Posts Tagged ‘custody’
The ACES study — Bridging apparent Skipped Synapses in Family Court thinking….
Happy Labor Day post. I give you one study I refer to often on this blog, that dates back to 1998, and one (more) inane/insane custody discussion from Australia, case dating 1999-2003, and topic, joint legal custody and visitation with a young girl and the father who crushed her baby brother’s skull with his bare hands, baby being 3 weeks old and in his father’s arms at the time. The court is less concerned with that behavior than the mother’s “phobia” (odd label, eh?) about that behavior. Nothing much new for Family Law Arena — this is its speciality, in fact, stigmatizing parents that actually seek to protect their kids from trauma, abuse, and possible (in that case) death.
ACES (below): Bridging the Gap between Childhood Trauma and . . . . .Negative consequences later in life.
Or should I call this bridging the gap between theory and reality? Which results in the ever-widening “Chasm,” the Court public Credibility Gap.
So, how does one talk with mad engineer at the helm of a runaway train with one’s kids on it? How get one’s kids safely OFF the train? because in this venue, it doesn’t seem possible. If they spend the duration of their childhood on this train, perhaps this will become their new “normal” and then another generation of trainsters and railway-hoppers will grow up, have kids, and provide new cargo for this Trip to Nowhere (except the trips to the bank for the railroad and its employees). Like the formerly renowned rail system in the U.S., it took a lot of subsidy to keep the thing operational.
There are basically two types of conversations going through the courts:
1. IN open court — in open, and
2. Behind closed doors — in private.
The heart of the matter is in the 2nd arena. Best interests of the child is static, sound-fluff and media-bytes. It’s not reality, and I don’t any longer believe that any one who makes a living in this arena seriously, seriously believes in this paradigm — or if they do, their eyes are simply closed, because the cat is out of the bag.
I believe the language the speak, as any good employee or business person truly does, is that of who is paying their bills. One reason I know this is that I actually experienced leaving an abusive marriage, and how vital a part finances was in getting free. I also watched systematic economic abuse (mismangement, comandeering of access to basic funds/cash flow/steady jobs that would make this possible, and so forth), which restricted and delayed the exit.
Which would you be more accountable to as a secretary whose family’s food and rent (lifestyle) depends on your pleasing that employer? Up to your own personal level of moral/social tolerance (and ability to choose), a disgruntled customer in the waiting room or on the phone? Or your employer? . . . . Well, what about judges and other professionals, some of whose salary (US$) is well over $100,000 and lifestyles and associates to match? Along with judgeships go political influence and possibly later activity — it’s a career path. It took a lot of convincing in California (and publicity) for these judges to give up (statewide) their almost $20 million in SUPPLEMENTAL pay, but not until one of their own, an attorney in Los Angeles, was firmly intimidated and jailed for reporting financial corruption (Richard Fine case), which was his actual job to do in this city, as I understood it. He was put in punitive solitary conffinement, moreover, and I heard, disbarred, for actually bucking this system.
However, these articles ARE about “best interests of the child” and whose head is where in being unable to figure that out in a given case involving infanticide! Or other horrors to any growing child, or the parent of any such child.
I am going to start grading the Family Law systems in my country, and in any country that imitates policies that I give an “F” in my country:
1998 THIS study is also old, and underestimated. Probably because of its common sense, like the 1989 and 1992 ones I quoted earlier, from NOMAS, talking about why the HECK have we got to continue exposing each new generation of children to more and more parents who batter, and then posing STUPID questions like, why is the next generation ending up in jail, or beating THEIR women, or taking the assaults, either.
WHY is business as usual, THAT’s why. A case came to light today where an Australian court (dealing with similar issues down under) is ordering psychiatric evaluation for the mother of a two-year old because the two-year-old’s father, quickly knocking up another woman, had just crushed to death the newborn (3 weeks old) infant with his bare hands, in response to the baby’s crying. The man is in jail, and the court is trying to tell the mother that she needs to have her head examined for wanting to make sure this doesn’t happen to the one that came out of HER womb. No, I am not kidding!
FAMILY LAW – Children – parenting orders – contact in prison – father incarcerated for killing child of another relationship – specific phobic anxiety of the primary carer and compromised capacity to care for the child – no significant contact ordered.
At what point do we get to have the COURT’s “head” – and values — examined? ???
O & C [2005] FMCAfam 200 (29 April 2005)
Last Updated: 6 June 2005
FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
REASONS FOR JUDGMENTIntroduction – the proceedings
1. This matter comes before me as the final hearing of the competing applications of the various parties concerning B M C born 9 March 1999. Final parenting orders were made in relation to B on 20 February 2002 whereby B lived with the mother and the father had regular contact. However, on 11 March 2003, the father killed his newborn child of another relationship, Z, and the father is now incarcerated until approximately February 2006.
Yes you read that right. Infanticide: 3 years. 3 hots and a cot. Wonder if he’ll get out on parole early, like Garrido did, in time for a repeat performance. Sounds like it didn’t affect his entitlement much, being incarcerated for baby-killing; he still wants to assert his shared parenting responsibilities and rights. Where’s KING SOLOMON (of the Bible) when you need him? Where’s the anti-abortion pro-lifers when you need them? This mother, of child “B” is a pro-lifer. She doesn’t want HER kid to suffer the same fate. For expressing and acting on this protective, motherly sentiment, she may be sentenced to a lifetime — or at least for the duration of B’s childhood — of having her “head examined” over this “phobia.”
“Phobia” being, I guess, being afraid of something the Court isn’t afraid of, probably because it’s not the Court’s offspring involved or at risk.
2. The proceedings were initiated by the mother filing an application on 1 July 2003 in which she sought that previous parenting orders made by this court on 20 February 2002 be suspended and that she have sole responsibility for making decisions about the long term and day to day care, welfare and development of B. Effectively, she sought that there be no contact between B and the father.
3. On 21 November 2003 a Form 3 response was filed and served on behalf of the father {{BEING AS HE WAS INCARCERATED??}}. Relevantly, the father sought joint responsibility for long term decisions affecting B and contact in prison
RELEVANT: What the jailed Dad wants.
IRRELEVANT: what the killed 3-week old baby wanted before his Daddy crushed his skull together: probably either some cuddling, a diaper change, some milk, or to be held differently. Or his Mama.
IRRELEVANT: What the mother wants, safety for HER kid, and her concerns taken seriously.
YES, this WAS 2006, “DOWN UNDER,” and a term well-earned from what I can see of this decision, at least.
As to his paternal grandparents: Well, their son was an adult at the time, but still, they raised this guy. PERHAPS this should be considered “relevant” in allowing unsupervised contact of child “B” with them. (Not mentioned are her parents. . . . or mother of the deceased newborn. )
===============================
I give you one more reason (not including Phillip Garrido, Jaycee Dugard, and any woman who opts to marry a convicted kidnapper and raper) to take domestic violence seriously: The children:
What is the ACE Study?
The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and Kaiser Permanente. Led by Co-principal Investigators Robert F. Anda, MD,
MS, and Vincent J. Felitti, MD, the ACE Study is perhaps the largest scientific research study
of its kind, analyzing the relationship between multiple categories of childhood trauma
(ACEs), and health and behavioral outcomes later in life.What’s an ACE?
Growing up experiencing any of the following conditions in the household prior to age 18:
- Recurrent physical abuse
- Recurrent emotional abuse
- Contact sexual abuse
- An alcohol and/or drug abuser in the
household
- An incarcerated household member
- Someone who is chronically depressed,
mentally ill, institutionalized, or suicidal
- Mother is treated violently
- One or no parents
- Emotional or physical neglect
Origins and Essence of the Study (2003)
ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES AND STRESS: PAYING THE PIPER (2004?)
The findings of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, an ongoing collaboration between Co-Principal
Investigators Vincent J. Felitti, MD, of Kaiser Permanente, and Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention.
Because the two links above are in multi-column format, I can’t copy and paste. I exhort you to take a look at some of this.
Please note that “one or no parents” was NOT on the top of the list, as it is on current “fatherhood.gov” policy, or HHS/ACF grants prioritization in the Designer Family mode it appears to be stuck in.
Women, including women like me, whose children have been exposed to from 1 to all of the factors above, are after removing their children FROM such factors, having the courts force them back in through shared parenting considerations. IN this case the theoretical ideal is held over the head, and clubbing protective parents, of the practical reality that Batterers do NOT make Good parents until they thoroughly address the battering behavior, and what drives it. Moreover, men have graduated with flying colors from programs allegedly adjusting their attitudes, and gone right out to murder that bitch who forced them to sit through it (McAlpin is one case that comes to mind, Bay Area, 2005. Within just a few days, her body was discovered in a trunk).
Again, the issue becomes who gets to rig the test and give the grades? I give any policy that lacks common sense — protect the kids! — and ignores the golden rule and “F.”
Golden Rule in Family Law: Do unto OTHERS as you would have them do unto YOU (i.e., if it were YOUR kid, whose father just killed a newborn, would you as a judge order the woman who was alarmed at said murder to have her head examined, and the child ordered into contact with the parents of the killer, OR would you yourself be alarmed, and rule accordingly?)
If it’s not good enough for YOUR kid, it’s not good enough for HER kid. That’s the golden rule in the courtroom, I say.
This of course presumes that a judge cares about his or her own kids, which may be a presumption indeed; some judges have been convicted of collecting child pornography and making some of it (Thompson, NJ), another of sexual harassment of female employees (Fed. District judge in Texas).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Yes, we SHOULD call them “restraining order suggestions” (Certifiably Insane Protection Orders in MN; meanwhile, more “Fatherhood” in KS) [[Orig. Aug. 7, 2009]].
[[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]
(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:
- State: Minnesota
- Body Count: 2, no responding officers or bystanders killed this time.
- Orphans: 3, ages 10 (boy), 8 & 8 (twin girls)
- Who are they now living with? Relatives.
- Did they witness the murder – – of their mother by their father, YES, the girls
- Did they try to intervene and fail? – — YES, an 8 year old girl tried to save her mother.
- Was 911 called? – — YES, by an 8 year old daughter?
- Was the call heeded (it seems No), or interfered with (yes, by the father)? – – – read below.
- Was that restraining order as written certifiably insane? – — ABSOLUTELY. (And it seems identical to the one I got many years ago.)
- Does making a restrained person turn in his or her guns always save a life? – — NO. Other weapons also can kill (apparently here, hands).
- Or, a person not allowed to get a gun could get a friend’s (or in a recent case girlfriend’s gun).
- Are risk assessments going to redeem lives from living in fear (or being lost)? – – – I’m not sure. I’m of the current opinion, NO, unless the woman herself takes them seriously and takes serious actions not reliant on 911 to ensure safety.
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:
A trained, armed mother with an attitude to match, telling the man who just received the judicial order, that she is going to take the boundaries of the property seriously, and understands all laws regarding the 2nd amendment, and any contingencies. IN other words, she needs to be more determined and more aggressive than the person who formerly attacked or threatened her.
So do the people surrounding or dealing with her on this issue.
Alternately, a “not in the same state” “county” “500 mile radius” mother, and kids. And the kids could be told the truth about why this is happening, in age-appropriate terms but without name-calling or derogatory treatment of their father.
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?
SHARE THIS POST on...
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...
How can we analyze policy inbetween these leading, bleeding headlines?
Maybe if I intersperse headlines, policy talk, and commentary I can get through another day without mourning evidence of national return to stupidity day.
Man, then about 19, begets child; mother (now in other state) age not mentioned
Separation happens; Dad gets custody, Dad remarries (in which order?)
Dad has two more children and, now 34 himself, is accused of molesting his first one, now 15.
DCFS removes daughter he is allegedly molesting from his custody — SORT of, not quite!
Pissed off, or coldly determined, Dad obtains gun — or grabs one he already owns.
Before much of anything is discovered (LEST it be discovered?)
He simply heads two doors down, kills foster Dad, attempts to kill foster mother, DOES kill his own daughter,
What a life she led with her FATHER, a STEPMOTHER, two stepsiblings, and being molested, ALLEGEDLY.
SOMEONE TALKS. She gets out, but not safe. Now she’s dead.
Oh yeah, and not one to go to prison, her father also shoots himself, fatally.
Her MOM was in another state — WHY?
Just another small, friendly, Tennessee Town.
Does anyone know her brief life well enough to tell its brief story? Because when these things happen
at home, the theme is NOT telling anyone outside the family; collusion is the order of the day.
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM TODAY — August 4, 2009
QUIZ — from what YEAR are the orange quotes mid-article?
ANSWER BELOW.
Color Code:
- light blue — quotes the article
- black — my comments
- orange — quotes from a different article (speech, to be precise).
Police: Dad fatally shoots daughter, foster dad
(AND, SELF) (AND TRIES TO KILL FOSTER MOTHER, too)
DYERSBURG, Tenn. – Neighbors in Tennessee are asking why a teenage girl
fatally shot by her father was placed with a foster family just two doors down
after he was accused of abusing her.
Omitted from this lead sentence — ONE WEEK after . . . . .
I believe one of the tags on this one might be “AFTER SHE SPEAKS UP” (if it was the daughter, or her mother, or her stepmother)
This puts a CHILL on reporting abuse…
As dads disappear, the American family is becoming significantly weaker and less capable of fulfilling
its fundamental responsibility
of nurturing and socializing children and conveying values to them.
In turn, the risks to the health and well-being of America’s children
are becoming significantly higher.
Christopher Milburn, 34, killed the 15-year-old and her foster father and
wounded her foster mother before taking his own life Sunday, authorities said.
Sounds like a virtual honor-killing of some sort..
Children growing up without fathers, research shows, are far more likely to live in poverty,
to fail in school, to experience behavioral and emotional problems,
to develop drug and alcohol problems,
to be victims of physical abuse and neglect and, tragically, to commit suicide.
{{THis being a case in point, I suppose?}}
{{The order of events is reversed. Victims of physical (and sexual) abuse are often
turning to drugs, alcohol, and other risky behaviors as a result, per a decade-long
(and basically ignored by the fatherhood movement) Kaiser/CDC study (see blogroll to right), completed the
year before THIS quote I am inserting to this recent Tennessee tragedy.}}
Neighbor Frank Hipps said Milburn was good friends with Todd Randolph, the 46-year-old foster father,
and had worked for him in the past. Hipps, who had known both men for about eight years, said he didn’t know
the details of the abuse allegations but questioned why the girl had been placed so close.
Maybe he didn’t know them so well as he thought.
Who paid WHOM to get this daughter switched only 2 doors down, instead of the Dad switched out of the neighborhood?
Dad used to work for the foster father? Just HOW inbred was this town, exactly?
A mature 46 year old man, foster father, married, and a daughter in the home.
Let’s do the Father/Daughter math: 34 – 15 is HOW old was he when he got a woman pregnant?
Legally old enough: 19. Probably just out of high school.
“That kid shouldn’t have been in that house,” he said.
I agree. I think she should’ve been with her mother.
“This might have been preventable if she had been placed with foster parents out of the community.”
MIGHT is true, especially if he still knew where she was ….
OR for SURE if the man had been in jail for molesting his daughters, which is where child-molesters belong, at least to start.
Neither police in Dyersburg, in northwestern Tennessee, nor child services agency spokesman Rob Johnson
would elaborate on the abuse allegations other than to say the investigation began last week.
The girl, whose name was not released, had been staying with Todd and Susan Randolph
while the state Department of Children’s Services investigated, Dyersburg Police Capt. Steve Isbell said.
WHo paid WHOM to put her there? Come’ ON! !!! Give the girl a fresh start!
Susan Randolph, the girl’s foster mother, was released from a Memphis hospital Monday.
Frank Hipps’ wife, Tammy, said the 15-year-old was Milburn’s daughter by a previous relationship.
He was married and the couple had two younger daughters.
The court probably saw a stable TWO-parent family, it probably had at least HEARD about
the great crisis of fatherlessness we’ve been plagued with as a nation for the past about 15 years
(This girl was born right around the time this doctrine took nationalized, Congressionally recognized wings..
She must’ve been born around 1994. See below. Gee, by then, my In-the-home husband had already
started assaulting me, between babies. WHat a coincidence that, unbeknownst to me, my government
was aware of the crisis and addressing it. . . . . Oh, excuse me, not the crisis of child molestation or
domestic violence, but of FATHERLESSNESS.
The girl’s mother was living out of state
{{HOW COME SHE LOST CUSTODY?}}
and police were waiting for her to arrive before releasing the girl’s name, Isbell said.
Police found the teenager and Todd Randolph dead at the Randolph home and Milburn about a block away,
dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
One less child molester, allegedly, OR man who didn’t trust the legal system to get the truth out of his innocence.
Guess they must do things different in Family Court in Tennessee; he’d have been FINE if he could just connect
with some PAS-theory court professional and discredit whoever was alleging the abuse. Unless it was the girl…
Charles Wootton, 71, who lives across the street from the Randolphs, said he heard five pops. He looked out the window
and saw Randolph on the ground near the mailbox.
“My wife opened the door and walked out and seen the blood. That’s when I called 911,” he said.
Wootton said neighbors started to gather at the Randolphs’ house and a nurse performed CPR on Todd Randolph,
who had been shot through the neck. {{FOR THE CRIME OF . . . . . . . ??}}
Wootton said when he first looked at Susan Randolph, he thought she was dead, too.
“She told me who did it,” Wootton said.
The Randolphs have two young children who were at their grandparents’ house during the shootings, Wootton said.
Wootton had moved to the neighborhood about two weeks ago, and Todd Randolph had mowed his yard several times.
