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

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

Posts Tagged ‘custody

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

with 5 comments

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

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

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

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

Daughter Won’t Visit Father? Jail Mommy!

November 19, 2009

Irene Weiser
Stop Family Violence


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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



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

Irene Weiser
Executive Director
331 W. 57th St #518
New York, NY 10019


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

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

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

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

Unjustice and abuse affects EVERYONE….

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

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

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

[After Abuse, Changes in the Brain by BENEDICT CAREY

StopFamilyViolence.org, Feb. 23, 2009]


The SF-Oakland Bay Bridge and Family Court systems.

leave a comment »

I’m often searching for a comparison to communicate the scope & severity  of the family court matters, as opposed to the lack of urgencyThe Bay Bridge remains closed to cars as repairs continue... Noah Berger / Special to The Chronicle to address it.  Seem to have found one. . . . .

Talk about a Halloween nightmare — – a high-profile engineering failure, and urgent, though disruptive, efforts to fix — although:  No Serious Injuries Caused.  Obviously the potential for multiple serious injuries was there…



Rachel Gordon, Chronicle Staff Writer

Saturday, October 31, 2009

(The next 2 paragraphs below appeared in article after the 3rd & 4th– see link for original order).

The bridge has been closed since Tuesday evening when a 5,000-pound steel beam and two steel tie-rods that were holding together a cracked structural support failed and rained down on the upper deck, damaging three vehicles but causing no serious injuries.

Engineers failed to take into account how vibrations from wind and 280,000 cars a day would affect a patch fix to the bridge’s cantilever section made over the Labor Day weekend.

Crews on the Bay Bridge struggled Friday to craft a fix that would prevent vibrations from wind and traffic from causing pieces of a structural repair to come crashing down.

. . .Crews on the Bay Bridge struggled Friday to craft a fix that would prevent vibrations from wind and traffic from causing pieces of a structural repair to come crashing down.

CONTRAST this urgency with the “business as usual” treatment of another system so engineered that serious injuried, and too often literal deaths, occur.   Because these are more widespread, perhaps they still don’t warrant serious attention.  Read on:\

States must reform a system

that too often rewards custody to the abusive parent.**

by Kathleen Russell, San Rafael, California, published 10-14-09 in the Christian Science Monitor.

[story of one individual highlights the issue]…I’m numbering sentences for comments below.  I also just alternate colors for easier reading.   CSM policy discourages reposting whole article, reading it all is a summary of –part of — the problems with family law.  system.

In a system with so much at stake — for the litigants, and their children — for those associated with the litigants and their children in work, school, play, at home, or as relatives — and with the short, short time span in which impressionable youngsters grow up — can even ONE false assumption be made in the process of fixing it? 

In the Bay Bridge — a HUGE project — they forgot about the wind vibrations plus the vibrations from the traffic load would affect a “patch fix.”  Seems to me that vibrations when it comes to a bridge is basic engineering vocabulary. 

The FIRST sentence of this article reads:

When a parent harms his or her own child, family courts are supposed to step in and safeguard the victim.”

Ohh??  I thought that stepping in was the province of Child Protective Services and law enforcement, since harming a child (as also a spouse, or other human being) IS a criminal act.  The concept that the family law venue is set up to handle criminal actions is a misconception.  To clarify, see www.justicewomen.org or anywhere that talks about the difference between civil and criminal venues, and family court vs. criminal prosecutions of domestic violence. 

Harming a child is domestic violence, and little to no training in this is required even to become a certified family law practitioner.  I believe I still have a link off to the side.

Association of Family & Conciliation Courts (AFCC) — see my blog — states clearly in their history page that one of their key founders was OPPOSED to the use of the “old” criminal language, and preferred newer, better terms to describe things like — child molestation or domestic violence, or things that show up as criminal acts.  I blogged on it — search here, you’ll see.

However, the CPS, the law enforcement and the family law venue most certainly DO bounce back and forth off each other, at least in this area, and listen to each other in crucial decisions, I found out (alas). 

This is a repeated refrain in the family law venue, so much so as to be characteristic.  It is just about a DEFINING quality of these courts — and no, they do NOT exist to protect children.  I believe that family law is where batterers go to hide, and was designed in part to receive them and allow them continued access.  That this also just happens to be big business, and a perpetual motion (as in, legal motions) machine, is unlikely to be an afterthough, methinks…

 None of the authorities she approached would effectively intervene to protect her daughter [1]. So in 2000, Ms. Rogers eventually felt that she had no choice but to flee with her child to protect her [2].

More than three years later, this protective mother was caught and jailed for five months, while her daughter was immediately handed over to her alleged abusers [3]. Rogers faced criminal charges for violating a court order by fleeing with her child [4]. After considering the evidence in her case, a jury of her peers completely exonerated her of all wrongdoing [5].

The very same evidence that exonerated her in the criminal court had been called “frivolous” by the family court judge and disregarded [6]. Despite her acquittal, Rogers was never granted custody of her daughter, who lives with her alleged abusers to this day [7]. She is now forced to pay a fee to visit with her daughter a few times a month in a supervised visitation facility [8].


 [1], [2] — women are trained to generally go the authorized route first.  This mother did.  When it failed, her motherhood instincts kicked in (see how THOSE can help in reading about which cops — male, or female — caught, and which overlooked (male or female) Phil Garrido and the two kids he’d fathered by (kidnapped * 18-years imprisoned) Jaycee Dugard this past year.  Again, I blogged this.  A policewoman noticed something amiss in two kids; her alertness started the process saving them and their mother.

 [3] Protective mother caught and jailed. . . .   Why don’t readers just google that phrase and see what comes up.  See also Stopfamilyviolence.org.  Women have fled to other countries — sometimes getting asylum! — to protect their children from assault & battery or molestation.  The brave U.S. is not negligent to try and go fetch them back.  Google, if it’s still on-line, Sheila Riggs.  Or another, Joyce Murphy.  Or Holly Collins. 


