUL |
MN |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KELLY MATTER |
$ 500,000 |
|
2006 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL TEXAS, INC |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JENNY C FRITZ |
$ 240,000 |
|
2006 |
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH |
PITTSBURGH |
PA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ERIC YENERALL |
$ 225,000 |
|
2006 |
HEALTHY START, INC. |
PITTSBURGH |
PA |
Other Health Org |
HSI RESPONSBL FATHERHD LEVEL 1 – A COORDINATED EFFORT TO RECRUIT AND ENROLL |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CHERYL FLINT |
$ 900,000 |
|
2006 |
Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JACQUELYN HENRY |
$ 500,000 |
|
2006 |
Indiana Dept of Correction |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Welfare Dept |
IDOC APPLICATION FOR THE PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD GRANT FOR THE PREP PRO |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KATHY LISBY |
$ 400,000 |
|
2006 |
Indiana Dept of Correction |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KATHY LISBY |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
Indiana Youth Institute |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM |
93086 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
BILL STANCZKIEWICZ |
$ 999,000 |
|
2006 |
LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CARLOS VERA |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA |
SIOUX FALLS |
SD |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
THOMAS P WALSH |
$ 450,671 |
|
2006 |
Love in the Name of Christ Fairbanks |
FAIRBANKS |
AK |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DENNIS EAMES |
$ 205,834 |
|
2006 |
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
BALTIMORE |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MEDGAR L REID |
$ 899,991 |
|
2006 |
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES |
BALTIMORE |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MEDGER L REID |
$ 441,513 |
|
2006 |
MEMPHIS & SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH |
MEMPHIS |
TN |
Health Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
AC WHARTON |
$ 454,255 |
|
2006 |
Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry |
SAN DIEGO |
CA |
Other Social Services Org |
SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSBL FATHERHD INITIATIVE |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JOHN R HUGHES |
$ 268,449 |
|
2006 |
Montrose County Health and Human Services |
MONTROSE |
CO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PEG MEWES |
$ 249,552 |
|
2006 |
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC |
WASHINTON |
DC |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LEROY HUGHES |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY REGENTS |
LAS CRUCES |
NM |
Junior College, College & University |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RITA C PARRA |
$ 218,335 |
|
2006 |
New York Youth At Risk, Inc. |
NEW YORK |
NY |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CLAUDETTE C FAISON |
$ 225,000 |
|
2006 |
OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES |
PONTIAC |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NATALIE MARCHIONE |
$ 200,193 |
|
2006 |
OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY |
PONTIAC |
MI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LYNN A CROTTY |
$ 368,555 |
|
2006 |
Osborne Association, Inc. |
Bronx |
NY |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMORING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH GAYNES |
$ 448,856 |
|
2006 |
Osborne Association, Inc. |
Bronx |
NY |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH GAYNES |
$ 245,533 |
|
2006 |
PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF WESTMORELAND FAYETTE INC. |
GREENSBURG |
PA |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JOHN E SPROULL |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
PUERTO RICAN FAMILY INSTITUTE, INC |
NEW YORK-NEW YORK |
NY |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD: BUILDING PATHWAYS FOR LATINO FATHERS |
93086 |
Discretionary |
SOFIA OVIEDO |
$ 900,000 |
|
2006 |
Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. |
SAINT LOUIS |
MO |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
KATE A MCGILLY |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
REGION II COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
JACKSON |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MARY CUNNINGHAM-DELUCA |
$ 203,854 |
|
2006 |
REGION XIX EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER |
EL PASO |
TX |
Other Educational Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
BLANCA E ENRIQUEZ |
$ 900,000 |
|
2006 |
RIDGE Project, Inc |
HOLGATE |
OH |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
CATHERINE TIJERINA |
$ 400,000 |
|
2006 |
ROSALIE MANOR |
MILWAUKEE |
WI |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ALBERTO CAAREO |
$ 500,000 |
|
2006 |
Read To Me International Foundation |
HONOLULU |
HI |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LIANE K AKANA |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. |
IRVINE |
CA |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