“The people around here are just about the friendliest you’ve ever met,” said Wootton. “I don’t know what happened to that guy.”
MORAL OF THE STORY: FRIENDLY PEOPLE CAN STILL MOLEST THEIR CHILDREN. WHO REPORTED? THE DAUGHTER?
THE NEW WOMAN? ONE OF HER MANDATED REPORTERS.
Isbell said Milburn had no criminal record in Dyersburg, a city of approximately 18,000 people about 70 miles northeast of Memphis.
Tammy Hipps said Milburn worked as a counselor at the McDowell Center for Children,
which helps at-risk and troubled children.
Well, was he falsely accused or properly accused?
If properly, then again, let’s note here: PERPS like places that give them access to CHILDREN, esp. troubled ones.
The shootings came just over two weeks after Jacob Levi Shaffer of Fayetteville, a small Tennessee town
near the Alabama border about.
70 miles west of Chattanooga, was accused of fatally stabbing his estranged wife,
three members of her family and a neighbor boy to death on July 18.
He also is accused of beating an acquaintance to death in nearby Huntsville, Ala.
BEFORE or AFTER she became “inexplicably” “estranged”??
Perhaps stories like these are why the word “RESPONSIBLE” was added to things like, “National Fathers Return Day?”
One Congressional discussion of which I give, below:
FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
| Lieberman, Joseph[D-CT] | ||
| Begin | 1999-06-17 | 10:13:34 |
| End | 10:21:48 | |
| Length | 00:08:14 | |
Leading off with African Americans and teen pregnancies, he relates:
Mr. LIEBERMAN.
Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues.
Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report,
can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers.
We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.”
It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
COMMENTARY:
(THis mental image appears to be far less vivid than the ones of SOME fathers doing horrible things when they DID or DO live
with their children..
Like beating them. Or having sex with them. Or beating their mothers. Or simply refusing to work OR help around the home. Or,
engaging in multiple sexual relationships with other women while married. Or verbally berating a mother in front of the children.
SOME Dads are great Dads and SOME Dads are a terror. Likewise, SOME Moms are great Moms, and SOME Moms are negligent
or bad Moms. It is also harder for a mother to care properly for her children, or in the best manner, which she is afraid of being assaulted
over a minor issue by the Dad when he comes home. If he does that day. Are these senators thinking about these images when they
shudder and are aghast at a home without a Dad).
Many homes were without Dads during the World Wars I, II, Korean War, Viet Nam War, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places
men (and women) have been sent because men decided to make war with each other, in the name of peace and democracy and self-protection.
Some homes of law enforcement officers are now without Dads in them because their Dad responded to a domestic violence dispute, and
caught a bullet, generally also taking out the attacking father as well.
MY Dad’s home, growing up between two of the abovementioned wars was without a Dad in it because, guess what: His Dad (a fireman),
got tired of beating his German immigrant wife and abandoned her with three children. He witnessed this growing up.
He went on to become a successful scientist, raise children he did NOT beat (at least I wasn’t and I never saw my siblings taking this),
studied hard, worked hard, sent ALL children not just to, but also through college also, and left an inheritance. And provide for, from what
I am told/understand, not only his own mother, but also a younger brother who never quite got it together, possibly related to something that
happened when he WAS with that abusive Dad, or what, I was never told. That brother also served his country as a soldier, and died before his time,
never having married or had children.
My Dad NEVER put his children (all daughters) in contact with the abusing/beating/abandoning father, ever, in his lifetime.
I never regretted this, that I can recall. How can you regret something you never saw, where the only thing you knew about him was,
he beat the grandmother that I DID know (a little bit).
However, while Sen. Lieberman was making this speech, about a decade ago, I was for the first time in a full decade of substantial
domestic violence in MY daughters’ lives, with them at an overnight, stay-away camp, a music camp, which we had managed to get
to no thinks from the father who never left. For two weeks, I was not going to be abused at night and was around people who actually
treated me respectfully, and I worked along side them in my profession. We had had a real push getting up there, and were punished
soundly for having left, but during that week and seeing the response to us getting free from abuse for only (and not entirely; there was
a dour-faced, rules-of-camp breaking midweek visit, where $20 was casually tossed at me so I might have enough gas to get back home)
I MADE UP MY MIND that this domestic violence restraining order was GOING to be filed, and I’m “out of here.”
How ironic that i didn’t know what was being prated and pronounced in Washington, D.C. at this time.
Here’s the rest of this little 8 minute speech, in case you WOULD like the names of some of the prominent thinkers behind this
June 1999 presentation to the President of the United States, and get a glimpse inside the working of great, Constitution-respecting, minds
when left unsupervised in the Capital of our beloved country:
We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped
in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless
profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness,
{{Gee, that must have been a grass-roots appeal from the teen mothers for help, or their mothers, or
theirs sisters. WHERE did this knowledge about the impact of fatherless come from, given the
establishment in 1994 of: (A) The Violence Against Women Act (help some women leave, rather than
stay, in abusive, dangerous relationships) and (B) Also in 1994, the National Fatherhood Initiative.
(Should I compare months of incorporation as nonprofit with the passage of the law?)}}
and indicate we are
in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to
the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
(CONTINUED QUOTE, in different format..):
At the end of this column, Michael Kelly asks: How could this happen
in a Nation like ours? And he wonders if anyone is paying attention.
Well, the fact is that people are beginning to pay attention, although
it tends to be more people at the grassroots level who are actively
seeking solutions neighborhood by neighborhood.
{{Evidence being….. WHO?? Time frame? Organizations? Written declarations by any of these?}}
The best known of these groups {{in fact the ONLY one named here..}}
is called the National Fatherhood Initiative.
{{Possibly because of its funding? and prominence of who’s in it?}}
I think it has made tremendous progress in recent years {{CONTEXT 1994-1999}}
in raising awareness of father absence and its impact on our society and in mobilizing a
national effort to promote responsible fatherhood.
Per the HHS TAGGS search on its name:
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2007 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2006 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2001 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90XP0023 | THE RESPONSIBILE FATHERHOOD PUABLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM | 93647 | $ 500,000 |
And for column width, same search (common field: Award# / CFDA Code)
| Fiscal Year | Award Number | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | 90FB0001 | 09/25/2008 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHRISTHOPHER BEARD | $ 999,534 |
| 2007 | 90FB0001 | 09/21/2007 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHRISTHOPHER BROWN | $ 999,534 |
| 2006 | 90FB0001 | 09/25/2006 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CHRISTHOPHER BROWN | $ 999,534 |
| 2001 | 90XP0023 | 04/09/2001 | 93647 | Social Services Research and Demonstration | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | HEATHER THURMAN | $ 500,000 |
I’d DONE data entry before, and typing. Do you know what the odds of someone even on no sleep, and having a sugar buzz, making THAT many
mistakes in 4 entries (fatherhood, responsible, and public, plus “Christopher” spelled wrong. Same grant, 3rd year, “Christhopher Brown” entered a
samesex marriage, apparently and changed last name “Brown” to his partner’s name “Beard”?
This database exists so the public can search on it. Hmmm…… I wonder if they know to search for misspelled names…. and key terms.
AND SINCE 2000– seen below:
Funding for the “Father Organization” in this “national effort”
| 93.086: Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | $1,999,068 |
However the funding for the wild oats it sowed, under this # 93.086:
(I JUST LEARNED) I believe that this code only arose (emerged naturally of course) in about 2006. However, as of 2009,
it is still not a searchable agency code on the USASPENDING.gov. Either in listing “all” programs, or under the agency it belongs under
Hmmm — $2 million less in California for our shelters? (yes, yes, I realize this is federal, not state, spending).
2000-2009 NFI Funding: (See bar chart): Well, I guessed this may not be responsible “Spelling” on whoever entered the data,
but . . . .
When we simply search only the word
“fatherhood” under “recipient” for FY2000-2009,
we get an entirely different picture (also diff’t database):
Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located 
| District of Columbia nonvoting (Eleanor Holmes Norton) | $6,942,352 |
| Maryland 08 (Constance A. Morella / Chris Van Hollen) | $2,625,112 |
Yes this is definitely an “up from the people” grassroots movement,
and not a DC.-down
initiative, surely. They are just responding to (a certain sector) of their constitutents, and from Washington, acting on it. I know straight out of
getting out of my house safe, the FIRST thing on my mind was telling Washington, I needed (well, another) father in the home, since now
I was a “female-headed” household and my children, while this Domestic Violence Restraining order was in effect, were sleeping in a fatherless
home and in danger of (NOT) learning the rights values. They were learning that that stuff they witnessed growing up was illegal. And how to
leave a dangerous relationship and start to recover.
Of course, family court was there waiting for them to go UNlearn those values, fast, and that the 14th Amendment is just a theory.
Top 10 Recipients
| NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | $11,067,190 |
| FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | $8,673,900 |
| INSTITUTE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | $6,557,520 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM RE | $1,500,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITA | $300,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. RE | $99,350 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAMILY REVI | $-14,518 ** |
93647 word “fatherhood”
Was that misspelling intentional? I mean, it WOULD complicate a search by Award Title
Searching, CFDA 93647 (Not the CFDA actually assigned the word “fatherhood” in its description) & word “fatherhood” (“keyword in award title”):
Exact same search, different fields, so you can see grantee, principal investigators….
i.e.,
“It did this ALL on its own altruistic self, and I’m just reporting on it here.”
The President (is this the same one that signed that 1995 proclamation? about fatherhood?)
SEARCH ON ALL grants, with only the word “fatherhood” in the grant (not grantee) title, produced
358 records, of which here are the 1995-1999 ones:
| 1999 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90XA0005 | REPLICATION & REVITALIZATION FATHERHOOD MODEL | 93670 | OTHER | NEW | $ 300,000 |
| 1999 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90XP0014 | EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93647 | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 180,000 |
| 1999 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH FOUNDATION | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD035702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 139,665 |
| 1999 | UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH | MINNEAPOLIS | MN | State Government | R40MC00141 | AN INTERVENTION FOR THE TRANSITION TO FATHERHOOD | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 344,470 |
| 1999 | UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS | NORMAN | OK | State Government | R40MC00110 | AMERICAN INDIAN FATHERHOOD IN TWO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 149,507 |
| 1998 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH FOUNDATION | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD035702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 104,927 |
| 1998 | UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS | NORMAN | OK | State Government | 1R40MC0011001 | AMERICAN INDIAN FATHERHOOD IN TWO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 154,395 |
| 1997 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD35702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 119,899 |
| 1995 | ADDISON COUNTY PARENT & CHILD CENTER | MIDDLEBURY | VT | County Government | 90PR0005 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0003 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0004 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | ST. BERNANDINE’S HEAD START | BALTIMORE | MD | Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0002 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | WISHARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | INDIANAPOLIS | IN | County Government | 90PR0001 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
Notice the variety of recipients, including Universities (this will be useful for later “evidence-based data” resulting from grants to study the topic.
Notice that the TYPE of grants appears to be either “new” or “noncompeting.” Hmmm.
AND NOW Sen Lieberman is reporting on this grassroots movement.
Along with a group of allies, the National Fatherhood Initiative has
been establishing educational programs in hundreds of cities and
towns across America.
It has pulled together bipartisan task forces in
the Senate, the House, and among the Nation’s Governors and
mayors.
YES< there’s ONE thing that a bipartisan majority male Congress and the Nation’s (also primarily male,
if I’m not mistaken??) can unite on, and that the problem with the nation
relates to a lack of male (father) influence on young children throughout the land.
Presumably, these children that are spending, probably, the majority of their waking hours
in school, are not connecting with any decent father figures or adult males and learning from them
good values.
I wonder what the male/female ratio of teachers is in the nation’s elementary and high schools….
It has worked with us to explore public policies that
encourage and support the efforts of fathers to become more involved
in the lives of their children.
Last Monday, the National Fatherhood Initiative held its annual
(FIFTH?) national fatherhood summit here in Washington. At that summit, Gen.
Colin Powell, and an impressive and wide-ranging group of experts
and advocates, talked in depth about the father absence crisis in our
cities and towns and brainstormed about what we can do to turn this
troubling situation around.
And Last June, 2009 President OBAMA, had a “town hall on fatherhood”
which was visited by a major representative in the Violence Against Women movement
(see last post). 15 years later, these articles are still leading, suicides (NOT by the troubled
teens, bu tby at times the fathers who troubled them….) are still happening. Well, the
doctrine’s NOT about to change, it must because THAT murderous, suicide-committing father
HIMSELF had no father model in his life.
There are limits to what we in Government can do to meet this
challenge and advance the cause of responsible fatherhood because,
Because — Because — Because, “regretfully” I supposed according to this point of view,
the FOUNDING Fathers put LIMITS to government into the U.S. Constitution,** and a few
MORE also made their way into the Bill of Rights as Amendments.
(**To appreciate the link — or be tempted to read it, hover cursor over it)
I can’t WAIT til the “Equal Rights” Amendment makes it in, if it ever will.
Of course I would settle for an enforced and respected 14th Amendment:
after all, it is hard to change people’s attitudes and behaviors and
values through legislation.
Possibly because the purpose of legislation is to express THEIR attitudes, by laws they voted on,
or their elected representatives did. Possibly because the purpose of government is to PROTECT
the inalienable rights of citizens….
But that doesn’t mean we are powerless,
Yes, time has shown that the federal grants systems, and initiatives, and private deliberations IS a
way to get around the danged legislation that has made “us” (Who all agree about this fatherhood crisis)
so “powerless.”
nor does it mean we can afford not to try to lessen the impact of a
problem that is literally eating away at our country.
How do you know it’s a PROBLEM and not a SYMPTOM of another problem?
In recent times, we have had a great commonality of concern
expressed in the ideological breadth of the fatherhood promotion
effort both here in the Senate and our task force, but underscored by
statements that the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services have made on this subject in recent
years. Indeed, I think President Clinton most succinctly expressed the
importance of this problem when he said: {{in 1995….?}}}
The single biggest social problem in our society may be the growing
absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes
to so many other social problems.
Again, in your opinion, supported by government-funded research with the premise already supposed.
AS WE CAN SEE BY THE ABOVE NEWS ARTICLE. THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE SITUATION, AND
WHAT CAUSED THE MAN TO KILL 2 (NOT INCLUDING HIMSELF, AND THE FOSTER MOTHER HE TRIED TO KILL)
was HIS INDIGNANT FEELINGS ABOUT, WELL THE FATHER-ABSENCE IN HIS ADOLESCENT DAUGHTER’S LIFE.
IT WAS, REALLY, LOVE IN ACTION.
(FOR REFERENCE: This was the Monica Lewinsky president, right?
Well, I guess we can overlook that because he has just flown to North Korea,
with a shock of white hair and looking dignified (and leaner) to attempt to retrieve
two FEMALE journalists sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. I hope he succeeds.
However, his signing of that 1995 Memo sentenced women here locally to some unbelievable
long-term trauma, because of its chilling effect on the 14th Amendment (and others)
and the placement of daughters and sons in the household of men who abused (or are
abusing) either them, OR previously their mothers) (case in point).
So there are some things we can and should be trying to do. I am
pleased to note our colleagues, Senators BAYH, DOMENICI, and
others have been working to develop a legislative proposal, which I
think contains some very constructive and creative approaches
Yup, parTICULARLY creative with the laws, due process, and the titling of the
various grants involved. Let alone the use of them, or the monitoring of their use
if any indeed actually takes place.
in which the Federal Government would support financially, with
resources, some of these very promising grassroots father-promotion
efforts,
WOULD support? WOULD support?
Check HHS’s CFDA# 93.086, “promoting responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage” for yourself on THIS site:
http://usaspending.gov (under “SPENDING” “GRANTS”)
and also encourage and enact the removal of some of the
legal and policy barriers that deter men from an active presence in their children’s lives.
A “LEGAL BARRIER” MUST REFER TO A LAW, RIGHT?
Another thing I think we can do to help is to use the platform we
have on the Senate floor–this people’s forum –to elevate this
problem on the national agenda. That is why Senator GREGG and I
have come to the floor today. I am particularly grateful for the
cosponsorship of the Senator from New Hampshire, because he is the
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families.
YES, I AM SURE WE ARE REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
MORE THAN CHARACTER, OR LEGAL RIGHTS OF MEN AND WOMEN BOTH….
We are joined by a very broad and bipartisan group of cosponsors which
includes Senators BAYH,
BROWNBACK, MACK, DODD, DOMENICI, JEFFORDS, ALLARD,
COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BUNNING, ROBB, DORGAN, DASCHLE, and
AKAKA. I thank them all for joining in the introduction of this special
resolution this morning, which is to honor Father’s Day coming this
Sunday,
but also to raise our discussion of the problem of absent fathers in
our hopes for the promotion of responsible fatherhood.
Senator GREGG indicated this resolution would declare this Sunday’s
holiday as National Fathers Return Day and call on dads around the
country to use this day, particularly if they are absent, to reconnect
and rededicate themselves to their children’s lives, to understand and
have the self-confidence to appreciate how powerful a contribution
they can make to the well-being of the children that they have helped
to create, and to start by spending this Fathers’ Day returning for
part of
the day to their children and expressing to their children the love they
have for them and their willingness to support them. [Page: S7164]
The statement we hope to make this morning in this resolution
obviously will not change the hearts and minds of distant or
disengaged fathers, but those of us who are sponsoring the resolution
hope it will help to spur a larger national conversation about the
importance of fatherhood and help remind those absent fathers of
their responsibilities, yes, but also of the opportunity they have to
change the life of their child, about the importance of their
fatherhood, and also help remind these absent
fathers of the value of their involvement.