[4].  Some states have an actual EXEMPTION for protective parents fleeing when it comes to felony child-stealing.  The catch is, it’s enforced in reverse!  This woman, being a Californian, should’ve been protected by California Penal Code 278, but obviously wasn’t.  Who didn’t protect her — law enforcement?  A judge? 

[5]  It seems (on a fast read] that this mother THEN got into a criminal charge, and as such, actually got in front of a jury.  Because she might be jailed, this was proper.  Unlike the family law, where mandatory mediation, and hearsay rules the day, an actual jury “considered the evidence in her case.”  That’s why the exonerated her.  It appears she was innocent and shouldn’t have been jailed.  NEVERTHELESS, she still DID spend 5 months in jail.  How do you think THAT affected her relationship with her daughter?

If being jailed wasn’t bad enough for an innocent mother, while she was in jail, I’m sure that knowing her daughter was now in the total custody — without her intervention, or ability to help mitigate this any more — of the alleged abusers — was worse punishment.  While California jails are overcrowded, hear tell women’s are less so.  They can be TOUGH.

[6].  Statement “6” above, as is, might as well be the motto of the family law venue.  If you understand this, you understand enough.  Due process doesn’t count.  Being innocent — or guilty — matters not. 


[7] I have a question:  WHY didn’t custody automatically go back to her?  If she fled to protect, and the evidence said there was something to protect AGAINST (if she was exonerated, it must have, right?) then WHY is that child still living with the abuser?  Because the illegal and wrongfully punishing process of a protective mother destroyed her ability to have a child?  Or because the family courts simply couldn’t be bothered to acknowledge a ruling coming from outside its own venue?

[8]  Supervised Visitation fees.   I TOLD you this was a business model.  Someday, perhaps more people will start actually believing this. 


Protective parents not only lose custody of the children they are trying to protect, but they lose their life savings, too. Many cannot even afford a lawyer to represent their interests, but are saddled with hefty supervised visitation fees and often threatened with a loss of custody if they object to paying the bevy of court-appointed experts that the judge assigns to their case.

Hmm. . . . threatening to take your kid, and have him/her [further] hurt, seriously, if you can’t pay the court-appointed experts.  And this is NOT extortion, and NOT the Mafia??  No, they are all in here to help poor people settle their squabbles, and to protect –NOT traffick in — children.

Fees quickly add up to tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Many such parents go bankrupt, making court appeals impossible. The family law “machine” operates as Big Business, and a sophisticated cottage industry has sprung up that appears to be preying on desperate parents and children who are trying to escape family violence.

The author recommends, and then talks about a “major overhaul” of the family law system.  Sister, I don’t think this is about to happen, the problems are foundational, and built  into it.  It is designed to extract cash from parents, (one side will generally be rich enough, or if not, government grants will do instead, for court-appointed attorneys, mediators, and so forth, let alone the dang judges!) and hand it over to those in “the court.”  (Think royalty).  If you’re in, you’re in, if you’re out, you’re out. 

Thus weakened, one parent will certainly have to fork over a child. a few drops more will of course be extracted, if some are left, because what protective parent does NOT want to see a child, even if under strained and artificial conditions — a lesson also for the next generation — and wouldn’t scrape together the funds to do so?  Notice — supervised visitation SUPPOSEDLY exists to protect a child from a violent parent, or one incapable of self-restraint enough to be UNsupervised.  It is typically used to punish a parent after a switch, rather than for its intended purpose.  At least, so I am coming to believe. 

Bay Bridge with thousands of daily commuters, commuters at risk (not yet dead), the fix is made.  Why?  Probably someone remembers the Loma Prieta earthquake, which DID cause deaths when this bridge collapsed.  Probably because it affects BUSINESS more than families.  I don’t know — you tell me!

Family Law Venue, with probably by now thousands of genuine casualties, including abductions, family wipeouts, jailed Moms, or Dads, and fractured relationships, lost work time (for the litigants — not the court folk) and a drain on the social services of the United States of America — and, resistance to changing BUSINESS as usual is high. 

This is a quick post, and I hope within the framework of CSM quotation guidelines.  Have a nice day!

**A Note to Bloggers

The Christian Science Monitor appreciates the growing Blogging community, and wants to be part of the conversation. Monitor stories have “permanent” URLs, and our stories back to 1981 are freely available without needing to pay or log in. Therefore, we ask that bloggers link to articles on http://www.csmonitor.com, rather than reproducing them on your blog. You may reproduce a paragraph or two of an article as an introduction to the link to that article. No further permission from us is required.

More information on linking.

““The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.” **

leave a comment »

It’s DV Awareness Month.  Are you aware?  I’m not seeing much in the headlines this year.  It’s more than just a label. . . .or an ideology.  Here’s part of what it looks like, after reporting.  

( ** quotation below….)

In the website “selfrepresentedfool.org”  Dr. Natalia A. Sidiakina both organizes & analyzes the non-obvious and expresses the very obvious impact of the family law system as only someone not yet? ground up by it can.  


Legal System in California Promotes Domestic Violence Against Women”

(copied in entirety, after I get through my intro — shorter than usual today….)

While some people are furthering their careers and researching, not suffering through “familycourtmatters,” I still stand amazed at the volume and breadth of information– legal, cognitive, financial, and social, AND philosophical —  that some people can not only process, but interrelate, and still come out impassioned, expressive, but coherent and with detailed analysis — that women who have been through this basic tyranny through the courts, can.  Perhaps these are survival skills.  To sustain violence over many years is a motive driven by emotion, but enabled like any other war with strategy, foresight, diplomacy/deceit at times, and timing, and intimidation.  It is a skilled mixture, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised if those good at both the abuse and surviving it might make excellent chefs, or businessmen & women.  For those who have been targeted, add stamina and a rock-solid motivation keeping “the pilot light lit,” year after year.