M>P> WYLIE |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
Resource, Inc |
MINNEAPOLIS |
MN |
Supplier Orgs ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipt ) |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD SINGLE ACTIVITY GRANT, LEVEL 1: MEN IN THE MAKING |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ELIZABETH L MCMILLAN |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
Resources for Children`s Health |
PHILADELPHIA |
PA |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
`JEANNE CIOCCA |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
SHELBY COUNTY GOVERNMENT |
MEMPHIS |
TN |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
DAVID BARBER |
$ 415,998 |
|
2006 |
SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC. |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JUAN J SANCHEZ |
$ 460,000 |
|
2006 |
ST MARY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
FRANKLIN |
LA |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ALMETRA J FRANKLIN |
$ 224,892 |
|
2006 |
THE FAMILY HEALTH AND EDUCATION INSTITUTE, INC. |
SEABROOK |
MD |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MELVIA L WALLACE |
$ 500,000 |
|
2006 |
THE VILLAGE FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN, INC` |
HARTFORD |
CT |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
ENID REY |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families |
COLUMBIA |
SC |
Welfare Dept |
STRENGTHENING RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROGRAMS FOR LOW-INCOME, NON-CUSTODIAL FATH |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN |
$ 449,456 |
|
2006 |
UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES |
LITTLE ROCK |
AR |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
PATTI A BOKONY |
$ 224,562 |
|
2006 |
UPPER DES MOINES OPPORTUNITY, INC |
GRAETTINGER |
IA |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD- PRIORITY AREA #3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JEAN A DREY |
$ 225,000 |
|
2006 |
Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation |
MINNEAPOLIS |
MN |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MARK-PETER LUNDQUIST |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION |
BURLINGTON |
VT |
Other Health Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
J C HINDES |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
WAYNE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY |
Wyandotte |
MI |
Other Social Services Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD, PRIORITY AREA 3 |
93086 |
Discretionary |
LISA JOHNSTONE |
$ 250,000 |
|
2006 |
WOMEN’S OPPORTUNITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC. |
MISSOULA |
MT |
Other Special Interest Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
NAOMI S THORNTON |
$ 212,399 |
|
2006 |
WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC |
FREMONT |
OH |
Community Action Org |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
JACQUIE S WELLS |
$ 249,492 |
|
2006 |
YORK COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION |
SANFORD |
ME |
Community Action Org |
‘BEING THE DAD’ RESPONSBL PARENTING PROJECT TYPE OF PROJECT: RESPONSBL FATHERHD SINGLE AC |
93086 |
Discretionary |
MARYANN GLEASON |
$ 245,336 |
|
2006 |
YouthLaunch, Inc. |
AUSTIN |
TX |
Welfare Dept |
PROMOTING RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93086 |
Discretionary |
RUSSELL SMITH |
$ 243,173 |
|
2003 |
INST FOR RESPONSBL FATHERHD & FAM. REVITALIZATION |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Community Action Org |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD AND STABLE FAMILY PROJECT (EARMARK) |
93647 |
Discretionary |
CHARLES A BALLARD |
$ 99,350 |
|
1999 |
INST FOR RESPONSBL FATHERHD & FAM. REVITALIZATION |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Community Action Org |
EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSBL FATHERHD |
93647 |
Discretionary |
CHARLES A BALLARD |
$ 180,000 |
|
1995 |
ADDISON COUNTY PARENT & CHILD CENTER |
MIDDLEBURY |
VT |
Community Action Org |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECTS |
93647 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
HOWARD RUSSELL |
$ 85,000 |
|
1995 |
INST FOR RESPONSBL FATHERHD & FAM. REVITALIZATION |
WASHINGTON |
DC |
Community Action Org |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECTS |
93647 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
CHARLES A. BALLARD |
$ 170,000 |
|
1995 |
ST. BERNANDINE’S HEAD START |
BALTIMORE |
MD |
Other Social Services Org |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECTS |
93647 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
SHEILA TUCKER |
$ 85,000 |
|
1995 |
WISHARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL |
INDIANAPOLIS |
IN |
Hospital |
RESPONSBL FATHERHD PROJECTS |
93647 |
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT |
DR. WALLACE O. MCLAUGHLIN |
$ 85,000 |
Responsible Stewardship includes knowing where your taxes are going. I have just given you at least one tool, but I can only lead horses, not make them drink. If you are a little tired of pulling the plows down the road of life without insight into what rows are being tilled, and what plants being seeded, this is one way to find out.