We ask our colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution, and
adopting it perhaps today but certainly before this week is out to
make as strong a statement as possible and to move us one step
closer to the day when every American child has the opportunity to
have a truly happy Father’s Day because he or she will be spending it
with their father.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Just for a reminder:
– Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
– Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
WELL, wordcount 5216, enough for today.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Golden State $$ Deficits: What doesn’t trickle down from DV Coalitions (to victims), bubbles up instead to supporting “Father Involvement”
We all know our state (California) is bottomed out.
Supposedly.
“June 19 NYT: Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose manly posturing either charms or repels, . . sent an oblong, melon-size sculpture of bull testicles to Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the Democratic-controlled State Senate.
The gift was apparently meant as a barbed joke, symbolizing the Republican governor’s hope that California legislators would display fortitude in deciding how to close a $24 billion budget deficit.
Mr. Schwarzenegger’s press office said the gag was a retort to a lighthearted present that Mr. Steinberg had sent the governor. That gift, a basket of mushrooms, followed Mr. Schwarzenegger’s description of Democratic budget proposals as “hallucinatory.”
I have not been hallucinating and I will display fortitude in reminding us that both government and nonprofits or both of them hand in hand (with foundations), have not opened their books and given an “evidence-based” (versus, walked through our doors-based) account of whether, to what extent, and HOW are they addressing hard social issues (including domestic violence, and the poverty that comes in it train
(NB: poverty does NOT cause abuse; abuse is a CHOICE, and there is no excuse for it. I have been poor in many ways during my years with this person, and I have not stalked, attacked, slapped, pushed, threatened with a weapon, attempted to cut off his relationship with his family (as he has — and has succeeded — with mine, including my own daughters — or any of those.).
Instead, they have run us around the block 15 times promising “help” and selling grandiose intentions until, wisely observing we’re exhausted, no evidence of help is even on the horizon yet and we just PAID someone with our time in expectation, or false hope.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-awareness — we just learned we’re gullible.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-sufficiency — we just learned how important free time and a purpose for it are.
And the entire structure of the U.S. economy is that those who, for one reason or another, DO have time to spare will (generally speaking) spend it on either themselves, or some noble cause to inflict on those who do NOT have time to spare. Though I’m pretty well educated, it took me the school of hard knocks knocking on nonprofit (and government agency) doors for simple, basic HELP, to figure out WHY this problem of making excuses for abuse.
For those of you who do refer to scripture (Bible), here’s the relevant parallel. A woman went to the doctors, and having spent all, was still bleeding, and as a result (in her society) considered in a continual state of “uncleanness,” she was an outcast socially.
(Mark 5):
25 And a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to (with DV) these people not only bleeding, they are hemorrhaging jobs and relationships, and sometimes HOPE, as well. Whether or not you believe the situation or the miracles, this IS how it feels not to be able to get free from domestic violence (it’s hard, with children involved; it’s near-impossible, once one sets foot in family law arena, which typically doesn’t like to ACKNOWLEDGE that abuse is a choice, domestic violence is dangerous to those kids, but instead holds conference about how to put them back with their abusers — 100%, or at a minimum weekly. And bill the public (or the nonbattering parent) for this. Don’t believe me? read my blog! Access Visitation Grants funding.
What that woman needed was NOT another coalition of doctors discussing blood flow, she needed it STOPPED while she had some strength left, and as the account says, she already had no money left! . . . . . . I have actually been in this situation, literally as well as figuratively, during a highly stressful time in my life (in fact, it was actually that season I was in a full-blown custody suit, as well as possibly that “season” of my life). I needed to take a long, long car-drive and was not going to be able to do so in this condition — or at least I’m sure the driver wouldn’t have approved the multiple stops. You know what? The solution was SIMPLE — an herb costing about $11.00 called “shepherd’s purse.” For a little 2-oz. bottle. I was able to get it, and make the trip. If I’d actually HAD health insurance coverage at the time, I’m sure I’d have been put through an appointment, and on a prescription. Butt I didn’t, so a simpler way had to be found.
I believe if we as a society really WANTED domestic violence to stop as much as we wanted not to change our ways (or institutions — can anyone say “faith institutions” ??) or beliefs that someone else is handling this, when they aren’t, or give up our mythic continual trust in Big Brother to come and rescue us — it would be stopped. I’m SURE of it. How hard is it to really shun an abuser, the way a person reporting it gets shunned and outcast and stripped of her funds, and eventually (and partly because of this) children? – – but not of the abuser’s ongoing access to her.
SERIOUSLY NOW, we are hearing daily on the news how broke we are. Take for example, BUSES have been cut back one day a week, and routes re-routed, and shortened. Things and tempers are tight at times.
Across the nation this week, funding for domestic violence programs is being cut, incoming emails proclaim:
In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “terminated” the budget for domestic violence programs. Although cuts were anticipated, the elimination of all programs was not. Learn more.
The City Council in Washington, DC voted to cut an already underfunded victim services budget by 10%. Read more.
If your state is facing similar cuts, let us know atpublicpolicy@ncadv.org. We’re here to help!From the “National Coalition on Domestic Violence” website and update:
California News (KFSN) — California’s recently adopted budget has dealt a severe blow to the state’s victims of domestic violence. Governor Schwarzenegger cut 20-point-4 million dollars to 94 shelters and centers statewide. As a result, many centers will have to make drastic cuts to their programs. Some will have to close their shelters altogether.
Executive Director, Rita Smith, attended President Barack Obama’s Town Hall meeting on Fatherhood held on Friday, June 19, 2009. {{IN WHAT CAPACITY? TO ENDORSE THIS, AS IF THE MOVEMENT WAS LACKING ENDORSEMENT? OR TO REPRESENT THE VOICES OF WOMEN WHO COULDN’T BE THERE– BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD, IN A SHELTER, IN HIDING, OR DESTITUTE FROM THIS EXACT TYPE OF FATHERHOOD PROMOTION FROM “ON HIGH” THAT HAS DILUTED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MOVEMENT AND CHANGED ITS CHARACTER ENTIRELY, WHILE KEEPING SIMILAR LABELS ON THE ORGANIZATIONS?)) President Obama discussed the importance of balancing work and family responsibilities, meeting obligations to children and serving as a role model to them, even if one’s own father could not do so. The President also encouraged fathers to break their fathers’ cycles, learn from their mistakes and “rise up where [their] own fathers fell short.” Watch here and read more.
However SOME of us, because we look!, know where some of that money goes. (if not — yet — what’s done with it once it gets there). For example, although social services are going to be cut, judges’ supplemental pay apparent is not going to be. Nor can we sue judges retroactively who took bribes, apparently (Richard Fine is still in jail for confronting THAT, Senate passed a law prohibiting it).
I’m sure our Governor and Legislature will work SOMETHING out that won’t leave them, at least, out in the cold:
Then ONE organization I thought was on the same page (understanding relationship between “family court matters” and “domestic violence” and “feminists v. anti-feminists (a.k.a. “Father’s rights’ promoters) ” and the general funding war, sent out another panicked alert that the Guv (Governor Schwarzenegger, i.e., the social services “terminator”) was cutting funds to domestic violence shelters, and this alert bore the name of some group I’d not run across, although for the past 10 years I sure have been RUNNING (and driving, calling, web-surfing, networking, asking, etc.) for HELP, etc. The name, being “California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.” Then the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” sent out another.
I’d recently turned from tracking HHS funds to finding out what’s up with all these DV Coalitions across the country…
I said, “say, WHO?” and then ran across THIS: I’m not the only person that noticed this ? ? ? ?
Governor Schwarzeneger is right about cutting DV funding
Okay, with all the chaos floating around about how wrong Governor Schwarzenegger is for cutting or vetoing Domestic Violence funding all together I have to say he is right on point. I never thought I would agree, however, I am coming from the victim point of view.
I reached out to get help from dv coalitions, who refused to help me. For what I am about to say isn’t going to sit well with people, but I am sorry, I didn’t get help,
Heather Thompson didn’t get help and was basically battered by her local coalition to stay away and was told if she didn’t they would file a restraining order against her.Yes, that’s right, a restraining order against a victim of domestic violence begging for help.
Maria Phelps, a victim who resides in New York, has been following protocol and filling out forms that are required to receive help and the folks in New York, pull her chain on daily basis. What kind of hoops does one have to jump through to get their needs met from those who claim to help.
Claudia Valenciana, a former Ventura County Sheriffs Deputy was turned away from the Coalition to End FamilyViolence in Oxnard.
Alexis A. Moore was refused help simply because of the profession her abuser was in and she ended up living in her car, is this what the states money is funding? Survivors In Action has started a petition for Domestic Violence Reform, we are calling you out and believe us when we say, this is serious.
Thousands of victims of domestic violence have been refused help. In California alone, there are many, most are afraid to speak up. This what I feel is the threat of Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto, this means the salaries of the big wigs who work at these coalitions are going to be cut. They won’t be able to drive around in their nice cars or buy their fancy clothes to wear to State Capital hearings.
Commentary Cars and clothing don’t bother me. What bothers me, personally, is all the conferencing, policy-making conferences, forgetting that the REAL stakeholders are those whose very lives are most directly at stake, literally. And that among the stakes that these nonprofit participants hold, when those funds come FROM government, the recipients have a duty to actually serve the PUBLIC. Not themselves, their ideas, and their careers. When the nonprofit funding comes from individuals, or foundations, it’s a bit different, BUT, the jobs done SHOULD relate to the title on the funds collected. “Are we done yet?” in some of these issues? And if not, WHY not? (Just to distinguish my point of view from what I’m quoting here).
I understand that Tara Shabbaz of the California Partnership To End Domestic Violence spoke out about what a travesty this would be. I didn’t see anything on their website. Perhaps Tara, your salary is in jeopardy of being cut, are you getting a little worried that you and other executives will be hurting and that you may not be able to pay your rent, make a car payment or a utility payment, well maybe this is a sign that you may have to suffer like the rest of us? I think this is exactly what should happen. While you sit in your cushy office, victims ARE SUFFERING.
WHILE I’m here, there’s a “CFDA” (federal grant program code) called 93.591, and according to this database, the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” got funding in 2008 & 2009. Is this a new code? I DNK:
Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions 2009 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0901CASDVC 2009 SDVC 06/11/2009 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 241,086 2008 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0801CASDVC 2008 SDVC 04/18/2008 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 231,230
AND, ANOTHER SOURCE< RELATED:
Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
Author: Randi Rosen
Domestic violence victims are not getting the help and services they need when reaching out to their local DV coalitions. More and more women are coming forward and expressing their frustrations which needs to be addressed.
Domestic violence coalitions receive federal funding for the victims of domestic violence, so if the victims aren’t getting services they need, where is the money going? This is a personal issue for me. Many years ago, I reached out to the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence in Ventura county. No ever called me back. I shared this with my mother and she couldn’t believe that I was ignored and a victim of domestic violence, she called the coalition herself and received the same response, nothing.
(I presume you called more than once, right? As I see below, obviously. I know how often I called agency after agency– ran up that cell phone bill….NONE of them were prepared to deal with chronic, long-term, family abuse through family court AFTER the restraining order expired, by which time you were supposed to be, I guess just hunky-dory fine…)
In January 2008, Assembly member Fiona Ma introduced AB 1771 Nadga’s Law. Assembly member Ma stated, “California can do more to curb the dangerously high number of domestic violence incidents through prevention.” That meant providing online information about prior convictions and providing potential victims with useful tools to avoid violence or a potentially violent partner, thus reducing the number of domestic violence incidents.
(Here is the blurb on “Nagda’s Law”:
Assemblywoman Ma Announces Groundbreaking Legislation
to Create Online Database of Domestic Violence Offenders
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) and former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer will unveil a landmark bill to create a state-wide database of domestic violence offenders. The legislation, AB 1771-The Domestic Violence Prevention and Right-to Know Act of 2008, would require the Attorney General to develop an online database that would report the name, date of birth, county and date of conviction for individuals convicted of felony domestic violence or multiple counts of misdemeanor domestic violence. The database would keep updated information available for 10 years. It is believed that this would be a first in the nation law and would go into effect on January 1, 2009.
Assemblywoman Ma, who is the Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence, introduced the bill in response to the case of Nadga Schexnayder and her mother who were shot to death in 1995 by Ronnie Earl Seymour, a former boyfriend of Nadga’s who had a 20-year history of violence against women. Hammer secured a life in prison conviction as the lead prosecutor in the case.
WHEN:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
10:00 a.m
Alexis A. Moore, President of Survivors in Action who sp0nsored the bill, stated, “This bill will reduce the numbers of domestic violence incidents by providing prior conviction records on line. Equally important, the bill will be a valuable preventative measure to help potential victims and their family members protect themselves from violence.”
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), California District Attorney Association and Interface California Family Services opposed the bill claiming an infringement on the perpetrator’s privacy. Interface is an organization that is contracted with the court system to provide batterers with anger management classes.
The bill was introduced to protect victims and potential victims of violence and these organizations are worried about the privacy of the perpetrators and their personal information. There is something really wrong with how domestic violence legislation is voted on, especially the very coalitions who claim to protect the victim. The laws that are in place today, are not working and they need to be changed, no longer are the victims willing to be the status quo.
Now, the coalitions want to spend a great deal of money to change Domestic Violence Awareness month which is October and shared with Breast Cancer Awareness, to another month. The intent is to separate the two different causes so Domestic Violence gets all the attention. What for? Why spend all that money on advertising and printing, when it should be used to help the victims. Domestic Violence is still in the closet as far as being taken seriously with Law Enforcement and the Judicial System. Look at how many women are being murdered as result of DV**. These coalitions need to be held accountable for their programs and services. When a victim of DV reaches out for help, those services have to be provided to them. If victims are turned away, then the coalitions should prepare to show where the money is being spent.
About the Author:
I founded Women’s Legal Resource in 2006 to help women who face the brutal challenges of the legal system. After going through my own experience in the Family Law Court without the financial resources to obtain proper counsel, I was faced having to represent myself. I attended Los Angeles Valley college in the paralegal studies program which helped in legal research and document preparation. All though I faced many legal hurdles, I felt the need to help other women, especially those who are Domestic Violence victims in document preparation and as a advocate.
The present laws as they are written is flawed and not honoring the safety of victims of violence in the United States. The manner in which police officials and the courts enforce protection orders, custody orders, child visitation and confidentiality escalates violence which leads to murder. Women’s Legal Resource is a nonpartisan organization to support the effort and petition congress for the revision of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault laws. Women and children are being murdered at the hand of their abuser’s, accountability; intervention and prevention are the crucial elements for change.
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
I realize (really I do!) this chart will not display well (any more than the others throughout my blog):
However, the CFDA code “93.592” under this http://www.taggs.hhs.gov website, is labeled officially:
“Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary”
This is a single California Entity (high-profile) that knows about this funding, obviously. I do not know whether they work also with
battered women’s shelters, or more on the “discretionary” part. I do also know that this group seems to have undergone a recent (to me) “sea-change” in the focus of its work. It has recently become intensely interested in “Fathers” work. I guess this is to help more with the prevention aspect.
| Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Award Number | Award Title | Award Code | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 07/28/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/27/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 145,000 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 08/13/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 01/26/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 32,940 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/20/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 182,375 |
| 2006 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 09/19/2006 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,145,872 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/29/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/14/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 115,000 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/14/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/27/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 90,000 |
| 2003 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/07/2003 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,133,236 |
| 2002 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/04/2002 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,113,796 |
| 2001 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/13/2001 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 958,542 |
| 2000 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/10/2000 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 804,542 |
| 1999 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 08/19/1999 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 698,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 678,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0153 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/30/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0157 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | LRNI MARIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0012 | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | 2 | 07/11/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | OTHER REVISION | JANET NUDELMAN | $- 9,549 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/17/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 600,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 1 | 06/13/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 37,604 |
Summary report on these 3 categories:
93.591
93.592
93.671
(All, basically “Family Violence Prevention” funding, and ALL have the word ”
Let’s Get Honest COMMENTARY: – which became a discovery — which became the remainder of this post —
RE: “Interface California Family Services opposed the bill ”
I thought I’d look to see WHO would oppose a bill letting people in our very mobile society know who has had a conviction record on-line (for those, like me, who aren’t expert at running down to the court, or cannot afford background checks…). While I don’t know about this bill, I was curious about “Interface California Family Services.” What I found there stopped me in my tracks.
So, I’ll detail what happened to those “DV Coalition $$” in an ensuing post….. I know y’all (even Plano Texas) probably don’t get through posts more than 4,000 words, and that data is too important to leave at the bottom of a post …..I DO have some rarely published (I think) observations……
After I started studying these DV coalitions (the ones that didn’t help me once I set foot in family court — it wasn’t their “venue”) are actually doing. Not in detail, but in the broad sweep of the market (niche) — I mean, it’s clean, it’s antiseptic, for the most part, and it’s colorfully logo’d internet-based, replicatable ideas that have LITTLE to do with the legal infrastructure of this nation, INDIVIDUAL LEGAL RIGHTS, but only “units,” of which a man MUST be a part, or it ain’t a family.