People, we are in trouble in this country, and that trouble as in any ages is, FIRST, unjust judges signing these orders, but they do not operate in a power vacuum at all — and ones that aren’t,also can take retaliation, as did Richard Fine, in L.A. County, even as we speak.  Even as women reporting abuse take retaliation, sometimes in the form of taking their children, too. For “taken children” to be brave enough to speak up, or want to, is a whole other matter.  I do believe that part of the reason their custody gets switched to the batterers/abusers/molesters (speaking, in cases where this has already happened, or after reporting it when it has) is to shut them up.  The court just send a message — speak up, or if one parent speaks up, and you live with your abuser.  Or strangers.

I have not met this woman, and was unaware of the site, that I recall, until yesterday.  But it both summarizes, puts in philosophical framework, AND annotates, many issues — not all of them (child abuse, for example, doesn’t seem to be the primary feature in here), but what happens when a woman tries to report, or leave, abuse.  If she is still alive, what kind of life can she have?  

Are you are employed (or not), a parent (or not) married (or not), in addition to paying taxes, did you give to your neighbor, at your faith institution or progressive atheist organization, at the office, church, or local homeless shelter (or not)?

If so, still please dedicate one hour of your time to reading this site in its entirety, and thinking about its contents.

(You will notice I didn’t really appeal to people on the boards of organizations supposedly handling these problems in the court.  There’s a reason I didn’t…..Nor did I appeal to religious leaders of any faith as a segment.  There’s a reason I didn’t there, too.  I’m appealing to people of average and relatively moral sensibility to not turn the other cheek to this type of system, because you’re not an expert in it.  This is what too many of the experts in the family law system DO.  The DOING of that is a drain on the economy, and your taxes (USA, I mean, and especially if California — featured here.)



Pages include:  

  • Neurobiological basis of abuse of power.
  • Democracy in CA is Moneycracy
  • Legal System in CA is Immoral
  • Current Legal System Leads CA To Tyranny
  • Legal System in CA Turns Children Into Slaves   (Think not?  Where have you been living?!  See sandiegochildtrafficking.org.   See Courageouskids.net.  Google “California Protective Parents.”  See “The Leadership Council” (a website).
  • “Legal System in California Promotes Domestic Violence Against Women”  (posted below….)
  • The Courthouse, The House of Torture  (details her physical reactions to emotional torture in the courtroom, and how this limits a battered woman’s ability to self-represent after her attorney has quit, when funds ran out.  Her story is here too, I believe.)  
  • Need for a Paradigm Shift and Legal Reform in CA


Complete with cites, neurological basis, and coherent explanation of the money issues in a divorce.  This is written by a PhD/MBA, so don’t expect just a rant, or even that.

The woman who wrote this is no fool — at all.  In addition to JusticeForWomen.org, which talks about the process we go through — this woman’s site hits almost every major facet, and I would add to a “should-read/must-read” status.  It’s also current.


Below here represents one page of her site, verbatim, and not (for once) my comments to it:
Self-Represented Fool : “The One Who Represents Himself Has A Fool For A Client” (Lawyer’s Joke)


“Legal System in California Promotes Domestic Violence Against Women”

Copyright© 2008-2009 by Natalia A. Sidiakina for Self-Represented Fool®

                                  All rights reserved.

Natalia A. Sidiakina permits unrestricted not-for-profit use, distribution, and reproduction of this article or any part thereof in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. See original citations in the articles on this web site and examples of citations below in this web page. For more information and permission for for-profit use, distribution, and reproduction please contact info@selfrepresentedfool.org.

”The strength of a nation derives from the integrity of the home.” 

– Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC)


 “Once made equal to man, woman becomes his superior.” 

– Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC)


**“The secret of all victory lies in the organization of the non-obvious.” 

– Marcus Aurelius (121-180)

“By all means, marry. If you get a good wife, you’ll become happy; if you get a bad one, you’ll become a philosopher.” 

– Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC)



The current legal system in California promotes domestic violence against women.

(main article was written in July of 2008)


Violence is the exercise of power and, as such, is addictive. In family settings, a more powerful spouse can “modify other’s states by providing or withholding resources or administering punishments”[1]. In case of domestic violence against women, the more powerful spouse is a husband, who controls financial resources and, consequently, social status.



Most men’s violent and abusive behavior in family settings, as contrary to supportive and providing behavior, results from the suppression of cognition by stress or other means (alcohol, drugs, etc.)[2]. Suppressed cognition allows anger to erupt at whoever is handy and less powerful, making the wife and children easy targets.



Frequently under stress, the suppressed anger of men, who were abused as children, gets expressed through domestic abuse and violence.[3] Stress is increasing generally in California due to war in Iraq, rising oil and food prices, financial crisis, home equity deterioration, foreclosures, exorbitant health insurance costs, economic stagnation, transferring of high-tech manufacturing and research to Asia, resulting unemployment, etc.


{{Let’s Get Honest inserted comment:  Two of these commas should be omitted, making the phrasee “who were abused as children” a limiting phrase (conditional) and a qualifier added, I think:  “The suppressed anger of men [omit comma] who  were abused as children [omit comma] [add SOMETIMES] gets expressed through domestic abuse and violence.”   Obviously not ALL men were abused as children.  Or let’s hope they weren’t…}}

{{My personal opinion.  I don’t know that every man who commits domestic abuse (i.e., violence against an intimate partner or family member– see legal definitions) was abused as a child.  Possibly, but that still excuses it, adn there IS no excuse.  What about being egged on by others?  What about simple entitlement, as accepted too often in at LEAST the 3 “Abrahamic” religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, in chrono order) and/or because they — as the writer here expresses in another page — get a dopamine rush off it?  Another potential source of significant stress for children can be the school situations.  Either way, I noticed this statement as an assumption I don’t particularly agree with.  There is STILL no excuse!  On another page — the Neurological Basis of power, she compares the collective turnoff of the conscience preceding the Holocaust, the genocide — in short, the emotional DISTANCING of one population from another, turns of the morality.  I have seen this within my own family, and I most definitely detect it in the “subject/object” pathologizing paradigm (to overuse a term, but it seems to work…) within the family law system, in which a crime is not a crime is not a crime, but is re-cast as a family conflict.  }}


Stress from work is also increasing because most employees have bosses and peers who bully them also because of the stress and because bullying is pleasurable and addictive as it increases the dopamine levels in the brain[4]. 37% of the US employees, or the majority of potential non-bullies assuming a 50/50 ratio, are bullied at work[5].