In my next post, I will talk about recent issues with databases reporting on the media — watchdog groups on foundations funding the mainstream media. One of my recent, faithful sources of PRIVATE (foundation) funding of some of the same individuals pushing this Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage agenda (which, again — is affecting outcomes in litigation, when it shouldn’t!), while reporting on the millions and sometimes billions, and tracking who paid whom for what — went belly-up. Now, what to do is the question, in STUDYING WHO IS FUNDING THE GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES.
That is, if WordPress can support all the links and graphics (it’s been laboring recently, having as much trouble delivering an intact page as our nation has been producing responsible fathers, let alone Congresspeople, let alone women and children – – perhaps we ought to review the metaphor of “Health and Human Services” in light of the metaphors of the founding documents of this country).
As every mother knows, the delivery process, environment, and her attitudes and beliefs about pregnancy and labor (which will affect emotions) are likely to have an impact on the baby. I had some very distressing factors (called assault & battery, some of it very severe, all of it unwarranted) on me during one pregnancy, but my faith in the natural process and in understanding that the pain would have an end I know helped mitigate it. And despite being older, both children were quite healthy, as well as both deliveries.
I’m speaking metaphorically in saying, it’s time for the Federal Government to treat people as they adults they are — with choice and the ability to process information, if given fair and complete access to it — and stop unproven behavioral intervention programs conducted without informed public consent. That’s exactly what these grants provide, in too many cases. We have faith-based programs around the court systems, and fatherhood-motivated agenda driving both the welfare and the child support programs, EACH of which has huge influence in the well-being of children. Moreover, (while I’m at it), this worldview is full of FUNDAMENTAL logical inconsistencies. Talking about the best interests of the children, and need to bond with both parents (which is typically true), they ignore the factors of where such bonding is inadvisable — and those are issues of character and behavior — and try to pay extra to compensate. SOME of this you can see in the grants above. In other words, biological primacy pre-empts track record. It just makes so little sense (to me) in the larger picture. Moreover, oversight is inconsistent and fragmentary, which is coming out through GAO reports on some of these initiatives. However, the GAO reports showing lack of oversight are not producing action to fix the problems. And so forth.
Again, Let’s Study what Government is Funding.
As to how to study WHO is funding Government (Initiatives), that can get more complex.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Yes, we SHOULD call them “restraining order suggestions” (Certifiably Insane Protection Orders in MN; meanwhile, more “Fatherhood” in KS) [[Orig. Aug. 7, 2009]].
with 25 comments
[[Title & Shortlink added Dec. 1, 2023 to refer to this post]]
[Feb. 17, 2016 UPDATE NOTES:
This post originally published over five years ago — on August 7, 2009. For more recent focus of this blog, see more recent posts (2016, 2014) which focus on systems operations, and consolidation of economic power from outside state lines (divorce and custody remaining under state jurisdiction, as well as domestic violence prevention orders).
I am currently working on posts regarding the Greenbook Initiative (2000-2008) and involved parties, on the NCJFCJ, on IDVAAC, and the “DV cartel” as identified by its participants (centralized, coordinated, and stuck in a policy rut) on the HHS and USDOJ grants stream.
I look up nonprofit organizations functioning as social policy conduits for a small group of inter-related professionals who cut deals with each other on what to minimize, what to focus on. These represent a much larger pattern throughout government, not just relating to domestic violence itself.
Many times by the time individuals find out about the policy deals that were cut, their lives, or kids are “gone.” If not physically, often in all the other critical aspects of life which people NOT entrenched in some of these systems may still take for granted. For example, the ability to get to and from, and hold a job once one has been hired, or completing projects for clients inbetween police events, court hearings, and ongoing threats to one’s personal safety and particularly, financial survival (i.e., ability to sustain food, housing, transportation, etc.). This comment added 2/17/2016 //LGH]
THIS POST IS: Yes, we SHOULD call them “restraining order suggestions” (Certifiably Insane Protection Orders in MN; meanwhile, more “Fatherhood” in KS) [[Orig. Aug. 7, 2009]].
(Short-link ends “-ez” and post is about 10,600 words. Including many quotes…and the text of a Kansas Senate Bill starting a “Fatherhood Initiative” — and the entire text of the U.S. Declaration of Independence (trying to see if there’s a disconnect somewhere between those two?)