I’ m beginning to see the name of the organizational game>>>>>> that basically leaves actual suffering victims OUT of it, including kids, moms, and road kill…. and policies that do nothing to make a dent in those statistics. But are a GREAT market niche. Maybe we should just skip welfare, child support, and all that, and teach women leaving abuse how to start a nonprofit, and some internet skills, catch the surf of federal funding foundations (figure out first what the foundations actuallly really want — and here’s a headups. MOST of them are old money and DON’T want women to leave a marriage just because he’s a batterer. They also want no kids out of wedlock, hopefully, because people in trauma don’t make good employees. Just hang in there and take it a few more years……If you can’t, you’re on your own, because these days, it’s not about individual rights, or legal rights, it’s about “FAMILIES.” )
OK, so below here is my guided exploration to where your $$ went and what social policy is, apparently, these days. This may explain why the headlines haven’t changed much in a decade. People still throwing up their hands, “why??” did he suddenly “go off” and “off” his family, a police officer, a bystander or too, and/or his kids?
(I get more and more sarcastic as I go, so you might want to quit before the end of the post. )
These days, almost any organization that says “family” “healthy” “children” (“parenting”) basically is NOT sticking up for violence against women. It’s just a little linguistic thing. So I just looked . . . . I’m not saying they aren’t doing great things. But, I do know what help I just couldn’t seem to access, though having gotten it on time MIGHT have meant (1) solvency (for which safety was a component) and (2) neither my daughters, nor I, nor the several organizations I was working for at the time, nor the closer friends I leaned on (reeling from this event) might have had to experience an overnight, traumatic custody switch in the context of increasing child support arrearages, escalations outside of court and increasing denial INSIDE it, that domestic violence ever happened to start with, OR, that this was indeed the real thing.
On this site, we find, under “PROGRAMS (i.e., what they do, right?) ” . . . .
- Child Abuse Prevention
- Youth Services
- Domestic Violence
- Mental Health Services
- Strategies Family Support Program
OK . . ..
Batterer’s Intervention Program
Court Recommended
A 52-session program to help individuals change their violent behavior patterns.
The program provides the knowledge and tools to make new choices.
I’m not impressed . . . ..
HEY! — there’s no EXCUSE for abuse. It constitutes choices. Suppose that guy doesn’t WANT to make new choices, but fakes it well?
(This has been documented in later DV murders). WHY is this still going on, and at whose expense? Who is documenting behavior change and later safety of the partners?
(AND information showing the difference between violence/nonviolence, warning signs, and encouraging us to make a safety plan. Been there, done that. . . . . . . ). And the wheel of violence (old as the hills, and from Duluth). And what DV is, and so forth. How much funding is going towards maintaining THAT page? Let’s move on to another category of “Interface California Family Services.” What are they serving up?
AHA, now we are learning something . . . .
Strengthening ORGANIZATIONS to Support Families and Communities. (Probably training..–what kind of training?..)
Strategies is funded by the
State of California, Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the S.H. Cowell Foundation
A comprehensive training and technical assistance project for Family Resource Centers ???) and more.
Strategies provides practical and highly interactive training, as well as organizational needs assessments and individualized technical assistance to professionals in the field of family support.
I GET IT: “Technical assistance and Training” is a great way to access federal funds. It’s not so messy as dealing directly with victims, (and their PTSD, fears, and/or injuries) perpetrators (and their attitude), or PPIT (“poor people in trouble.”) It’s easily replicatable, and a lot of information-based (websitek printouts, powerpoints, seminars, etc.) I GET IT !!! The key word is, they are going to help the PROFESSIONALS.
Also, what is this vague, wide field of “FAMILY SUPPORT” (I somehow don’t think it’s the $$ counterpoint to “child support,” meaning funding that goes to children (supposedly)…)? What is meant by “families” and what kind of support? Pro bono legal to get (or defend from) a restraining order? Child support enforcement? Helping that dude get a job?
Strategies’ capacity building activities focus on using a strengths-based perspective, promoting evidence-based practice,** sustainability planning and developing effective public/private partnerships.
**flag — that “evidence-based” terms is often a fatherhood indicator.
This is the history. In 1994, some “prominent thinkers” (Per National Fatherhood Initiative) decided there is a crisis of father-absence throughout the nation. Helpfully, one of the NFI guys also had this post, or got it, in the Health and Human Services department, THE largest US Dept. He was the Secretary, or HEAD of it. He had some pull.
IN 1995, “coincidentally” a Democrat President endorsed this supposedly Republican conservative viewpoint, in a famous, short, memo (link on my blogroll) endorsing this point of view and telling all HIS departments and agencies to quickly “hop to” (into line with the above-mentioned prominent thinkers. No, I do NOT have their names, it’s not on the website, but we are told to take it on faith, this is THE major social ill around. Well, as to moving the huge wheels of state to point in a different direction, there ought to be SOME evidence to base it on. RIGHT? I mean, we have SOME progressives and radicals around the country (meaning, women that sometimes make a hard choice between staying, and being hit, and leaving and being criticized for being single; as well as men and women BOTH that simply didn’t do the marriage thing.
Note: I CANNOT criticize these people, because I DID the marriage thing, and it almost killed me, literally, and apart from some fantastic children (that I can’t see any more, thanks to programs like these spawned, and what they did to the process of divorce), I really am not in a place to look down on some who didn’t opt in the wedding band “thang”. . . . . In THEORY, yes. I think it’s better to figure out a serious commitment before pregnancy, than, say pick up the Son of the Porn King in a bar, as a women did recently, and ended up dead on her daughter’s 1st birthday. There are definitely some kinks also in marriage to be worked out in practice, and many of which this overentitled “fatherhood” (really, male supremacy) theology put in there to start with. It kind of meant, for me, I had to leave the “human” parts at the door (or they’d be kicked out), and when in the home, pretty much just only do things that looked REALLY “wifely.”
LIke scrubbing laundering, listening, giving birth and nursing (unless he wanted sex, or to engage in a lecture of some sort), oh yes, bringing home the bacon, but also handing it over once I did (Because after all who’s the head? It’s divinely, genetically ordained), smile when people were over, and shut up when they weren’t (well, I could talk, just not talk back to abuse…), and not complaining when the (US, incidentally) mail was opened, to make sure I wasn’t engaging in any NON-wifely, NON-womanly activities without permission — like
singing, playing the piano, and spending money I’d earned without clearance from the head. Or even saving it (possibly for an exit).
Eventually I did get a PO Box (after 3 warnings to stop this), there was a good deal of resistance (which was of course punished), but then he just assumed I was squirreling away money (when I wasn’t) and withheld contributing to the household even more. At this time it had been my assigned job to pay rent, and utilities, and my own way (and the kids’, too).
That I did this while in full possession of two college degrees, a professional background, and, I thought, my senses, is something of a real marvel, in retrospect. What I DIDn’T have from nearly the beginning was consistent access to: (1) Finances, or even a bank account, and (2) transportation. So I kinda sorta try not to blame myself for this. I also didn’t have ANYONE confronting this joker in front of me and saying “STOP” to back up my (frequent) STOPs! And I DID tell (not cover up), but was not fully informed on WHO to tell (Or, they just didn’t respond). Now, to hear women in 2006, 10 years later, say the same things, is very sad to me.
Well, back to the “evidence-based” phrase. Grants are grants, and they go to universities and researchers, and when it comes to the social sciences, well, it’s a little unclear whether the chicken (policy) came before the egg (studies, institutes, etc.) or vice versa. I guess I should’ve used the word “sperm” instead because after all this is regarding fatherhood, but then I couldn’t really in public complete the analogy. ANYHOW, in 1998 and 1999 the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives kind of went along the same “fatherhood rules, father-absence is a social plague” line of thinking and voted in some resolutions, just in case Clinton’s revamping all departments and programs to accommodate fathers better didn’t really work. This is the short version; in short, major universities got in on the grants also, and so everyone is stroking everyone’s policy/procedures/evidence back. The federal grant #, should you care to check, is 93.086, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriages”, which is only part of the mountain, and which if you’ve been paying attention here, is clearly, well, a going concern in California.
Now about those “evidence-based practices.” in a little nonprofit with the word “family” in it….
So, let’s see how this: 
(NOTE: at bottom of page:
New for agencies and practitioners: Supporting Father Involvement.
For information visit the Supporting Father Involvement website.Strategies is funded by the State of California, Department of Social Services,
Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the Stuart Foundation. (what happened to the “S.H. Cowell Foundation,” above? How many foundations are in on this thing??)© 2009
Let’s see how it develops the theme of “Strategies to Support Families & Communities”:
Increasingly, the social service sector is being challenged to provide evidence that their work is making a real difference for the people and communities they serve.
That’s for damn sure.! IN part, because the same domestic violence fatalities, child-kidnappings, and difficulties with “access/visitation” still happen. People are still poor, of course, and women are still jailed when they try to protect a kid that the courts won’t protect, but Dads are NOT jailed for harrassing our asses through family court allegations, hearsay or frivolous in nature, rather than, (say), working, and moving on in life. And for denying past, present, and risk of future abuse and extreme psychological difficulties for kids. . . . That’s not ALL Dads, I am talking about abusive ones, who are having a heyday in the family courts, and through this managing to trash attempts to get free from the relationship, share visitaiton, but NOT being part of a tyrannical dynamic. . . .. This was my issue, I know. I don’t see that it particularly phased ANY of the court-related OR the nonprofit-related organizations I was dealing with in the past several years.
You know what I recommend? ASK US!! READ THE NEWSPAPERS !!! TALK TO LITIGANTS!
No, that’s too messy. Can’t be data-justified; no reports can really be sold from anecdotal evidence, and in short, we’d just rather not. Here’s a BETTER idea (and use of short-in-stock social services funding….):
A powerful and user-friendly evaluation tool to help programs answer these questions is the Family Development Matrix.
That’s the better idea — a BUSINESS NICHE. There you go. THAT will help families experiencing stress from repeated interferences with work and relationships coming out of these situations . . . .
In a unique partnership the Strategies and the Institute for Community Collaborative Studies at California State University Monterey Bay provide training and technical assistance to organizations interested in learning how to use the Family Development Matrix in their programs.
The Strategies web page lists all upcoming trainings, includes a virtual tour of a Family Resource Center, provides links to relevant resources, and hosts a library of sample policies and procedures.
Community Training
Strategies draws from the broad range of expertise of Interface’s staff and consultants to provide community trainings in the areas of family support, child abuse prevention, cultural competency, domestic violence, mentoring programs, mental health issues and non-profit management.Upon request, Strategies also provides meeting facilitation, strategic planning assistance, and individualized coaching services.
My idea of a “Family Resource Center,” before I was in the social science sphere of family court, was my FAMILY. And a little privacy within it too: Home, meals, schedules, activities, associates, children and their friends and their firend’s parents, work, school, transportation, shopping, playing, time outside when possible, facing challenges together. AND seeing their Dad regularly on the weekend (my particular idea didn’t include the stalking and trauma part, but without that, I think you could definitely call it a “resource center,” our home. It had musical instruments, books, food, clothes, bedding, pictures on the wall, play gear, usually some pets, and sunlight. It had sleep walk, jump, talk, eat, drink, inside and outside, plan, and play. It was VERY resourceful and inspiring to combine these activities in the best way for the most richly rewarding use of our limited RESOURCES to get education, work, relationships and growth to happen.
The only problem for too many people — we weren’t in a properly approved PROGRAM, on the government radar, or asking permission from Dad to breathe or not breathe, come or go, sleep or not sleep as the case may be. Now THAT was a resource issue.
My idea of a resourceful family lifestyle did NOT include being analyzed every moment from waking up to going back to sleep too late and worried about the next exterior “analysis” of what we were doing from a persons or institutions who didn’t care if we were threatened or not, prospering or not, and safe or not.
Well, if can’t beat’em, might just as well join ’em. Here are some of those trainings:
Sho ’nuff, here’s one for “Fatherhood.” We want us all to be on the same page about THAT doctrine now, eh?
“Announcing: Journal of Marriage and the Family Article Published August 1, 2009Press Release:
NEW STUDY MEASURES BENEFITS OF MORE INVOLVED FATHERS
Children face greater risk when agencies focus only on moms, overlook dadsFamily service agencies are missing huge opportunities to help children by focusing only on mothers and ignoring fathers, according to a groundbreaking study by some of the nation’s top family and child development researchers..”
We ARE??? Where’s “motherhood.gov” or “hhs.motherhood.gov” — ever looked?
OH YEAH, it’s GROUNDBREAKING AND NEW — As new as the 1995 letter from President Clinton, as new as the 1994 National Fatherhood Initiative, and many other “Social Research Demonstration Projects.” It’s as “new” as “fatherhood.gov” and “hhs.fatherhood.gov.” To promote schlock like this:
A growing body of research has concluded that fathers are important to their child’s development, and yet the vast majority of programs that serve families with young children, especially low-income families, tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers.
It’s “growing” because it pays to study this field! Get a logo, write something, set up a website, and start marketing — you got a federal grant coming your way SOON! Get on the bandwagon, there’s room for plenty-a-more!
(Basically the page exactly mirrors Obama’s “Families” page propaganda in every point).
Perhaps this is why the women above couldn’t get help from the Coalitions they sought help from??? Social Services funding — and this IS funded by social services –a re going to father propaganda, spread by basic internet marketing practices through government agencies and other community organizations. We’re in the internet age, after all…..
the logo has two adults, right — nurturing a (single) child:
HEY — in this photo (a trick question) – –
s
WHERE’S MOM? DID HE GIVE BIRTH TO THOSE BABIES?
“As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these to benefit us all!”
and . . . .
The Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) intervention is entering its 5th year of implementation. From its inception, SFI has been a collaborative effort in funding and implementation representing a strong private-public partnership. The project is funded primarily by the CA Department of Social Services (DSS), Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP). Its partners have included the University of CA at Berkeley, Yale University, and Smith College School for Social Work. The state social services provided the impetus for SFI through its need and vision, funding, and administrative oversight. The college and universities have provided faculty leadership for design, implementation, and research.
The project has been implemented in a robust and supportive way {{OH!! That sounds so ‘masculine ‘ it sends shivers down my spine. WHERE IS HE??}}{{Unless they were talking about a coffee flavor — robust and supportive}}{{Oh, dang, it was just a “project.” But at least it was implemented robustly and supportively…}} by five able
{{oh mi God, able-bodied too? Where IS this?}}
{{Translation??: Spiffy websites with downloadable information, telephone numbers and a few trainers, and occasionally we’ll rent a hotel room, pull in some speakers (like us) and promote more fatherhood doctrine, and keep “mum” about the fact that domestic violence can suddenly turn lethal, batterers are NOT good role models, the cruelty of kidnapping to punish an ex-partner, the deaf ear the family courts turn when child sexual abuse is actually reported, and the fact that the custody evaluators (et al) are making a killing, financially, while the women adn children aren’t. And sometimes are killed, or Dad does himself in too. I bet these conferences don’t talk about THAT hard truth……??}}}
in Contra Costa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Tulare (Lindsay), and Yuba counties.
{{Well perhaps this explains a few court cases I’m familiar with throughout the state….}}
Strategies, the technical Assistance arm of OCAP, is helping to disseminate the program to organizations throughout CA.
{{Why don’t they, instead, disseminate the laws against these crimes, and things such as the flow of a lawsuit in the criminal, vs. civil, vs. family court? Why don’t they disseminate how to financially plan to leave an inheritance to your grandchildren by starting businesses, running them, or investing? Why not try something like, with that MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE/LICENSE, a copy of the laws against DV? Why don’t they disseminate to faith institutions that, fatherhood dominance or no fatherhood dominance, they are still mandated reporters, and next time they WILL be reported on if they fail to follow through? And give them some helpful books on the topic. And mention that economic abuse and verbal abuse is STILl abuse . . . . . . Why don’t they disseminate some thing that would help in REALITY, not in THEORY?}}
Additional funding for dissemination and public policy initiatives, as well as cost-benefit evaluation, has come from the Stuart Foundation and a grant is under consideration at the CAL Endowment.
“Given the widespread significance of the indications of SFI program success in terms of father-engagement and family well-being for California’s families and the agencies that serve them,. . .
1. Don’t break your back patting yourself on the back. The message is clear: you wouldn’t be looking for MORE funding were not the program so widely signficantly indicating that it’s engaging fathers, which is, (FYI), our definition of “family well being” and our version of child abuse prevention (it is funded in part by that office of child abuse prevention still, right, or advertised on a site that is….)
2. Suppose they don’t WANT a particular Dad engaged, because he’s dangerous and abusing a child? Does that still qualify as ‘family”? Would you lose some funding? SUPPOSE, in a situation like that you went ahead and engaged the Dad anyhow (the ones that the “access visitation funding to the states — all millions of it” didn’t already haul further into their lives, including sometimes out from a jail cell, or unemployment intentional to punishing an ex by not paying child support), and the situation “went south.” Would you re-evaluate the SFI program success a little DIFFERENTLY?
SFI is actively disseminating the rationale and results of the study. {{We got it already, OK. It’s straight out of Whitehouse.gov/issues/families page — the one with the word “mother” barely in there, remember?}}
We are open to and seeking support for expanded public-private partnerships to publicize the compelling results of these evidence-based best practices to increase awareness of service providers, practitioners, and policy makers with the goal of
fostering substantive organizational change within public and private organizations to think of fathers as caretakers of California’s and the world’s children.
WOW, so much for custodial mothers. I guess we’re out the door then?
and Wow, that “target market” is not even just CALIFORNIA’s children, but the World’s. That even tops the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition’s” target audience of everyone — literally, married, or unmarried, parent or not — 15 years or older in the entire state. (Guess that includes me….) Not content, “Strategies for Families” is going for the world’s children.
And it’s only our broke state of California helping FUND the organization…..