Unlike sexual harassment, bullying has no legal remedy in California and is dismissed as “interpersonal conflict” between employees. Because bullying is addictive and because bullies have no motivation to stop it, the number of bullied at work employees will be increasing. Therefore, the number of stressed employed men (and women) with suppressed cognition in California will be also increasing.



            Abusive husbands are unlikely to seek divorce or change their addictive violent behavior as long as things are going their way in the family settings. An abused wife in California is extremely unlikely to report domestic violence because such reporting will necessarily result in her husband’s arrest and, consequently, an inevitable divorce, her financial downfall, and the high likelihood of her becoming homeless and even loosing custody of her children.



After divorce, housewives will struggle to find employment even at low wages of less than $15/hour and will likely be bullied at work. For many women, a bullying husband is less threatening than bullies at work.



Husband’s arrest for domestic violence can result in a criminal case against husband or a dismissal. If the abused wife presses charges, her husband, who controls financial resources, will hire an influential criminal law attorney to defend him. After hearings and a trial, the abusive husband will be either free or in jail. Being in prison will necessarily result in husband’s loss of employment and financial crisis for the family.



The jailed abusive husband will hate his wife, will hire an influential family law attorney, will direct his attorney to transfer all family funds and assets to ensure that wife would not have access to them, and will file for divorce. The family is likely to loose its residence because the main breadwinner and the mortgage payer will be gone. Naturally, no housewife wants that. According to the family law center of Sonoma County, more then 50% of arrests for domestic violence result in dismissals prior to the establishment of a case.



            If the arrest results in a dismissal, especially after the case was tried, the arrested husband will have more stress from the arrest and the court hearings and will naturally harbor a lot of hostility and anger against his wife. Moreover, the balance of power in the family will be changed by the arrest, and the arrested husband will no longer be satisfied with his marriage.



Since the abusive husband controls his family’s financial resources, he will hide and transfer the family assets in the secret preparation for divorce. He will hire an influential family law attorney and then will file for divorce requesting custody of the children, no spousal support and no attorney’s fees to his wife.



It will be extremely unlikely for his abused wife to have sufficient separate property assets and separate income to maintain continuous legal representation. Consequently, she will become self-represented shortly after the beginning of the divorce.



            During the trial, the abusive husband’s attorney will lie to the judge and will make the wife look like an alcoholic, a drug addict, and a completely unfit parent. The family law trial judge will ignore any evidence and pleadings submitted by the self-represented wife.



After divorce, the abusive husband will remain living in the family residence with the children, and his abused ex-wife will likely receive no or minimal spousal support and no property because the major portion or all of the community property will be used to pay for the abusive husband’s attorney’s fees.



            Women are more vulnerable to stress and twice as likely as men to develop anxiety and depression under stress[6]. Any infection, even minor flu or cold, will necessarily exacerbate the stress on the body. If the abused wife was employed during the marriage, she is likely to lose her employment because she will likely develop severe anxiety and major depression as a result of the stress during her divorce litigation. A depressed woman will have an impaired cognition and no energy to look for a new employment.



The current medications for depression take several weeks to have a clinical effect, and only 40%-50% of antidepressants work. Because of the side effects and ineffectiveness, a depressed woman will have to try 2-3 different medications to find the one that works. This will take a few months.



While being depressed with no funds and no legal knowledge, the abused wife will not be able to either hire an appellate attorney or self-represent herself in appeal and prepare in 1-3 months a good quality Appellant’s Opening Brief. As a result, the injustice created by the trial judge will become permanent.



In conclusion, the abused wife will report domestic violence ONLY when she fears for her own or her children’s lives.



In wealthy Marin County, for instance, domestic violence against women was growing quietly in the past years and is currently a primary type of violent crime accounting for 30% of violent crime cases (over 60% of violent crime arrests)[7].



Thus, the current legal system with its unrealistic deadlines and exorbitant legal fees implicitly promotes domestic violence against women.


[1] Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., Anderson, C. (2003) Power, Approach and Inhibition. Psychological Review, Vol. 110, No. 2, 265-284 at p. 265, on the web athttp://socrates.berkeley.edu/~keltner/publications/keltner.power.psychreview.2003.pdf


[2] Dr. Forward, S. (1990) Toxic Parents. Bantam Books, p.3, 120, 124, 137

[3] Dr. Forward, S. (1990) Toxic Parents. Bantam Books, p.3, 120, 124, 137.

[4] Scientific American Mind, April/May 2008, p.14.

[5] Kim, J.N. (2008) The Cubicle Bully. Scientific American Mind, July/July 2008, p.13.

[6] National Institute of Mental Health official web site; Andreasen, N.C., MD, PhD, (2004) Brave New Brain. Oxford University Press, at p. 237-238.

[7] Cal. Courts Rev., Spring 2008, p.8. At dismissal rate of 50%, DV arrests represent 60% of violent crimes.


Copyright© 2008-2009 by Natalia A. Sidiakina for Self-Represented Fool®

                                  All rights reserved.

Natalia A. Sidiakina permits unrestricted not-for-profit use, distribution, and reproduction of this article or any part thereof in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. See original citations in the articles on this web site and examples of citations below in this web page. For more information and permission for for-profit use, distribution, and reproduction please contact info@selfrepresentedfool.org.




CAL. PEN. CODE § 273.8 : California Code – Section 273.8

The Legislature hereby finds that spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California. The Legislature further finds that the concept of vertical prosecution, in which a specially trained deputy district attorney, deputy city attorney, or prosecution unit is assigned to a case after arraignment and continuing to its completion, is a proven way of demonstrably increasing the likelihood of convicting spousal abusers and ensuring appropriate sentences for those offenders. In enacting this chapter, the Legislature intends to support increased efforts by district attorneys’ and city attorneys’ offices to prosecute spousal abusers through organizational and operational techniques that have already proven their effectiveness in selected cities and counties in this and other states.