I also respond to some news articles at length on the timeline in the first article shown below.) (Parts of this post also refer to the Inter-American Council on Human Rights (IACHR) for a domestic violence (“DV”) case from Kansas (Claudine Dombrowski) which appealed that high up for justice…) //LGH 12/1/23.
Today’s [Aug. 2009] headlines are right on topic with yesterday’s post. . . and the one referenced above….
Mr & Mrs. OUELETTEs, MINNESOTA, 2 accounts of 2,100 on the web, from Kare11News.
(1) Wife had order of protection against husband prior to murder-suicide
(2) Harris man gave up guns before strangling wife, hanging himself
Well, I swore I was NOT going to blog on this today, but I fear that these are indeed possibly copy-cat murder/suicides. It is now “out there” in the news as a possible way out of an emotionally embarrassing and humiliating situation.
Read THIS one, and then see if you can tell which parts were certifiably insane public policy, and how many warning signs people ignored.
And I’ll tell you why this one chills me, and makes me glad to be alive today.
(TOP of post — Minnesota. BOTTOM — Kansas.
They relate.)
Blogger’s Preface
At this point, it seems to be “certifiably insane public policy” to expect women to trust, or men to respect, such restraining orders, when clearly they don’t — I already blogged on this re: the woman in Pennsylvania who fought back.
Recently, I wrote about a father accused of molesting his (teenaged) daughter who, seeing as she was only moved 2 doors down, and into the home of a man that used to be the same father’s employee (say, what???!?). Within one week, Dad had killed: daughter, foster father and himself, and almost killed foster mother, too. So THAT helpful ruling got 3 people dead and one injury.
Great going, child protective services in that region of Tennessee.
Here’s another one that slipped through the cracks somehow, and at several different points. What “gets” me about this one is realizing several domestic violence prevention groups, nonprofits, that have been getting millions upon millions of federal dollars, over at least a decade in grants to provent violence locally, rurally, and in Indian tribes, as well as technical assistance grants to, I guess, “get the word out.”
So far, I can see they are doing a great job with putting together literature that’s already on the web somewhere, positioning themselves as the experts, consulting in private with other professionals about what to do, and keeping a body count. Which hasn’t substantially changed (per these counts) statewide in Minnesota within a decade.
So either the state is raising more suicidal or unable-to-handle-stress people, or immature young adults who then continue the immaturity into adulthood and parenthood (referring to the fathers in this case), or something. . . . . . Or so many people are being born each day that they STILL don’t know the warning signs of danger, and are talked into minimizing them.
Let’s maybe add ONE more “lethality risk” — trusting in protection orders to start with.
That’s for the courts and for the women alike. And encouraging a woman to do so (or continuing to present them as viable alternatives — when in fact they are panaceas too often) also places her in risk, given the facts. Ignorance of them is NOT bliss. . . .
When police DO respond in time, they run the risk of death themselves. When they do NOT respond in time, typically Mom, and sometimes Dad, are killed, and sometimes more. Or otherwise traumatized. SO . . . . . what else is available?
CONSIDER THIS ONE:
So, let’s talk about the body counts vis-a-vis the legal terminology:
When you think about it, and read the results, even calling these things “protection orders” makes zero sense. They are restraint requests. A man without restraint is ordered in public by a judge to show restraint.
WHO is to protect, in “protection order”? The power of the state? Does the state, like God, declare “protection” exists because it ordered this? And is the state, in so doing, lying to the protected parties?
I think so, basically.
Here’s a perhaps (I ALWAYS say “perhaps,” or try to) more viable protection order:
But of course that would screw up “access visitation” and “National Fathers Return Days” somewhat….
NOW, this mindset is not typically the state of a woman who has gotten to the point of requesting such an order from her husband, right? The request for an order represents to an abuser an ESCALATION in OPPOSITION to SUBMISSION. How’s he likely to respond?
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 7, 2009 at 12:38 PM
Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Lethality Indicators - in News, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Split Personality Court Orders, Vocabulary Lessons, Where's Mom?
Tagged with Child Molestation, custody, Dombrowski, domestic violence, family law, fatherhood, Faust-Goudeau fatherhood, IACHR, KS SB 128 Fatherhood Initiative Act, Minnesota- Chisago County, murder-suicides, National Fathers Return Day, NFI, Ouellette femicide/suicide, Restraining Order Suggestions, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work., VAWA, women's rights