Does anyone in these programs (or the brunt of them) actually READ this shlock? First of all, it appears as though the prime EVIDENCE is if a warm-bodied father (whether or not robust and supportive, let alone ABLE to fulfil his responsibilities — and did we talk about INTERESTED in doing so?).
Second, it appears that the noble esoteric business GOAL is to “foster substantive organizational change . . . (blah blah blah) TO THINK OF FATHERS AS CARETAKERS.
In short, to change the way organizations “think.”
First of all, this organizational change within public and private organizations has ALREADY taken place. TRUST me, I stood in front of a mediator three times, at least, in the past 10 years, and the “fatherhood thing,” well, he “got” it.
There are few places a single mother can hold her head up, when it comes to agencies. There are few policy making places I’ve seen in the past several years — I DID find one in Australia several posts ago — that accept the concept of a single mother living with her children and NOT in frequent contact with Dad as even acceptable, let alone legitimate. I live in a “blue” (Democrat / progressive for internationals) state, and the moment I went single, I had government folk down my pants almost, and saying, essentially, put back on a skirt and take orders from us, or we take your kids. This began with a certain male in my family (not himself a father, perhaps he had regrets in that matter and was looking for someone new to dominate, as his wife, well, they’d been married a long time and living together a few decades….I’m not sure how submissive she was either, in private life. OR, they needed a reason to live — which FYI, kids really make a difference in, folks. LIving for someone else in relationship with you. Women need this too, at times….)
Now this person had absolutely no legal standing, no jurisdiction (and no legitimate reason) to start bossing me around, or my kids. I wouldn’t have mind, except he was herding us back in a direction I’d already adequately explored, and knew where it went — back towards poverty and dumbed-down education, with more stress and less success. We are not exactly in the top performing public education system in the nation — in fact Arne Duncan came out here several months ago and started scolding California like it was a bad little boy. And I took my kids OUT after this man had forced us in, and in a covert, dishonest, and pressured way when I didn’t have a valid choice not to obey.
At THAT point (or very shortly thereafter), I went to my government structures to put down a righteous foot, legally. But all I can figure out is, they’d already seen my girls, and they were (by and large) pulling the API (grade point averages) up, plus if I could be made to actually need SOCIAL SERVICES again, then at least something could be gotten out of this domestic violence survivor actually making it almost to the shore of solvency and safety — WITHOUT THEIR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT!
And this is where the anti-feminism thing, through the courts, really kicked in.
AND I am really off base here. I hope the post was informative. The next one contains the data I had in THIS one, til I saw this fatherhood shlock again, hiding in a federally supported program purporting to stop child abuse and reduce domestic violence. ACTUALLY it doesn’t claim anything of the sort, just has drop-down menus with those titles on them. However, the real “thrust” of the overall website and “family resource centers” is obviously leading one to “Support Fathers Involvement.” The other pages barely have sublinks and downloadable information — just a phone number for a batterer’s program, not a lot more. And a few flyers about some upcoming trainings.
(Ah well. . . .. )
“Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) is a family focused, evidenced-based intervention aimed at effectively engaging fathers as a key participant in family support and strengthening. It is also a method of fostering organizational development and growth for agencies and professionals serving at-risk families.
SUCH DOUBLE-TALK: INTERVENTION IN WHAT / / / in the way these organizations, often protecting children (and one way to protect children is to support the parent they’re with, emotionally or financially, i.e., that bond. When it comes to VIOLENCE< the bond with the NONbattering parent is the one that, if supported, will help and allow that child to heal. This is NOT, currently, public policy in the United States. But in case some “old-school” folk are still around, this workshop is here to “intervene.”
Notice the word “fostering,” a loaded word in the social science field. Good choice . . .. . ANd they’re talking about agencies and professionals as if they were living, animate beings, growing and developing (like kids, right?). While this has an element of truth in it, why isn’t the focus on the actually living animate beings IN those families? ANd their immediate safety and welfare, and then setting them free from program after program??
SFI offers multiple levels of participation in building effective strategies and methods to recruit, engage, and support the involvement of fathers in the lives of their families and the services provided, which includes access to web based materials, other resources, and networking. Agencies can assess their current Father Friendliness {{gag!!!}} and measure growth and improvement over time, using the SFI Organizational Self Assessment.
NOTE: there are so many millions $$ of funding going to from the Feds to the States ALREADY, which I have blogged about and which you can look up under 93.597 CFDA on the TAGGS database (going back to 1995), or if you want cool graphic summaries with lots of breakdowns and bar charts, you can get 2000-2009 on usaspending.gov under “grants.” These are the “Access visitation” grants ALREADY corrupting due process in the family law, so that results have required out come of more noncustodial “parent” (father) time by mandatory mediation, etc. MOREOVER, CFDA 93.086 {“Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. . “}has been up and running STRONG and FULL THROTTLE through the same department since about 1995, as I have blogged and you can search. Yet the materials always make it sound as if this was some radical NEW idea.
OR some grassroots, bottom UP movement, when it was nothing of the sort — not when a President, without legislation, issues a memo like that which revamps a federal agency.
DECEPTIVELY (very), “USASPENDING.GOV” does NOT have a searchable subcategory 93.086 along with all the others, but you CAN and WILL find plenty of funding by searching on other fields as to this. For example, one time I searched on “Noncustodial Fathers” and found millions of $$, and one of the 10 largest recipients across the entire country was, surprisingly, “Family Violence Prevention Center” in SF. The light bulb went off in my brain as to why the word “mother” was disappearing from this major nonprofit’s publications, agenda, and website.
For a noncustodial mother who’s had now almost 20 years of her prime work life, adult life, badly interrupted (you can call THAT an “intervention”) by domestic violence, first living with it, and then trying to leave it, after several years of which, setting proper limits and boundaries and doing what I would call incredibly heroic efforts to rebuild things AND send a clear message, AND when it was ignored, seek outside help for enforcement, AND when that really didn’t come through just about learning law, the courts, a whole field of study (domestic violence) and amazing number of related communities — WHILE also taking care of my kids, and trying to keep DAD off my front step, library steps, friends telephones, MY telephone, and other related areas — I cannot tell you how discouraging it is to see the direction of public policy and initiatives in these matters. It’s as though the entire structure just lost its mind and forgot the Constitution and what this country was ‘about,” which was independence from oppression and colonization.
GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND NOT TO RESHAPE HUMANITY. ALL PRESIDENTS, SWORN IN, are SWORN TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION, AND FULFIL THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT (IN REVERSE ORDER). THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM, MANDATES, AND BASICALLY BRIBING THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO INVOLVE FATHERS AT ALL COSTS. OR FOR THAT MATTER TO HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT IS SUCH A FAILURE, WE’VE FORGOTTEN THESE THINGS.
Look at this: remembering that this “Strategies” is part of “interface California Family Services” and is state-funded. And our state’s BROKE, supposedly:
Strategies embraces an approach that acknowledges that no child, family, or organization stands alone
WHAT THE HECK DOES “EMBRACES AN APPROACH” HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
So much for the Declaration of Independence
Rather, they {{THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING SENTENCE IS SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL}} must navigate complex systems in order to thrive.
Personally, I have tried to keep my life fairly simple and its processes too. But my thinking is a lot more complex than the tripe I’m reading on this website. Bureaucratese that simply loosens up $$ to get more professionals together to push propaganda that doesn’t, it appears, help them THINK better, and how can one operate better without thinking straight? It’d be better to haul out some classic literature and assign it. A man working with Viet Nam vets with severe PTSD did just that — he used the Odyssey! (apparently it helped too — last name “Shay.” You can look it up). I’m sure some personal relationships were involved in the process — not pdfs and websites and one-day or three-day trainings designed to infiltrate (sorry, “intervene” in how an organization operates….
Strategies’ initiatives provide an opportunity for organizations to participate in comprehensive, in-depth, evidence-based projects that address complex systems change. Each initiative involves multiple sites that work together over time to achieve common outcomes designed to strengthen children, families, and communities.
This Day Will Include:
- Introduction and Orientation to SFI (WHICH WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT BECAUSE . . . . . ?)
- Interactive Tutorial of SFI Web Based Resources
- A Discussion of Barriers and Bridges to Involving Fathers
(just tell them to go to family court, or head down ot the local child support office, where they will be recruited into a program).
- Resources Available Right Now To Strengthen Efforts to Serve Families
(guess you have to “be there” to understand. But of course serving families, well, that’s a great goal. I deduce it mostly means, putting Dad back in.
- A Luncheon Discussion Focusing on Next Steps of SFI Participation and Implementation
Basically, sounds like a cult. . . . . .
(OK, I get the picture — that’s enough. ALL THIS on just one little company, “InterfaceCalifornia Family Services”
We encourage you to integrate the resources of this site into your work with
families and your community.As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be
relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness
practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these
to benefit us all!
OK, I’ve had enough for now.
But what you see here is going to be in nearly every service organization, and branch of government. This will help explain that kind of “glazed look” you get in certain quarters when speaking of things like laws, rights, and enforcement.
No woman, or man (although men, if fathers, are being “recruited” remember? to be more “engaged” in their families. . . and getting help making this happen through the courts, help women do NOT get in retaining custody of their kids IF a local man wants them…..) could possibly go throughout the internet and figure out this was going on to such an extent.
the only reason I took time to was after running the gauntlet of expecting a court order — ANY court order — to be taken seriously in court — EVER, when it favored my rights, and not his whims.
forget it.
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...
Demonstrating Healthy Marriages – Think Big, Invest Much, Expect a Lot, Require –???
U.S. Health and Human Services — Administration of Children and Families
Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants
Last post, after I got over the sticker shock of how much California Healthy Marriages took (as I perceived it) starting in 2006 from funds that otherwise might have met desperate need, unmet to date, for enforcement of existing court orders granting me ACCESS and VISITATION to my to stolen on an overnight visitation daughters, just as I’d found despite searching — HARD — no such help before then to get help <>prevent this event, <>enforce existing child support or collect any of the mounting arrears, or <>consistently enforce even the weak, poorly-written visitation court orders, <>obtain an extension or renewal of the original restraining order so I could work in peace and a degree of safety in supporting my household WITHOUT consistent child support, or <>stopping the subsequent (once RO was off) stalking, etc.
Another year, including a flurry of arrangements and orders, none of them adhered to, yet when i pressed for this, certain things were done OUTSIDE the courtroom to warn me not to disrupt the status by taking my court-ordered rights (or his responsibilities to them) at face value. Eventually I again saw (a few rounds in family law system will probably make this clear) that the court itself wasn’t taking them seriously either, and I was evidently some rabble rouser for doing so myself. Concern for their intents with our daughters continued to rise. During this time, of course there was no child support either.
In subsequent months, after the dust had settled into the dreary zero contact, I worked instead on seeking help merely to maintain a cell phone so as to replace the work lost in all this process, not to mention unemployment. The bottom, marginalized line of society were told to get in line (and I did), and that a phone was simply not a necessity for life. At least life on welfare, which I am beginning to realize was possibly in the original plan. It’s hard to control people who are in a satisfied manner working and living out their life’s purpose, particularly when there’s a match between that and livelihood. They are less likely to have the financial difficulties.
Phone help — and unemployment — was, however, promised from certain agenices, as if a person going through the family law system needed another layer of bureaucracy to decipher.
So, after THAT, I sort of figured out a way to maintain things, and tried to keep my chin up.
All this time, really prior to that child-stealing event had worked its way through family law and child support court to the point of, basically ZERO (contact, or enforcement of arrears), I had had existing work, pending work, and referrals, plus sources of them. It was increasingly frustrating to have no single obstacle to acting on this other than the toxic relationship of having dared to leave a divorce, and then after that dared to say “No” to invasive orders-giving about how to rebuild a life and livelihood. And to have attempted to set clear and reasonable boundaries — and mean it. To continue to be dealing on a personal level with this level of hostility and/or dysfunctional thinking, the same kind that endorses wife-assault if she’s uppity, or he doens’t want to answer that last question. Or just because . . . . I’m talking about dealing with family who refused to acknowledge existing court orders, and systematically placed themselves in my life and above the law against my will, and brought destruction with it. I call that a criminal mind set.
Most of my life work had been spent in voluntary situations/organizations (nonprofits often) where people came there because they wanted to, or wanted their kids to, which made for a much better climate (and better pay, too).
Now that my schedule had so cleared, and significant time to study WHY this happened, the answers are not that complicated to understand — just hard to accept. What it’s hard to accept for our society is that some women — and sometimes for VERY valid reasons — “just want to be alone” when it comes to live-in sexual partners, or live-out ones either. In addition to this, the fact of not having a live-in sexual partner (married or unmarried) would not be AS hazardous to adults’ or children’s health if society would simply just “deal with it,” rather than attempt to wholesale “eradicate” it. The word “CHOICE” is the relevant word here.
I DID learn a valuable lesson, to bastardize a quote from an assassinated U.S. President, “Ask NOT what your country can do for you — even when it has proclaimed it will ….”
I had been naively looking in the wrong Department of the U.S. Government. Naively, I thought the key to why justice wasn’t happening lay in the justice department, and its workings. I looked at law, rules of court, mediation (as to domestic violence issues), I consulted databases (and emailed staff at) national judicial databases, or the respected National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ” if I have the word order correct), I read, researched, networked, talked, called, and wrote, gaining information, seeking to see the WHY . . . . .
Now, here I see these movements and this particular California Coaliation:
This coalition, as of 2006 (the year of this loss) had received over $2 Million — per year — for 5 years — in my state to help marriages that WEREN’T on the rocks, or split up, or broke already due to domestic violence, and related extended-family-wide safety issues. So, I think I could be forgiven for a strong, public exclamation at this indignation. For one, ACF, the same OPDIV umbrella under which HHS’s hated and feared OCSE had granted this CHMC, Inc. group $2.4mil/year on the basis of its HOPING and EXPECTING that this demonstration grant would demonstrate some serious results and accomplish many lofty goals, such as reducing crime, poverty, domestic violence, and of course the social plague of “fatherlessness” which is now responsible for those first 3 social plagues.
For the unwary:
(Administration of Children and Families)
(Operating Division)
(Health and Human Services)
(Office of Child Support Enforcement)
(California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Inc.)
I realized that this coalition’s “Target Population” was, basically the entire state (married or unmarried, rich or poor, and any cultural or racial background too) that had successfully survived life to the age of 15, which I suppose represents fertility, or something similar. They are thinking BIG — and as such deserve big bucks.
These funds are not just dollars, they practically have a life of their own:
They are going to:
-
BIRTH
-
NURTURE, and
-
SUPPORT the development of a . . .
. . . . well, you can read below. . . .
| Name of Grantee: | California Healthy Marriages Coalition |
| Federal Project Officer: | Michelle Clune (202) 401-5467 |
| Target Population: | Married and Unmarried persons in California, ages 15 and older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds |
| Federal Award Amount: | $2,342,080/year |
| Program Name: | California Healthy Marriages Coalition |
| Project Period: | 9/30/2006 – 9/29/2011 |
| Priority Area: | 1 (five or more allowable activities) |
Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaign (#1); Education in high schools on the value of marriage (#2); Marriage education, marriage skills and relationship skills programs for non-married pregnant women and non-married expectant fathers (#3); Pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples interested in marriage (#4); marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples (#5); divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills (#6); and marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities (#7).
Organization Description: California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to saturate the entire state of California with marriage education. CHMC will pioneer a “coalition of coalitions” model across the state.
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to birth, nurture, and support the development of a statewide interlinking network of community healthy marriage coalitions. The grantee will use the following curricula:
— Youth: “Connections” and “Love U2”
— Non-married pregnant women and expectant fathers: “Love’s Cradle” and “Bringing Baby Home”
— Pre-marital education: “FOCCUS,” “PREPARE/ENRICH,” and “The RE Marriage Prep Program,” and “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.”
— Marriage enrichment: “Relationship Enhancement (RE),” “Mastering the Magic of Love,” “PAIRS,” “10 Great Dates,” “Active Relationships,” and “World Class Marriage.”
— Divorce reduction programs: “Retrouvaille,” and “The Third Option”
>>>>>>>
See, I thought FAR too small. I did birth, nurture and support only as many as I spent 9 months apiece on. MY vision was to separate them from domestic violence, give them the best possible education, and set an example that it’s OK to leave dangerous situations — that women are not to be assaulted by their spouses, and don’t have to stick around for more of that. This has to do with things like self-respect, exercising legal rights and other such folderol.
I would like to, pretty soon, take a closer look at the marriage education being offered. I think a BETTER way to preserve marriages in California, especially existing ones, would be to SATURATE the faith communities with copies of:
- Mandated reporting laws on domestic violence and child abuse, and a stern statement to rabbis, pastors, imams, priests etc., AND any teachers or child care workers involved (etc.) that “THIS MEANS YOU”
- Copies of the state’s laws against these behaviors for distribution and posting.
- Statements against joint counseling of couples once violence has entered (which could be dangerous); retaliation might well happen after the one-hour or half-hour “performance” has ended, and without witnesses.
- Warnings to have a little humility when a situation exceeds their expertise…call in an expert (I have literally seen thumbnail-sized (tiny) booklets that appear to suggest someone reading the few pages is qualified to counsel such situations. We’ve seen SWAT teams that couldn’t save the situations, let alone a casual reader).
- A reminder that women got the vote in 1920, and that POSSIBLY, some of the institutions might wish to allow them to speak up not only in their public places, but also possibly have a voice in their marriages also.