I am going to bite my tongue about that training.  

There’s more – read the fine print, and wonder.:

(a)There is hereby established in the Department of Justice (DOJ) a program of financial and technical assistance for district attorneys’ or city attorneys’ offices, designated the Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program. All funds appropriated to the Department of Justice for the purposes of this chapter shall be administered and disbursed by the Attorney General, and shall to the greatest extent feasible, be coordinated or consolidated with any federal or local funds that may be made available for these purposes.

The Department of Justice shall establish guidelines for the provision of grant awards to proposed and existing programs prior to the allocation of funds under this chapter. These guidelines shall contain the criteria for the selection of agencies to receive funding and the terms and conditions upon which the Department of Justice is prepared to offer grants pursuant to statutory authority. The guidelines shall not constitute rules, regulations, orders, or standards of general application.  {{Then what DO they represent?}}

(b)The Attorney General may allocate and award funds to cities or counties, or both, in which spousal abuser prosecution units are established or are proposed to be established in substantial compliance with the policies and criteria set forth in this chapter.

(c)The allocation and award of funds shall be made upon application executed by the county’s district attorney or by the city’s attorney and approved by the county board of supervisors or by the city council. Funds disbursed under this chapter shall not supplant local funds that would, in the absence of the California Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program, be made available to support the prosecution of spousal abuser cases. Local grant awards made under this program shall not be subject to review as specified in Section 10295 of the Public Contract Code.  {{gee. . . . . }}

(d)Local government recipients shall provide 20 percent matching funds for every grant awarded under this program.

In the next post, I am going to put the “

Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent in People v. Giles”


This is a 25 -page brief (Dec. 2005) on behalf of several organizations, responding to< I THINK, an accused spousal murderer’s right to confront his accuser.  (again, speculation from memory of this), part of his defense was, his right to confront his accuser was being compromised.  Well, she was dead, dude!  Unbelievably, this brief addresses that issue.  However, I include it because it came up when I searched on “Clear and present Danger.”  IF you can go to the subject sentences of each paragraph, it also will provide more insight on domestic violence as an issue.  Also, given that it’s written by Nancy K.D. Lemon, Esq. — prominent in this field, and at UC Berkeley Boalt School of Law, I think it’s worth posting. . . . . On the NEXT post.  

Here, though is the ending of this document, FYI.  Again, consider what the woman above (one among how many?) went through. . . . .


 An Intent-Based Application Of The Rule Will Significantly Diminish The Number Of Domestic Violence Prosecutions, Undermining Prosecution Efforts And Exacerbating The California Domestic Violence Crisis 


The California Legislature has established that prosecutions are necessary to reduce domestic violence incidents and has made great efforts to assist these prosecutions.  An Assembly Committee Report stated, “[C]riminal prosecution is one of the few factors that may interrupt the escalating pattern of domestic violence.”  See Assem. Comm. Rep. at 5 TA \s “Assem. Comm. Rep. on Public Safety S.B. 1876, atpp 3-4 (June 25, 1996)” Further, the Legislature has declared, “[Since] spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California,…[we will] support increased efforts by district attorneys’ and city attorneys’ offices to prosecute spousal abusers through organizational and operational techniques.”  Cal. Pen. Code § 273.8 (West  2005) {{{I JUST CITED, ABOVE}}}


{{DO readers YET? understand why the family law venue, as populated by the noble “AFCC” with enablements by also the “OCSE” (search my blog on this) “MUST” exist if batterers are to get away with this, when there are children?  Why there MUST be, despite these D.A. legislated efforts in the 2005s to STOp domestic violence, and stop it by characterizing and prosecuting it as the crime (it is indeed criminal in intent and effect, seeking to undermine the basis of principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence:  Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.  There is no happiness possible in abuse, because there is no liberty, and sometimes it stops life, too.  Ka-thump, ka-thump, ka-thump..) – – there MUST be a contrary movement, a groundswell of indignant (primarily fathers) to RE-Characterize and DE-Criminalize the language and, with that, prosecution, of criminal behavior towards individuals, including children, and re-cast it as “parental rights” and “family conflict.”  ???  These motions are essentially in DIRECT opposition to each other. . . . . . .

{{ NOW, friends, begin to understand – I feel I most certainly have experienced this, along with others — how the CRIMINAL PROSECUTION side, this law enforcement, indeed plays too often (they do!) “good cop/bad cop” with the family law venue, withholding prosecution sometimes, and purusing it other times — same law, same county, same personnel.  I am in the middle of this struggle presently, where I have a total and clearly identified — but who can enforce? and at what risk to the parties involved, not just me? — legal right?}}  However this document is dealing with the criminal prosecution side — not the family / custody issues side – apparently segmented in too many brains, but overlapped in experiences of families going through this, with kids.}}


[Not new Para. in original] TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 273.8 (West  2005)” \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 273.8 (West  2005)” \c 2 ; see also Cal. Pen. Code § 273.81 (West  2005) TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 273.81 (West  2005)” \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 273.81 (West  2005)” \c 2  (establishing Spousal Abuser Prosecution Program within the Department of Justice that provides financial and technical assistance for district attorneys’ and city attorneys’ offices and promotes vertical prosecution in order to convict spousal abusers).