- 800#s resources in case the messages don’t get through
- (A frank reminder to the WOMAN to avoid the family law system at all costs, if possible, should this crop up)
- “You Breed ’em You Feed’em” business cards, pre-marriage.
- Occasional messages from the pulpit that no one was created to be a scapegoat or target in life, male or female.
- Prominent postings of the Bill of Rights
- A realistic statement on how they expect to reconcile their activities with contrary activities within the public school system, for example some dismantling of the “abstinence education” stuff.
- Financial education, as this is a primary area of struggle within marriages.
- Suggestion that, for real, the couple look at the family history, education and work history, too.
- Got milk? Got any more ideas?
Among, of course, other things, such as the wisdom of having both partners retain access to finances, transportation, and be informed of the state of their own economic affairs, and other things such as might be a deterrent to different forms of abuse common in these places.
I think SATURATING California with such things might save some marriages (or prevent some unwise ones).
It might have mine… The joint counseling thing almost made a statistic out of our nuclear unit.
Moreover, saturation or non-saturation, there ARE people who just shouldn’t get married, no matter how much they like to have sex. I’d like to see (since it’s taxpayer funds) how California Healthy Marriages plans to handle this, and has to date.
I would like to see that NONE of the materials are saturated with the misogynistic, near-vigilante, woman-blaming, feminist-hating talk. For example, when people are killed by an irate ex (last time this happened — well, I know there was a hostage/femicide-suicide combo this past week, in San Jose. They WERE happily married, but the husband was not the little girls’ father, who didn’t take kindly to losing custody. Now she’s an orphan. Both biological parents are gone. Tragedies are tragedies. However, at times, as with any movement, it attracts all sorts. We had (see blogroll to right) one commenter blaming a domestic violence homicide on the woman, for fililng a protective order. It was awful; a little background search (Google) revealed that the person had done jail time previously, related to some skinhead type affiliations (and weapons accumulations).
This coalition needs to be sensitive to the fact that such hate-talk exists, and not take advantage of a tragedy to promote a policy, or that it will produce MORE overentitled males and transformational cell groups whose real agenda is not publically stated. These indeed do exist, and some may be viewed, apparently (fairly new site to me) at http://www.rickross.com.
I owe my readers a short post. This is one. . . .
Here’s the link to review the stringent requirements and “detailed” descriptions of other “Priority Area Demonstration Grants for Healthy Marriages.” I look forward to a radical shift in the headlines — fewer family wipeouts, and less government intrusion in our lives through child support enforcement, or lack thereof.
I’m also still searching (among these) for a description in any abstract of what constitutes a Healthy Marriage. I mean, among these grant recipients, is it sufficient (for now — this IS California after all, and the challenge isn’t going away) that a man and a woman be involved? Does there need to be some parity in contributions, rights, or discussions of long-term plans? Do they have to have the same religion? Do they have to decide whether childre are to be involved, or what to do if this is a second marriage for one partner? (In that case, read more on my blog and the blogroll to the right, FAST!). Does healthy involve “mild” or any forms of domestic violence, and if so, is this going to be “explicated” by a differently funded HHS grant from, say, Office of Violence Against Women?
Can a healthy marriage happen where the woman earns more or is more highly educated?
What about age differences (I am simply noticing that many — not all — of the incidents with fatalities involve a middle-aged male with a far younger woman, which makes me wonder whether he married for the babies or not. Or vice versa.).
In fact, now that I think of it, how in the world could a coalition define what is really a relationship? I mean, who’s to say what they do in the bedroom or with their finances? And if it’s a religious group behind this, WHO is going to advocate for the poor girl to keep her credit and bank accounts open, if they exist, and NOT put a house in only one person’s name?
Is it going to say: Boys and Girls belong together to procreate. If you’re going to procreate you should marry and stay married.
Is it going to address the high incarceration rate in the U.S. and say, “when Dad gets out, we want you two kids {meaning the parents of a child or children) back together, now, OK? MARRIAGE is HEALTHY, and FATHERLESSNESS is a social scourge, after all.
(FYI, this is already what the US is doing….).
HAPPY BROWSING:
HERE is the link to the descriptions of the use of these funds. As you can see, some have smaller target populations, although one with the word “Dibble” does say “throughout United States.” Another one I looked at yesterday (and need to view a bit more) made news article for having been taken over for certain bookkeeping inconsistencies by the Dept. of Education. I’m puzzled why the funds are still going through. We are, after all, in tough economic times (and I’m still owed money, also).
We appear to be carved up into REGIONS (not states).
Regions 1- 9 (except “6,” which appears to be “MIA”
Hover for a summary (titles and target populations), or Click to Look.
Many of these are 5-year obligations of around $500,000/year.
Apart from the CHMC above — I hope there’s a no-competition clause in there somewhere, because it’s not the only one in California — my other favorite for scope of vision (if not clarity) is:
Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant
Federal Project Officer:
Heather Sonabend (202) 260-0873
Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health (#1) and education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills and budgeting (#2).
Organization Description: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education was founded in 1996 with a mission to focus on helping teens learn the skills needed for current healthy relationships and future strong and sustainable marriages.
WOW — that was shortly AFTER the National Fatherhood Initiative (1994) and shortly BEFORE the U.S. Congress voted in both houses that we have a plague of fatherlessness (1998/1999, see prior posts and I think I have blogrolls on this). I hope they will be nice to Mothers too…
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The Dibble Fund plans to create a public advertising campaign on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health, and to provide education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. They will train 500 Family and Consumer Sciences high school teachers each year to implement peer education projects to reach 113,500 students with over 1.66 million hours of instruction over 5 years. They will increase the number of high school age youth that have access to “best practices” healthy relationship and marriage programs (including **Love U2, Connections, and The Art of Loving Well curriculums{{Curricula??}}) through schools, youth agencies, faith communities, and peer-to-peer education efforts in states with limited Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) teen programming. They will influence the knowledge and attitudes of teens about healthy relationships, the “success sequence,” and marriage through an innovative media campaign that reaches teens “where they are,” by leveraging the power and reach of the entertainment media (TV shows and magazines that teens already flock to), the internet, and other new media (mobile phones, i-pods, and other new technology that delivers content in non-traditional ways).
You have to admire the chutzpah, though — “teens across America” and in states deprived by “limited Healthy Marriage Initiative” teen programming. That’s ALMOST higher than the U.S. Dept. of Education goal that No Child Be Left Behind — ALL be able to read, write, and count (at a minimum) before they turn 18.
BERKELEY, CA must be Healthy-Marriage Initiatve deprived (too many same-sex marriage advocates?) because they got a grant, I saw in yesterday’s chart.
But then again, the HHS budget is far larger than the Education budget, so they can aim higher.
**Some curricula designers are going to be profiting from this 4SURE, too.
REGION 8 — apparently Colorado, Colorado, and Colorado** plus Utah and Wyoming.
**See my link on “Policy-Studies.com” and if it’s still there, “Center for Policy Research” with Jessica Pearson et al. The 1983-2005 picture of a tree showing its growth is worth the wait time if your PC/Mac takes as long to load as mine does.
Under Wyoming, I note a group that’s new on the scene (in getting gov’t grants to promote marriage….) as of 2002 — AND targeting 2nd marriages and stepparents. Good for them. They will also be aided (where one partner is the man) in the generous Access Visitation Grants in getting his child support reduced by gaining custody of the children, if they aren’t already in the home:
Organization Description: The High Country Consulting, LLC dba Faith Initiatives of Wyoming (FIWY) is a statewide intermediary organization for faith and community-based (F/CB) organizations founded in 2002. It currently serves more than 2400 F/CB organizations through training and technical assistance, fund development, identification of best practices and advancement and use of technology, all aimed at building service capacity at the local level. FIWY also assists with direct management services, data handling, event planning and coordination of partnership activities for F/CB projects.
It WILL, of course, be cautious not to maintain a balance between the religious viewpoints with those of atheists, or non-adherents. I’m curious of those 2400 F/CB organizations span a variety of faiths…
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: High Country Consulting will implement and evaluate a marriage enrichment program that will target stepfamilies and couples in second marriages. They will provide marriage preparation, enrichment and divorce reduction services through both community-based and faith-based organizations, using a pilot program as a cultural model to reach out to over 1,250 participants…
REGION 1 – (Simply substitute the number in the “URL” to switch regions) — one grant only,
| Character Counts In Maine | |
| Organization Description: Founded in 2002, Character Counts In Maine (CCM), doing business as Heritage of Maine, has delivered abstinence education that includes marriage preparation skill building for adolescents in communities across Maine over the past two years. Their Heritage Keepers abstinence until marriage curriculum teaches relationship skills which lead to the formation of safe and stable marriages. CCM has formed a coalition of civic and faith-based organizations, high schools, youth groups, churches and marriage education organizations known as the Main Community Partnership to bring healthy relationship education to high school adolescents. | |
| Target Population:
|
Adolescents/Teens in High School; Educators in High Schools (to deliver services to adolescents); High School Principals (quarterly newsletter) |
REGION 2 — 3 grants, slightly more interesting:
Organization Description: University Behavioral Associates was founded in 1995 by the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Montefiore Medical Center and is the main provider of behavioral health care in Bronx, New York. Additionally, the organization has long-standing relationships with local welfare-to-work programs and has the capability to manage information for hundreds of married couples.
SO — we have the religious approach, and the Behavioral Modification approach. So long as teens and adults from one set of marriage programs don’t marry teens and adults from the other side. Well, this is targeted at already married people..
Organization Description: The Research Foundation of SUNY, Stony Brook University is a non-profit organization located within the Stony Brook University campus. They proposed to use a highly innovative, empirically-supported, empowering program for income, unwed parents soon after the birth of a child.
Region 3
Organization Description: Family Guidance, Inc. will be the lead agency for a coalition of regional non-profit agencies, calling itself “TWOgether Pittsburgh,” to strengthen marriages. Coalition members include: The Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, The National Fatherhood Initiative, evaluator Dr. Stanley Denton, The Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, and Smith Brothers Advertising.
High school students, married and unmarried couples and individuals who are residents of Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding 5 counties.
Region 4 – one of the larger (or more active regions — SE United States (Georgia, FL, Alabama, N. Carolina, etc.)
This one particularly bears some looking at, and I hope to. Several universities make the list, a “Trinity Church” and a good deal of abstinence-based education, which is being fought elsewhere in government circles, at least within the school systems. I also note a certain curriculum popping up a lot, and am curious as to how many of the institutes receiving grants (judging by originating date) may be offshoots of the Fatherhood movement which — it should be clearly noted here — is a reaction to the feminist movement which, at least according to itself, is a response to simply oppression on the basis of gender, and things such as — you got it — violence within the home, or an attempt to deprive a person of some basic civil rights. Feminism is not the antithesis to patriotism (nor is patriotism as promoted by some of these groups synonymous for respect for the Constitution and the laws of the land).
I became a feminist precisely because of my trip through marriage and afterwards, the family law system. Til then, I took too much for granted. I am a mother, and I retain my faith — just practice it in safer places. We find help and strength where it is found. The hardest thing in my life to date was not having children, raising them with a violent, narcissistic, father (and working and struggling economically also), nor was it afterwards supporting them. That was a piece of cake, until the advisors began flocking into my life on the basis that I didn’t have a man in there (long before I was ready for such a relationship, after all this). On the basis of my profile, not the actual behavior, facts, results, or character. In fact, the experience of being “advised” after marriage when I wasn’t seeking or needing it, of being forced to do things I personally knew (and announced) were destructive to both work, relationships, and daughters’ educational options — was very much like living with abuse, only with more participants and less actual physical attack. Psychological escalated, along with the lies (once audiences were found).
The hardest thing I have ever done in my life, that I can recall, is surviving the total removal of my children from my household, and all significant contact with them at THE very point where our household was poised to succeed dramatically, in several categories (work, housing, schooling, neighobrhood, and surroundings). It was about AS healthy a (single-parent) family (with contact with the other parent available in the circumstances.
THAT, friends, was the problem to an abuser — success and independence HAS to be stopped. This doesn’t happen by telling the truth and complying with commonsense laws: Don’t steal, don’t perjure onesself in court, don’t suborn perjury, don’t kidnap, don’t harass, don’t stalk, and don’t refuse to work in order to punish the other parent — adn the kids alongside. Put your need to dominate SECOND for once in your middle-aged, male life. Develop work, not just alliances in the slander, and take-down campaign in order to somehow justify that NO single mother can handle life alone.
Well, not with this kind of attitude running the environment.
There are many uncomfortable similarities with the personal history here (which parallels many I’ve heard of) to the overall scope of this movement. HEY, I’m in favor of marriage, too obviously — I married, right?
I’m just not in favor of a national religion, at others’ expense and my own. I am pretty sure, by now, that the difficulties these children went through, and others still are (and mine are), and their confusion (or unified, but unjustified, belief of lies about their mothers, which is undermining to a healthy values system for growing adolescents) — are in good part traceable to some of the grants and initiatives I have been detailing on this blog. They are contributors to the social problems, while purporting to solve them.
Until this connection is made by enough people, the burden will just get larger and larger, while the public proclamation would be, funds are shrinking and shrinking. WShen the proclamations are coming from THE largest arm of the Exec Dept (and elsewhere), at some point in time, we have to say, WHAT are you doing with that MONEY? At an individual level (like I am starting to) and then call your Congressperson in charge whatever grant affects your area.
The catch: Mostly the people who can do this are on the outskirts
In essence, it’s socialism. There have to be safe options for not marrying, and these are to be as valid as the others. When it comes to my case, it was only being forced to live a serious “half-life” half-in and half-out (or, 95% in)multiple GOVERNMENT_RUN- institutions — that economically and artificially suppressed prosperity for us. I was forced to fight, instead of work, after having done my best to reconcile the irreconciliable differences with an abuser. This has done nothing but escalate, since I met the guy, basically — with only a few brief pauses.
I talk with a LOT of people on a daily basis, and it’s rarely a day I don’t hear of another similar situation.
Preaching marriage around the place doesn’t help matters, as far as I am concerned — the entitlement in such cases is through the roof. I did practically everything I am reading about in these abstracts — didn’t have children out of wedlock, stayed committed, worked alongside, supported, you name it. Hung in there as long as possible. My commitment to this ideal of marriage, for one, didn’t match the father of my children’s. He was committed to its privileges, but not its emotional sacrifices in that, he was to engage with a separate human being AS a separate human being, not a household (or biological) function.
ABOUT MARRIAGE
When it works well, it works well. When it doesn’t, then I wish that the national atmosphere (federally-pronounced) would cool it on the propaganda — the air is highly charged around here, and domestic violence ignites quickly when marriage (or other fatherhood, proprietary success-mandated) entitlements become the national ideal.
I dare anyone to get up there and OPENLY substitute one skin color, one ethnic group for the word “father” and another for the word “mother” in the same languages, and then got about to make this happen.
Or, religion.
it would be seen for what it truly is — ridiculous, and bigoted. Somehow, and for somereason, the concept of “fatherhood” unites a LOT wider spectrum of people, more closely, and incites more trouble. For example, I’d say a good proportion of the domestic violence I lived through and my kids witnessed, traumatizing and sometimes terrorizing all of us, and then engendering response compensatory behaviors (including super-performance mentality in the girls, when small), plus it wreaks havoc on the biochemistry (I came out obese, which was handled, but remains a struggle when dealing closely with the situation long-term). The obesity was a clear self-defense measure, and has been studied nationally (www.acestudy.org). When I lost weight, significantly, and felt TERRIFIC (post-marriage) we were still seeing each other regularly (on exchange of the children for visitation) and somehow this brought out more aggression, stalking, and competitive behaviors from a person who’d already filed for divorce! I was sitting at my work, and considering not only my own safety, but that of a person apparently perceived (not even real) “rival.”
I’ve had to struggle morally with whether it was FAIR for me to enter into relationships — almost any kind — with the knowledge of how volatile the situation is.
Put that together with work, and figure it out.
These groups are talking about the high cost of “fatherlessness” to a growing society. I’m not sure this equates with motherlessness. But here’s a question you don’t hear too often — what about Rachel lamenting her children (that’s a Bible reference).
What about the effect on society of taking competent, mature, sometimes skilled and dedicated FEMALE workers and contributors to society — and keeping them traumatized a decade at a time, and in use of multiple social services they wouldn’t otherwise need. What about their risk of old age poverty and homelessness from simply a few decades out of the work force, in order to handle:
1. Abuse, first, (including verty often as part of the control system, economic abuse), then.
2. Recovery, brief respite indeed — AFTER which, a long drawn-out custody trial for all too many, resulting in MORE lost work and opportunities.
What does THAT do for society? First, stealing from its contributions, and then, burdening the safety net.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it
HANDLE the domestic violence issues, and you will handle a multitude of other issues. STOP forcing women who left abuse through classes (I wasn’t, but I know it’s a cash stream in the family law) when they weren’t violent. STOP trying to put back together what already broke up unless you are willing to sign up front: I take PERSONAL responsibility, up to and including incarceration along with those classes, if those attending my class addressing battering behavior go out and kill their ex, or anyone else, afterwards.
WELL, if taking the class allows a slick performer to pass with flying colors, and fly out the door, get sentence, or get OUT, and then go get EVEN, it’s setting the climate for homicide. And I’m not the first person to point this out, either.
I bet there’d be fewer takers on these grants, and a slightly different economy.
The government is not a good teacher, it’s an abusive rulers, and it would do better to follow the examples of good teachers that are already OUT there, find out what principles they use, and follow them.