In order to address the domestic violence epidemic, the California Legislature has passed a host of laws intended to increase domestic violence arrests, prosecutions, and convictions.  See, e.g., Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West  2005) TA \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005)”  TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West  2005)” \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West  2005)” \c 1 .  For example, these laws require arrests of persons who violate restraining orders [[NOT DONE IN MY CASE]] (Cal. Pen. Code § 836(c) (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 836(c) (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 836(c) (West 2005)” \c 2 ); encourage arrests where there is probable cause that a person committed a domestic violence offense (Cal. Pen. Code § 13701(b) (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 13701(b) (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 13701(b) (West 2005)” \c 2 ); require that suspects arrested for certain domestic violence offenses appear before a magistrate rather than be cited and released (Cal. Pen. Code § 853.6(a) (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 853.6(a) (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 853.6(a) (West 2005)” \c 2 ); and encourage prosecutors to seek the most severe authorized sentence for a person convicted of a domestic violence offense (Cal. Pen. Code § 273.84(b) (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 273.84(b) (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 273.84(b) (West 2005)” \c 2 ). 


Additionally, the Legislature has enacted several evidentiary rules specifically designed to facilitate domestic violence prosecutions, including laws allowing experts to testify when relevant, such as when a domestic violence victim recants or refuses to testify (Cal. Evid. Code § 1107 (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Evid. Code § 1107 (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Evid. Code § 1107 (West 2005)” \c 2 ); permitting evidence of previous acts of abuse in a criminal action in which the defendant is accused of an offense involving domestic abuse of an elder or dependent person (Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 (West 2005) TA \s “Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 (West 2005)”  mentioned supra); and permitting introduction of some forms of hearsay evidence when the domestic violence victim is unavailable to testify (Cal. Evid. Code § 1370 (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Evid. Code § 1370 (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Evid. Code § 1370 (West 2005)” \c 2 ).  


{{You will notice “Cal. Evid. Code is being cited here.  However, the family law SEPARATED the Evid. code from itself years ago, I heard (early 1990s?) per a CA NOW Family Law website description of the history of this system (the 2002 report).  . . . . So it seems to me that this separation was intentional.  THEN, a certain father got caught out with his representation, in essence “caught” by those local rules, and now we have — locally — an “Elkins Family Law Task Force” pulled together to rescue this Dad (whose name also happens to be Elkins, DNK if coincidence or related to the original Meyer Elkins.  There are lots of Elkinses areound, so maybe  not…) because and specifically because, family law is so different from civil procedure.  Well, that was a built-in, intentional system bias!  (From what I can read).  Back to the text….}}


Despite the Legislature’s efforts to improve domestic violence prosecution efforts, however, there has been a substantial drop in domestic violence prosecutions since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford.  In the first year after Crawford, California prosecutors reported that they were dismissing a higher number of domestic violence cases than in the preceding years. Lininger, Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford TA \s “Tom Lininger, Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford, 91 Va. L. Rev. 747, 769 (2005)” , supra, at 749-50.  Sixty-one percent of responding prosecutors reported that Crawford had significantly impeded domestic violence prosecutionsId., at 772, 820.    


{{Apparently this relates to where the victim(s) are basically terrorized out of testifying, based on a very real belief that they (or loved ones) will be significantly hurt if they do, and that the system isn’t going to particularly protect them.  ALthough I doubt readers are up to the reasoning yet, I feel this feeds significantly into the PAS debate (Parental Alienation Syndrome) which, while I know where it came from, I feel could be sprung in reverse on mothers who have lost their kids (possibly DUE to the use of this legal tactic) and those kids are smart enough to keep their mouths shut.  In short, treating people who have been exposed to abuse, long-term and significant, whether by WITNESSING it to a parent, or sibling, or EXPERIENCING IT DIRECTLY (or both) — they have a right to self-protection, which may very well, their point of view, entail joining in on the abuse of the left-behind parent (or else), or simply clamming up.  For more insight into this, read the journal (true story, written after he got out and became an adult),   “The Boy Called It” and a secondary brother who became “it” after the original boy was rescued from the family.  In this case, it was the mother abusing, horribly so.  The name escapes me presently, but is searchable….  I had a hard time reading it, as it cut close to home..in the dynamics of being targeted, as a child, for the denigrating behavior, while siblings were not…OK, back to the GILES amicus….}}


Before Crawford, prosecutors often conducted “victimless prosecutions,” where they relied on hearsay statements made by victims to police, medical personnel, clergy, social workers, and others because the victim would not testify at trial.  Melissa Moody, A Blow to Domestic Violence Victims: Applying the “Testimonial Statements” Test in Crawford v. Washington, 11 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L. 387, 387 (2005) TA \l “Melissa Moody, A Blow to Domestic Violence Victims: Applying the \“Testimonial Statements\” Test in Crawford v. Washington, 11 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L. 3873(2005)” \s “Melissa Moody, A Blow to Domestic Violence Victims: Applying the \”Testimonial Statements\” Test in Crawford v. Washington, 11 Wm. & Mary J. of Women & L. 387, 387 (2005)” \c 3 ; Andrew King-Ries, Crawford v. Washington: The End of Victimless Prosecution?, 28 Seattle U. L. Rev. 301, 301 (2005) TA \l “Andrew King-Ries, Crawford v. Washington: The End of Victimless Prosecution? 28 Seattle U. L. Rev. 301, 301 (2005)” \s “Andrew King-Ries, Crawford v. Washington: The End of Victimless Prosecution? 28 Seattle Univ. L. Rev. 301, 301 (2005)” \c 3 .  Further, these prosecutions often proved successful in combating domestic violence.  See, e.g., Casey G. Gwinn & Anne O’Dell, Domestic Violence and Child Abuse: Stopping the Violence: The Role of the Police Officer and the Prosecutor, 20 W. St. U.L. Rev. 297, 303-04 (1993) TA \l “Casey G. Gwinn & Anne O’Dell, Domestic Violence and Child Abuse: Stopping the Violence: The Role of the Police Officer and the Prosecutor, 20 W. St. U.L. Rev. 297, 303-04 (1993)” \s “Casey G. Gwinn, J.D. & Sgt. Anne O’’Dell, Domestic Violence and Child Abuse: Stopping the Violence: The Role of the Police Officer and the Prosecutor, 20 W. St. U.L. Rev. 297, 303-04 (Spring 1993)” \c 3  (“Nearly 60% of our filed cases involve uncooperative or absent victims and yet we obtain convictions in 88% of our cases…Our strategies are working to reduce violence in intimate relationships in San Diego”); Linda A. McGuire, Criminal Prosecution of Domestic Violence TA \l “Linda A. McGuire, Criminal Prosecution of Domestic Violence” \s “Linda A. McGuire, , Esq., Criminal Prosecution of Domestic Violence” \c 3 , available at  http://www.bwjp.org/documents/prosecuteV.htm (reporting that San Diego prosecutors’ and law enforcement officials’ strategies , including conducting victimless prosecutions, decreased San Diego’s domestic violence homicide rate by 59% from 1991 to 1993) (last visited Dec. 7, 2005).   