This is of course practically impossible with such a federally huge educational system — which is one reason many people, who can, opt out of it. Now the government wants another crack at educating people who didn’t make the grade the first time through.
No, I do not have a firm technical business plan answer. But I know one that’s NOT it when I see it, and “healthy marriage education” falls under that category. Either we have a national religion or we don’t. The country needs to make up its mind. The educational system claims that we don’t (I’m not sure I agree), HHS department is demonstrating we do, structurally speaking.
In my life, and as a fully-functioning intelligent working adult, I have experienced the worst of both worlds when it comes to treatment of females — blind to abuse, and upset at personal (peaceful) choice. From atheists “educated” and from religious “undereducated” both.
This post was drafted a few days ago, I have more research coming. The BOLD LINKS above give more detailed descriptions.
SHARE THIS POST on...
What kind of choices are THESE for women!?! 1. Marry, legally WIN custody of child from former partner, and possibly die, possibly with others. 2. Due to “unhealthy alliance (marriage?),” Get a domestic violence restraining order and possibly die. 3. DON’T seek a domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die.
Or, 4. like I did
a. Obtain a domestic violence restraining order, in hopes NOT to die.
b. See ex given almost immediately (Search this blog for “Access Visitation Grants” or “SAVP”) liberal, unsupervised overnight visitation.
c. Comply with it, consistently, and try to insist he does also
d. After warning authorities and all involved of one’s concern about abduction, (and seeking child support enforcement), have them abducted an overnight unsupervised visitation to nearly permanently (or permanently) lose contact with them.
That at least beats some of the ALTERNATE version of Choice 4 (Obtain a Restraining Order)
4.d.1 REISER: YOU go “MIA” on an unsupervised visitation exchange of the children, and show up years later (as part of a plea bargain of DA’s with husband who murdered you, with kids present), a few (less than 6) feet under — Google “Hans Reiser,” only a moderate tweak of too many others to categorize, where MOM was either murdered, or an attempt was made to murder her, during an exchange.
4.d.2. CASTILLO, GONZALES, CONNOLLY, OTHERS, SOME OF THEM NOW BEFORE AN INTERNATIONAL COURT: After warning the courts and others that you feel visitation is unwise (or he just failed to return them at the appointed time), have your children drowned, shot, hung, or gassed to death – on an overnight visitation. Note, like some of the driving theories behind families, this is now international in scope.
4.d.2.a. Possibly go homeless from inability to retain work after so many years in the system, and so much prolonged exposure to stress and trauma that chronic PTSD, plus the unstable job history renders one unemployable.
(I know currently two women who became homeless after the custody switch following domestic violence, and many more who are impoverished and unemployed, but thankfully not yet homeless).
There are endless varieties of option 4, and sequential consequences to it, none of them, for the most part, helpful for the children, or society at large, so long as the current AFCC-run, Mediation-focused, due-process eradicating family law system continues to be the next step after domestic violence restraining orders. The venue, players, and stakes just get higher, if this be possible, than when they were originally. And are likely to remain so until one of these 3 possible consequences follows, at which point, there simply is no more money, or press, or government program to be squeezed out of the situation, just possibly a few press headlines for the first one below:
1. Someone is killed.
2. Someone, or both parents — and their allies — are destitute.
3. All children have turned 18.
NOW ABOUT THE PAST 2 SUNDAY/MONDAYS IN THE GOLDEN STATE, THE STATE OF THE +/- $1 MILLION/YEAR OF ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS FUNDING (AND I HAVEN’T EVEN POSTED THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT INFO YET) . . . . WHICH HAS (FYI) BEEN GOING ON AT LEAST SINCE 1998. . . . . (which for all I know simply represents when the on-line database geared up)
Some readers may wonder why the motto (top right, button) on this blog reads:
Not a private matter —
why “family” “law” hurts us all
Just another two sunny Mondays in Sunny California
illustrate the under-publicized dangers of actually
WINNING in court:
1. Under, “win custody and possibly die”:
Monday, 07/06/09 San Jose
No independence week for her:
Bitter Ex Loses Custody, so “Wins” with a Gun.
THEIR Daughter, Her StepDad, the Neighborhood, and everyone else involved, LOSES.
Two reported dead at San Jose townhome after shooting and hostage situation
By Mark Gomez and Lisa Fernandez
- Shortly after 8 a.m. Monday, a neighbor bleeding from a gunshot wound ran by Anthony Gallardo’s San Jose townhouse shouting that a man had shot his wife in the arm and taken her hostage.
- A relative who asked not to be identified said Coffman was wounded in the earlobe by a gunman who had entered his home and taken his wife hostage. Gallardo let the neighbor and a hysterical 9-year-old girl into his garage to call police.
- The woman had recently won a drawn-out and bitter custody battle with her ex-boyfriend over the 9-year-old girl, the relative said.
- That was how a 5 1/2-hour standoff started in the upscale Montecito Vista townhouse development Monday. It ended when San Jose police, failing to make contact with the gunman, entered the townhouse and found the bodies of a man and woman.
- Police declined to identify the victims but said the shooting appeared to have stemmed from “a family dispute.
- Damon Cookson, manager of an evacuated mobile home park near the townhouse, said mobile home park residents were let back into their homes at 2:45 p.m.
- Police had evacuated homes in the townhouse complex and a mobile home park located next door so quickly that some left their homes shoeless, without money or cell phones. Other residents were picked up by friends or relatives so they didn’t have to stand outside in the sun.
According to the “Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood” advocates, she did the right thing. She had a man in the home and was married to her; possibly she ran across one of their ubiquitous classes and, or had a religious conversion, and realized that having children with boyfriends (as opposed to committed and financially self-supporting, faithful spouses — like, say, Steve McNair?) was not the upright thing to do for herself, health, or her daughter. Perhaps there was even a child support order in place on the Dad, which may or may not have contributed to the bitterness of the divorce. THAT 9 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS IN A HETEROSEXUAL 2-PARENTS, MARRIED HOUSEHOLD. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WOULD’VE HAD NO ISSUES OR INTERVENTIONS IN PLACE FOR THIS HOUSEHOLD.
Perhaps the man who married her (let’s hope) really loved her, and vice versa, enough to take public vows and make it legal. ACCORDING TO THE DESIGNER FAMILY MENTALITY, THIS ONE SHOULD’VE WORKED. SHOULD THEY TAKE IT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND PUT A FEW $$MILLION ON HOLD BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE GETS KILLED AND SOME OTHER KIDS ARE ORPHANED? WAS THIS HOSTAGE/SUICIDE/FEMICIDE SITUATION PREDICTABLE?)
History of domestic violence, stalking, or other criminal activity, or NO history of domestic violence, stalking or other criminal activity, her attempt to pursue child support on behalf of the child, the answer is: YES. Being stuck in family court is rough on everyone. Rules of evidence are weakened in this venue (See link in my last post), making hearsay accusations easier. Psychology reigns, and there are people who profit from this. Money trades hands for sure.
YES, in the fathers rights vs. feminists (supposedly this is the war) climate overall, it was probably predictable, though maybe not perhaps not the timing of it.
Will people sit up and take notice, and change policies because of this death?
I doubt it.
She was married to Coffman, who texted the relative short updates all day long. The woman was a respiratory therapist at a local hospital.
(More detailed background story, and link, on this case at bottom of today’s post)
This case was not a week old before another one in Northern California hit the press, and the late-night TV stations:
2. Monday, 07/13/09, Novato (not including multi-county Amber alert)
File Under, “Win a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die, leaving your infant with Child Protective Services,
after she experiences a nice little kidnapping.”
(Did the infant witness her mother being beat to death with a baseball bat also?)
Actually this was a SUNDAY, and the father was caught, apparently on Monday. Good thing, being as he was a murderer, son of a murderer, a child-stealer, his brother had a drug habit and he himself was in the family porn industry (makes one question the advisability of the match, for sure). I wonder if Access Visitation Grants funding would’ve come into play under THIS one. Maybe when he’s been in prison long enough, they will come after him to make contact with his daughter, after all, there IS a plague of fatherlessness, and he WAS (apparently) his little girl’s father.
Which is likely what he was thinking when he killed the Mom and kidnapped her, too. How DARE that woman separate me from my kid and accuse me of violence! I’ll show her what violence is!
I cannot stand to read every report on this one…
Porn King’s Son held in Baseball-Bat Beating Death
NOVATO, Calif. — A 1-year-old girl was safely recovered early Monday and her 27-year-old father in custody after he allegedly brutally beat the girl’s mother to death with a baseball bat, authorities said.
He was suspected of beating Danielle Keller several times with a baseball bat before fleeing with the girl — who was celebrating her first birthday — and threatening to kill any law enforcement agents who came into contact with him, according to police.
The baby has an age. The murderer kidnapper father has an age. Is there any particular reason why the Mom in this story doesn’t merit one?
Family members told KTVU that there was a history of domestic abuse and restraining order had been issued against Mitchell in both San Francisco and Marin. Keeler’s mother, Claudia Stevens, said Mitchell had stormed into her Novato home three weeks ago and threatened violence. He also had been making threatening phone calls, she added.
…And this did not result in his IMMEDIATE arrest and incarceration for violation of restraining order WHY?
Mom didn’t know? Courts didn’t function? Mother still traumatized, didn’t register the importance of this? Police were called on the violation, but didn’t do anything? Police weren’t called? Police reported, but no one prosecuted? No precedent that this was a danger sign existed?
3 weeks. Hmmm. Was the case was in family court? Had they been to the mediator yet? Did the mediator say to them, as the mediator did to ME (shortly after I filed domestic violence restraining order with kickout, AFTER the violence had escalated to the guns, knives, serious injury phase,putting this “family matter” at a clear domestic violence, felony, not misdemeanor) “just peaceful communications about the (children)” — and totally failed to specify: Place of exchange. TIME of exchanges around holidays. Or child support, resulting in the soon thereafter need to resort to welfare, until I could rebuild some income.)
Excuse me. File under,
“Another needless death, another burden on California taxpayers, another traumatized little girl,
family, and neighborhood”
(I imagine it also might be filed under, don’t hook up with men involved in the porn business. What are women, desperate these days? Was she attracted to his testosterone? There are down sides of too much of that, I suppose….)
This is a cruel thing to say, but I am searching about for WHY this bloodshed just doesn’t stop, no matter how many policies or laws are in place. There HAVE to be a few consistent reasons. Added to my concerns are, why is that our nation is raising — or inhabited by — so many dysfunctional adults of criminal nature.
Perhaps the problem is with the concept of the Nation (as opposed to individual families) raising them. But, as I say sometimes, this is a family law blog, not an education blog. Perhaps the problem is religion, as I KNOW this is a factor in many domestic violence cases. Perhaps the problem is LACK of religion (morality / common sense // ethical behavior). Perhaps the problem is an alienated populace — from each other as well, except within the various cliques. Perhaps the problem is fatherhood vigilanteeism (actually, I think this is VERY close to the truth, and filed, at least in part, under religion). Perhaps the problem is that reaction against feminism, AND against the perceived lack of religion nationwide, breeding neo-con and worse versions of what went before.
OH — PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women how to defend themselves, or that this is a feminine and desireable life skill.
PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women boundaries, and how to defend themselves.
PERHAPS it’s that WE think someone else is teaching or doing something else that, in former centuries, “we” had to do ourselves. Like, raise and prepare food, learn to read, teach our kids to read, and so forth.
LAST ONE, MORE RESULTS. . . .
Amber Alert Novato, Search Results 48,000
Brewer, Victoria E. & Derek Paulsen (1993, November). A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Findings on Uxoricide Risk for Women with Children Sired by Previous Partners. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 317-332.
Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 19). Women and Daughter Killed in Chile’s Latest Femicide. The Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/woman-and-daughter-killed-in-chile-s-latest-femicide.html
Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 6). Femicides in Chile: 10 So Far This Year; Three in 24 Hours. Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/femicide-chile-10.html
Bunting, Helen. (2008, January 24). Three Femicides Recorded So Far in 2008. http://www.valparaisotimes.cl/content/view/296/1/
And the well-known, and still not part of policy in family court matters, studies by Jacquelyn Campbell:
- Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2004, December). Helping Women Understand Their Risk in Situations of Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1464-1477.
- Campbell, Jacquelyn, Carolyn Block, & Robin Thompson. (1999). Femicide and Fatality Review. Next Millennium Conference: Ending Domestic Violence. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184570.pdf
- Campbell, Jacquelyn, Nancy Glass, Phyllis W. Sharps, Kathryn Laughton & Tina Bloom. (2007, July). Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246-269.
Oh, Mea Culpa. The word “femicide” is for a specialized field of study. Maybe it’s under “homicide/suicide.” Better also be more specific, since “homicide/suicide” would jam my software again, too large.
San Jose homicide/suicide— Google results
Was THIS one avoidable? Answer: YES!
“San Jose man recounts murder-suicide that left wife dead.”
Mercury News, 07-10-09 8:49am updated
The couple had long been leery of Liang and worried he could be capable of violence. A 2003 stalking charge was dismissed against Liang for threatening to kill the two of them, even though Coffman said neither he nor his wife were called as witnesses.
Ying He and Liang came to the United States from China in 1999, Coffman said. They had a baby girl in the Bay Area on June 14, 2000. Liang sent the girl to live with his wealthy parents in Guangzhou, and because Ying He had pending immigration status, she couldn’t freely travel between the countries.
In 2006, Ying He discovered her daughter and Liang were living in Southern California. She also discovered, Coffman said, that her ex-boyfriend, a gambler, was short on cash.
“They made a deal,” Coffman said. “Brandi said she’d give Nelson some money and he said he’d give her their daughter.” {{NO CONTACT WITH MOM FOR SIX YEARS…..}}
But Liang reneged on his part of the deal, Coffman said, and disappeared with the girl. Coffman and his wife hired an attorney to find Liang and fight for full custody. After about two years, Liang and the girl surfaced again in Southern California. In March, Liang didn’t pick his daughter up from school one day, and police reports show Liang told school officials in Arcadia that he no longer wanted to care for his child. He was soon arrested and pleaded no contest to child endangerment. The girl was put in state care
Let’s get that timeline again:
2000 — baby born
Shortly thereafter — Dad sends baby away, no contact with mother.
2003 Dad found stalking and threatening to kill Mother AND her new husband. (SOUND FAMILIAR?) Doesn’t apparently even make the DA’s radar, although there are anti-stalking laws in California, and stalking has been listed for many years among lethality indicators. Perhaps he also had some concept of maybe extorting the new couple (in re: gambling habit?).
Also (sounds like my own case in this regard), stalking as seen as irrelevant to child’s welfare. Dad retains custody, and this couple is not really on the map, or the child, legally speaking??
Unclear (here) whether they still thought daughter was in China (no mail or phone contact?)
2006 – child is located, and mother and new husband invest money and time attempting to get her in their household.
Father receives money in exchange for daughter, obviously they were trying to settle out of court. Father agrees, takes money, and doesn’t turn over daughter. Possibly the FBI should’ve been involved here?
2008?– Father, changing his mind again, abandons daughter (note: that he sent his daughter back to China MIGHT be an indicator he didn’t want custody, right?) and the state picks her up. It MIGHT be deduced from the court records, by “the state” that a parent who wants the daughter, and is in a stable situation, exists. However, that parent was a mother….
2009 – April. State figures it out, and gives child back to mother. Child-endangering, stalking Dad still has visitation rights:
Liang still had visitation rights and weekly phone calls.
Why doesn’t that surprise me? You still in favor of shared parenting, frequent visitation, fathers — ANY fathers — return day? If not, find out which Congressmen (and if any women) voted for this in 1998 and 1999 in the U.S., and write them why they should re-think the resolution — what WAS that about, opting for population control by homicide/suicide??
Which tells you about family court in California: Far be it from Family Law Judges to notice that trivialities such as sending kid back to China, where her own mother couldn’t nurture or see her for YEARS, while staying here and racking up a gambling debt, stalking and threatening to kill the mother and her new partner, and child endangerment by abandonment, should be taken into account in designing a custody/visitation order!
On Sunday, the day before the shooting, Liang called to speak with his daughter, asking her strangely specific questions about her schedule. Coffman believes Liang was casing the family for the attack.
My question: WHEN did Coffman or his wife hear of those strangely specific questions? Was the daughter alarmed? DId no one catch the anomaly. That instinct of “this is strange, isn’t it?” can save lives — in a family, even if the state misses the boat… I suspect they hadn’t processed that information yet, and didn’t think that Liang would act so quickly.
ALWAYS play it safe!
I see we bloggers are going to have to work harder at getting the news out: Before entering family court situations with difficult custody battles, get martial arts training — and exerrcise your second amendment rights.
QUESTION OPEN: WHY DID THE COUPLE COME TO THE U.S. TO HAVE THE BABY?
ENDNOTE: China is known for not valuing girl babies as much as boy babies.
But the U.S. ought to have understood when children are viewed as poker chips in a high-stakes custody battle.
I think this one might be more gambling debt as much as jealousy contributing to the problems
IT TAKES MORE THAN MONEY TO BE A GOOD SECOND DAD WHEN THE FIRST ONE WAS A NUT CASE.
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.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
(2 more headlines) Distraught and Distracted? A Domestic Dispute (or, the economy) made them do it? These 2 men seemed Organized and Coherent (“Cool, calm & collected”) before, and after, 3 planned murders, apparently.
leave a comment »
Good afternoon, Plano, Texas and other visitors, I hope you are well today. I include a headline contest below for viewers of the 2nd article. Submit via comments.