{{COMMENT:  search Case G. Gwinn on this blog, I believe I posted the article about his attempts to coverup DV of one of his employees, and a lawsuit by another one he assigned to the cover-up, step in the gap procedure.  When threats came to the secondary employee (lawsuit said?) his response was to make sure she wasn’t on HIS floor, where he also might be targeted.  Another “problem” I have with Casey J. Gwinn is the establishment of the replicating Family Justice Center Alliance, made possible by a $1 million grant from Verizon.  This was happening at a time I myself was desperately seeking (yet did not get) help to obtain a cell phone for my own safety, from Verizon, or anyone else for that matter, being stalked and so forth.  While they had their high-profile websites, we women were on our own, here, on the street level….I cannot tell you what I went through in the past 2 years alone just to keep a damn PHONE on!  How’d you like to deal with that?}}


  The post-Crawford drop in domestic violence prosecutions indicates that some prosecutors and judges have failed to recognize the Rule of Forfeiture as an applicable exception to the Sixth Amendment right of confrontation in many domestic violence cases.  See Robert P. Mosteller, Crawford v. Washington: Encouraging and Ensuring the Confrontation of Witnesses, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 511, 607 (2005) TA \l “Robert P. Mosteller, Crawford v. Washington: Encouraging and Ensuring the Confrontation of Witnesses, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 511, 60(2005)” \s “Robert P. Mosteller, Crawford v. Washington: Encouraging and Ensuring the Confrontation of Witnesses, 39 U. Rich. L. Rev. 511, 607 (2005)” \c 3  (stating that Crawford “has caused great disruption and massive uncertainty” in the prosecution of domestic violence cases).  Specifically, this trend indicates that prosecutors seek to admit an unavailable victim’s statements under the Rule only when a defendant intends to procure the victim’s unavailability at trial instead of when, as often occurs in domestic violence cases, the defendant causes the witness’s unavailability by killing the victim or by instilling fear of reprisals.  As a result, the legal system appears to reward batterers by dropping some charges, dismissing entire cases, or acquitting the batterer of domestic violence charges when the victim’s statements are the only evidence to establish a battering relationship.  

Furthermore, if batterers know that prosecutors will move to dismiss charges or lose domestic violence cases whenever batterers successfully terrorize and sequester their victims, they will intimidate and threaten their victims in order to derail prosecution.  See Lininger, Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford TA \s “Tom Lininger, Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford, 91 Va. L. Rev. 747, 769 (2005)” , supra, at 808 (raising concern that if courts require a victim witness’s live testimony in order to admit any of the victim’s statements, it is more likely that an abuser will threaten the victim before trial in the hope of preventing prosecution).  Conversely, if the judicial system holds batterers accountable for causing a victim’s unavailability, batterers will have less incentive to intimidate their victims into silence. )


{{Violations of Sixth Amendment right to confront is flagrant and essential to the family law process, far’s I can tell.  This is done when the accuser is no longer the individual himself alone, but a mediator’s or evaluator’s report obtained by separate meetings (if requested for DV) from the victim (no longer considered a victim in family law either — she is a person who has a “problem” called “conflict” within the family, and as such it is as much HER duty as HIS to make it stop — which is virtually impossible, many times, without prosecution or protection of some sort.. . . But notice how much more detailed and specific the conversation is when it is in the CRIMINAL side of prosecution here..}}




For the foregoing reasons, amici respectfully request that the Court affirm the decision of the Court of Appeal.


Respectfully submitted,




Nancy K. D. Lemon

Calif. State Bar No. 95627

Boalt Hall School of Law

University of California 

Berkeley, California 94720

(510) 525-3164

Attorney for Amici Curiae 



Dated: December 11, 2005


On behalf of


California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV)


Asian Law Alliance of San Jose


California National Organization for Women (CA NOW)


California Women’s Law Center


City of Santa Cruz’s Commission for the Prevention of Violence Against Women


Glendale YWCA


Los Angeles County Bar Association Domestic Violence Project


Marjaree Mason Center


Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence


Sojourn Services for Battered Women and Their Children


South Lake Tahoe Women’s Center


Walnut Avenue Women’s Center


Women Escaping A Violent Environment (WEAVE)


WomanHaven, Inc., d/b/a Center for Family Solutions


Women’s Crisis Support – Defensa de Mujeres






I certify that this brief complies with the type-volume limitation of the California Rules of Court Rule 14(c)(1).

Exclusive of the exempted portions in California Rules of Court Rule 14(c)(3), the brief contains 7638 words.







Nancy K. D. Lemon

Boalt Hall School of Law 

University of California at Berkeley

Berkeley, California 94720

Telephone: 510-525-3164

Attorney for Amici Curiae 



Dated: December 11, 2005




PROOF OF SERVICE  (NOT relevant to the discussion)….



FOUND on the WEB at:


Domestic Violence, by its Nature, Frequently Results in Forfeiture 


File Format: Microsoft Word – View as HTML
Additionally, the California Family Code defines abuse as causing bodily injury, ….. “[Since]spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the 
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/GilesAmicusBrief.doc – Similar – 


I simply consider the family law arena, and/or its collaboration with other arms of the system that SHOULD enable a citizen to live a normal life after separating from abuse / domestic violence — and WITH the children being PROTECTED from further, dangerous, or threatening, undermining interactions with the othe rparent.  In short, when can we just take a stand and say NO! and mean it to this vice, abuse?