Unfortunately, 2 (more) bleeding headlines.
(1) California, “not a hot-blooded event”
The day before the killing, he delivered flowers and candy to her, and said they could just be friends….after a 13-year relationship
Follow up to the “distraught by economy” “domestic dispute” version of a double-homicide this week: She was trying to end a co-habiting relationship, and, unfortunately, worked in a toll booth on a busy bridge. When jogged up and shot her to death, there wasn’t a ready exit. Yet the first article portrayed it as a “domestic dispute,” a real knee-jerk, inappropriate phrase. Before I could point this out in a post, Demian Bulwa of the SF Chronicle straightened us readers out in a follow-up article: This murdering man set up the situation, and the unidentified 2nd man murdered was a friend of the girlfriend, a kind male who had given the woman a ride to work (which, did the murderer have work? So, she goes to work, and is killed there…)
I did no follow-up research, but reading the first article, could’ve laid money, if I had some, that it was indeed a cold-blooded assassination. Even so, the article below uses the word “rampage.” No, the DC Sniper was a rampage. The Columbine shootings, maybe not. This one. He didn’t shoot bystanders, or motorists. He had two targets, and made them.
Folks, that’s ALSO typically how domestic violence goes. I hope someday we “get it” that having a nice chat with someone doesn’t mean a lot, even when it’s daily for years, in these matters. Do we just not KNOW each other, and know how to assess character any more? Or characterize an incident after character just showed up, with a loaded gun (and apparently — below, a knife too).
Bridge killer set up slayings, prosecutor says
Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer
Thursday, August 13, 2009
08-13) 13:51 PDT RICHMOND— Nathaniel Burris, the man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll plaza, set up the rampage {sic} by slashing a tire on the man’s pickup truck so he could blast {kill. the object was to kill. The decibel level was not the main point} him with a shotgun as the victim waited for a tow service, a prosecutor said today.
(selections from the article):
The pickup truck belonged to 58-year-old Ersie Everette III of San Leandro, but was driven to the toll plaza Tuesday afternoon by Burris’s ex-girlfriend, Deborah Ross, a toll taker, said Contra Costa County prosecutor Hal Jewett.
Everette arrived later, having been dropped off by a co-worker after getting off his shift as a Golden Gate Transit bus driver, his family said.
Jewett said Burris, 46, punctured a tire on the truck, apparently with a knife, before Everette showed up, then hid where he could watch Everette though a pair of binoculars.
When Everette arrived and saw the damage, he called AAA for help, Jewett said. He was still waiting at 5:30 p.m when Burris approached and shot him once from close range, the prosecutor said.
{{I am so sorry that this individual, it appears did not suspect that his truck might have been chosen for a reason, rather than say, random violence. Or that some other solution could’ve been had for fixing the tire. There are down-sides sometimes to NOT being on alert.}}
According to police, Burris then jogged across traffic lanes to Ross’ toll booth and shot her several times before fleeing in a van that belonged to his employer, an airport shuttle company. He was arrested early Wednesday after he was spotted in the van on Interstate 80 in Placer County.
{{Can we deduce this man, driving for an airport shuttle company, did not have a criminal record?}}
“Characterizing this crime as a tragedy is an understatement, particularly with the calculated and deliberate way he committed these crimes,” said Jewett, who heads his office’s homicide unit. “This was not a hot-blooded event but a cold-blooded series of killings, and we think the charges reflect that.”
Ross, 51, and Burris were in a relationship for 13 years before she broke up with him just before the killings, Ross’ relatives said. {{how much “just before”?}
The day before the shootings, Burris delivered flowers and candy to her in the Richmond townhouse a mile east of the toll plaza that they had shared, and said they could remain friends, Ross’ relatives said.
{{Just be friends after that long a relationship? In general, don’t you believe that, ladies! Well — are you SURE you know that guy? If you were so sure, how come after years, the answer is, separate?}}{{and I do NOT know if tying the knot would make a difference or not. At this point, I just do not.}}
{{Flowers and candy — if these aren’t normal, consider it a red flag?}}
Richmond police Sgt. Bisa French, a department spokeswoman, said it is not clear whether Ross was romantically involved with Everette.
{{Whether he was or not, he was probably perceived as such. As helping her. 1. He was male, and 2. he helped her.}}
Everette’s relatives said today that he and Ross had been engaged and had talked of marriage.
{{wait a minute — she broke up with him JUST before the killings, yet was ready to marry someone else, perhaps? Although the two that were living together did NOT get married. . . . That must’ve upset Burris….}}
Ross’ relatives, though, said the two had merely been friends from an Oakland church where Everette was a deacon.
{{Probably she shared about some of her troubles with Burris? Was Burris going there too? Was there a history of violence, or etc. Were there really no indicators, or were people just not alert?}}
One of Ross’ sisters, Jane Walker of Oakland, said she was shocked to hear of the new allegations involving Burris.
“Oh my God, that’s scary to think that you can know someone all these years, and that they would plot and plan something like that,” she said. “He deserves whatever they give him. He’s not the person I thought I knew, and I’ll never forgive him.”
{{If my own family had similar sentiments, after I filed a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, I would not be here writing this blog. We’d probably both — he, and me — have moved on in life without further escalations, child-stealing, fights around child support, and all that. PROBABLY. I tell you one thing that would probably be different. I’d still be working in my profession, and have the children here. But my own family, like MANY families, didn’t “get” the reality of the relationship}}{{Sorry, in their pain about their sister, but the thought comes to mind that NOW they are aware….}}{{What is the lesson here? All that glitters is not gold? People are not what they seem to be? Nice guys can turn violent — or have criminal thoughts and act on them?}}
Burris is expected to be arraigned in a Martinez courtroom as soon as Friday morning. He is being held without bail at Contra Costa County Jail, where he declined a request for an interview today. Richmond police brought Burris back from Placer County on Wednesday evening.
The shotgun used in the killings was found in bushes under a window at the home of Burris’ mother, authorities said. Ross’ relatives said the mother lives in Sacramento. Efforts to reach her have been unsuccessful.
Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/13/BAHO1982PG.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0O6stJgMK
(2) Pennsylvania, I think
I’m running a contest for the most appropriate,
subject line for this article. Submit in comments.
Non-sarcastic entries will be summarily dismissed
as utterly inappropriate:
>>>YES, they did a good job raising this man, and would be great prospects for raising the children of the woman he murdered. There are no other decent, mature adults around with terrific track records of children they raised, who wouldn’t be tempted to backpedal (or have a conflict of interest) on the issue that, their Dad killed their Mom, but was really a nice guy at heart. Which is going to be something, an issue, those children will have to deal with.
>>>By the way one reason I didn’t post yesterday (other than aftershock off the tollbooth shooting, and other work) another case came up of a woman being recalled from iceland over a custody battle with a U.S. father. Hoping to find out more about that situation, I ran across a “cold case” (so to speak) from the 1990s, in which two Mormon parents snatched their daughters baby and took off to Iceland. (Hanes/Shelton/Zenith). This had uncomfortable reminders, as in my case, when family members get a certain opinion of a certain generation, and decide they’re better parents than others. Add to the mix, the poor Mormon grandmother was on her 6th husband couldn’t conceive, and tried to persuade her own daughter to donate some eggs. Maybe I’ll post that one — it has a runway snatch, shows how CHURCH folk often protect their own (case in point, when my kids were stolen, more than one church group appears to have helped try to sanitize the situation).<<
Can we “just say no” when the guy has, allegedly, just killed a woman, intentionally, with a car??? How far does co-parenting (only she’s dead) and “Fathers, get involved with your children” GO? How about setting a little standard. I PERSONALLY think that if a man can’t stop hitting his wife, he should lose access to his kids, and stop sugarcoating it. I didn’t think this 7-8-9 years ago, but now in retrospect, it would save society a lot of grief (and grief counselor social services). Can we at least say: “IF YOU MURDER YOUR WIFE, YOU’RE OUT OF THE PICTURE, THIS IS JUST “OVER THE TOP, out in left field, WAY out of line: GOT IT?” You want to murder her, and then participate in some decision-making process about your kids? No!!! Not only will we not follow your suggestions, we are not interested in them. Someone who hasn’t murdered recently, or been accused of it, will make decisions regarding your children. I know we aren’t all perfectly insightful, but I suspect you likely aren’t at this point, OK?
Then maybe the next person who had a domestic dispute, or felt a sense of loss when she left, or it was the economy — (or maybe it was overentitled narcissism? ??? In action? Or, maybe misogyny, I mean we had a single man elsewhere just walk in a gym and start spraying bullets at women — not men — hitting some and killing them….. to assuage his feelings of rejection. Until he also killed himself…)
So, it’s – – – No, No — you kill your wife, you lose custody privileges. TIME OUT!!! It’s called a deterrent to the next asshole. (Am I allowed to call someone who (allegedly) ran over his wife and killed her with a car a bad name? If he’s innocent, then I retract the appellation. If not, then I don’t. )
Has this yet been tried, consistently, across the board, across the nation? YOu kill the woman, you lose visitation privileges AND any whiff of joint legal custody. What, is the man now suddenly (how suddenly?) repentant and “concerned” for his kids? Was killing the wife part of how he expressed concern for his kids?
Has anyone posed these questions at a conference of experts yet? I know Jack Straton of Nomas did in 1992 re Supervised Visitation. Was he not on the list in the ones deciding these things? He had a Ph.D., isn’t that an entrance requirement? (or, MFT, or being in law enforcement, or Esq., etc.)
This culture is expert at turning its backs on and shunning mothers trying to leave, particularly women from communities that base a lot of emphasis on families (as mine did, although I had a leg in the professional world, which I FOUGHT to keep in there). I mean, as I’ve pointed out before, the white house was real good at shunning the word “mother” and “motherhood” from its game plan (except in the context of home visitation nurses, or getting the kids back to Early Head Start and Mom back to school). LOOK: just TRY it, try turning the back on men that murder — at least for a LITTLE while. Give them some alone time to think about what just happened.
LADIES: I can be wrong, but I recommended (based on some headlines that keep popping up in this topic) sticking to men within 10 years of you. It’s not a guarantee, but it MIGHT be a deterrent to being used as a baby-maker. I know prime time is prime time (apparently she was 21 for the first daughter by him, and he? had previous children too). But, in the U.S., there should be other situations you can help develop yourself in, for the kids’ sakes.
Not just into, but over. Not his “estranged” wife, but his wife.
He sounds very coherent and organized for someone who did such a deed. I wonder if he got help from a “healthy marriage promoting responsible fatherhood” funding, or whether he will get help from “mentoring children of prisoners” programs either to encourage father/daughter/son contact in accord with our national policy that the TRUE social crisis of our time is “fatherlessness.”
Well, this is part of its face, and part of how SOME fatherlessness gets started.
After the emotions surrounding the latest femicide, homicide, aghast, we didn’t know, surprise, shock, grief, etc. (if there’s still some lost in the public bloodstream/ psyche), THEN what. What action to take? What insight to gain. What policies to question. What prevsiou assumptions to question about who you know how well? Any – – – or none? What’s the bottom line.
Here’s what the Bible says. Of making many books there is no end, much study is weariness of the flesh. Hear the words from a wise masterbuilder:
Fear God, and keep his commandments: this is the whole (duty) of man.
Ecclesiastes 12, end of the book.
From the mouth of Solomon son of David, whose father set the way for him to build the temple, lived a lavish life, possibly leaving descendants (more than possibly) in Ethiopia, had no end of women (wive and concubines both), even with all that concluded “vanity of vanity, all is vanity” and in the end helped burden and take down his kingdom, in great part through burdensome debt.
He then had a son, Barack (EXCUSE me, Rehoboam), who when cautioned to ease up on the federal spending said, listened to his younger, progressive, utopia-minded advisors and retorted, “you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet, we will stimulate yet more economy” and under whose realm the kingdom split, possibly because of this. Or because (it’s said) of all the other gods all those wives, making allegiances with other kingdoms, brought in.
It’s possible I have the facts (and probably I have the quote) quite wrong: feel free to look them up, almost any version,or language, at
http://bible.cc.
I’ve been in the legal system now almost 10 years. One thing I have noticed — there are very, very few situations that don’t correlate to situations already described in the Bible, if you understand principle, the heart of the matter. Our culture is in many ways as polygamous as any other, and as sexist. There is still war, there is still poverty, there are still many gods, and there is still no utopia.
BUT – – – BUT – – — in looking at the 10 Commandments (Exodus or Deuteronomy), nearly every one of them has a correlative in some criminal law, except the sabbath. There is no law about adultery, that I know of, but men still kill when they feel cheated on, so I’d say that’s a caveat. This is not related to whether or not they themselves may or may not be cheating.
AND, moreover, a person who does not believe there is a God, or there will be a judgment and that their secret places are going to remain secret – — who really, really doesn’t think that someone will find out, or if through cleverness, deceit, immunity, or simply accumulating cronies, and power — criminal behavior won’t be caught — that person is dangerous.
$2.4 million for designer families in California, and cut the shelter money (but not the money to the DV coalitions nationwide).
I found out yesterday that of that $2.4 million, it was taken from TANF funds. Go figure!
Oh, and that about $2 million was going to a Poverty Court for the homeless in SF, rather than, say housing. They have holding cells though (see “poormagazine.com”), for homeless people who are being a nuisance and committing crimes or misdemeanors. This should of course be a blog.
We are supposed to have as a nation a degree of self-discipline and self-control. To encourage that, we are so confused about religion in the public schools, we supposedly eliminate this. Then put back in Character Education to replace it. The 10 Commandments are thrown out of a courthouse (after a lot of arguing), but the faith-based groups have a welcome home when it comes to both making and enabling policies.
Whatever happened to inalienable rights, and let us figure the rest out, for example how to get up, sit down, go out, come back, and raise our kids? If we break a law, then punishment, if we don’t, then none.
Although I did vote, and did catch a good deal of the last Presidential Election, I have not had a reprieve from “family court matters” yet. I did, however, notice the Messianic promises of our current president (for whom, by the way, I voted. And by whom, presently, as a former single “female-headed, father-absent” household, I feel betrayed. I did not expect this person to confuse his background with the background of women who left because of violence and don’t feel like re-engaging.
For one, we also don’t, some of us, want to end up like the woman on the road above, or the woman in the tollbooth. We don’t want our children to be emotional OR literal orphans as to their mothers. WHAT is so hard to understand about that, National Fatherhood Initiative (and your nonprofit, governmental-agency offspring)? And why is the OVW (Office of Violence Against Women) curtsying towards this movement, as I last heard in an NCADV policy alert about funds to shelters being cut — a high-ranking woman in the office visited President Obama’s Town Hall on Fatherhood. Take a stand with the rest of us and stop giving an audience to doctrines that get women killed. Stop talking about “preventing” violence and do the right thing once it happens – – stop TALKING about accountability and let’s say that killing and beating and stalking and all this really IS wrong.
And let’s get that message into the family law system, or get the people running the place out of their offices and make them spend a few days in a shelter, or in a soup line, and ask women there how they got homeless. (The former was done, at least an overnight, once in NYS, I heard). OR, let’s get the homeless and others from the shelters (not just a single, sanitized spokesperson, or maybe two) and see what they look like, into these conferences — EVERY one of them — on what to do about all the poor folk. We will personally explain (without threats) what we think of all this, and about being threatened ty the system after we have been threatened by individuals for thinking that we can think, and THINKING that it would be better to totally separate the batterer — not the reporter — from minor children for a least a very significant season, and too bad if this is sad for him, he should’ve thought before lashing out with kids around. Or without them.
A recent joke (well, not that recent) going around a certain county, where they help people who lack food EAT, that the county was seeking volunteers to count the homeless. They felt that this count might be better done by a few of them (and for pay, too).
While I realize that there’s not an identified presence in any system for Burris, or that I know of for the other person here, I still say, let’s re-route some of those diverted funds that discuss “what to do” into “doing.” For example, a year ago, I would’ve been content with a SINGLE (let alone 3 in a row) unemployment checks. All I wanted then was phone and internet sufficient to keep going in a business I was already jumpstarted. Years of living so marginalized through this system (NOT “the economy, I guarantee you in this case”) and with total chaos in relationships made building anything much up (with weekly visitations, any one causing an incident?) a moot point.
To “solve” this I now have no access to either child and am expected to buck up and do it again, and forget that for the past many years, each successive time I did so, it escalated and was stopped. What was that, family entertainment?
(end of whine).
The question is not, is the topic getting national attention. It is. The question is, what use is being made of all the funds that follow the loudest, or best connected, speakers? A nation of non-investigating sheep is going to get sheared. Then complain about the cold. Complaining about the cold doesn’t make it much warmer. Find out who are the sheep-shearers, and take the scissors.
http://usaspending.gov
http://taggs.hhs.gov
And your local county business offices, etc.
Cross-check data between the two databases (which ain’t easy; yesterday I saw a missing $2.342 million in one state, marriage funding, from one database, different recipient names, one listing of programs is by program number, the other alphabetical by program name, but done inconsistently. The years covered are not the same. A program which receives MILLIONS in funding, and has for many, many years is not searchable in one. The other one, you can search awards by number, but not get a description, however it appears to have more spreadsheet type functions, the other alllows one to sort on many more fields, but not total reports, etc.
(that’s only a start)
etc.
Ah well, of making many books . . . . . .
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Context of Custody Switch, Fatal Assumptions, Lethality Indicators - in News, Where's Mom?
Tagged with custody, domestic violence, fatherhood, Intimate partner violence, Manhood, men's rights, social commentary