Only when it ceases to produce benefits for others.

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

with one comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

(2013 Update, In Hindsight):

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the rest of this entry »

Ever seen an armed and dangerous “child custody dispute”? Do disputes shoot? Responding deputies blame shooting on the dispute, not the guntoting young Dad.

leave a comment »

It wasn’t his fault, or his hands on the gun(s), it was that dang “child custody dispute” arising, say responding deputies.  It was half the (unnamed) ex-girlfriend’s fault, for not forking over the 3-month old when told to.  

And although 2 of her male relatives got shot, stepping in to protect, it is the poor, accused, walking wounded MAN (he attempted suicide after shooting, fleeing, being chased by police, including in a helicopter (??), and shooting himself) who grabs the headlines.



Here’s another “GIVE ME THE KID — or ELSE!”  that took a slightly different turn.  This time the shooter (Dad) wounded some others immediately (as opposed to just threatening to cut the mother’s throat, being jailed for this– for “about 16 months” plus “several months”–then when getting out of jail, calling 911, ambushing and murdering a responding sheriff in cold blood, drawing PLENTY of responding law enforcement fire, resulting in his own death, at age I think 27.)  


The knife-wielding, sheriff-punching/murdering man was married, the handgun/rifle-toting younger man was not.  Then again, the knife-wielding sheriff (or was it police?)-punching man later, in his ambush DID have a rifle, and after shooting the sheriff in the back, then grabbed the wounded officer’s own handgun and shot him again.

Perhaps the reason we have a fatherhood crisis is that when young and self-centered men don’t get their way in a custody exchange, they go start incidents that involve violence, and sometimes escalate to suicide.  

The infant daughter ONE was fighting over was about 1-1/2 months, the other infant daughter the OTHER was shooting relatives who intervened over was only 3 months old.  One father is dead already, the other one may die.  Clearly the PRIMARY social crisis both daughters will be growing up with is not early childhood trauma or any other “adverse childhood event”, growing up with, is not violence but fatherlessness, although the latter little girl had at least a grandpa and an uncle who protected her Mama, which indicates bravery & commitment.  

On the other hand, at age 3 months and 1-1/2 years they are already contributing to society — in the nature of newspaper fodder.  Later, if either mother requires any government assistance whatsoever, they will also be contributing to future social science studies by being low income,  possbly participating in a “female-headed household,”  and if mothers don’t learn from these incidents and pick a better man next time, another run through the system.  


Man accused of attacking Valinda family may die from self-inflicted wounds.


After reading article, please tell me why the headline doesn’t say upfront:  “Poor, accused (POLICE-FLEEING) MAN  may die from an owie (After shooting 2 other men, he shot himself).”

OR, it could come out and tell the truth, & mention a few other participants:

Publish under:  “Family” section, subheading “Fathers giving orders” (excuse me, I meant)  “Fathers can be nurturers too….”


“Girl, give me our infant — or I’ll shoot!  Your relatives, and then, when confronted on this, myself,” says Chino man, and does so, too.


Posted: 09/29/2009 10:14:39 PM PDT

By James Wagner, Staff Writer

VALINDA – A Chino man who deputies say shot his estranged girlfriend’s relatives and then attempted suicide Monday night remained in critical condition Tuesday and could die.


Photo Gallery: Valinda Shootings  (I’ll spare us….)

“We’re not too sure if he’s gonna make it,” said Los Angeles County sheriff’s Sgt. Dwight Miley.

The alleged shooter, 21-year-old Bryan Ornelas, was taken to Citrus Valley Medical Center – Queen of the Valley Campus in West Covina on Monday night after the shootings.

A child custody dispute led Ornelas to shoot two members of his ex-girlfriend’s family, deputies said….

That’s a lie!  Can we start fining deputies for saying it and REPORTERS for writing, editors for publishing it, if there’s no disclaimer?  On this basis, she should have clawed out someone’s eyes or shot HIS family, if the dispute led to it.  I’ve been in a custody dispute for years, and I haven’t shot anyone.  How are law enforcement going to enforce if they keep putting this message out to the public — a custody dispute led him to do it. . . . . 

We have laws in this country.  One of them is against shooting people.  “The devil made me do it,” “God made me do it,”,” “unemployment made me do it,” “distress over the breakup of my marriage made me do it,” and “we had a custody dispute, which made me shoot someone,” are NOT legally valid excuses, and I would SO appreciate not having to read them in articles nationwide, year after year.

Then again, I’ve been in family law hearings, and you should hear the excuses for child-stealing and failure to work, and a few more.  These were received with straight faces by the personnel (and being in court, I didn’t gag til I read the transcript afterwards).  

If there is going to be a BIT of self-restraint in this country, ALL the ______ made me do it’s need to be flushed out of the headlines.  It’s ceased being amusing.  SELF-defense (not “ego-defense” or “pride-defense” or “my sense of masculinity-defense”) I believe in some circumstances MAY be acceptable reasons, although I have heard that women suffering long-term severe battering and abuse with no potential exit still go to death row, which is why movements to get justice for them have begun.  They typically get longer than men when sentenced.  

So a casual “A child custody dispute led Ornelas to shoot ANYONE is irrational and inappropriate.”


DEFINE “child custody dispute.”  As in, “I have the child in my arms (or house), therefore I have ‘custody’ “?  Or, there was a COURT order?  

If there was an order, it was either joint, or sole legal and joint or sole physical, and likely child support was involved as well.  If there was a COURT order, then it SHOULD specify visitation (of course, many of these are so  vague as to be unworkable, even when DV has been an issue, which we don’t know if it had, here.)

If there was a COURT order specific enough, then it may have been a child custody “dispute” but one party was wishing to comply and the other to deny its order.  So it is relevant.

Although I realize reporters can’t always find out (or reliably cite) who started the incident, in this field, a very heated field emotionally (and with lots — millions, nationwide — of $$ riding on it, highly entrenched interests — maybe not to the Ornelas/Rizo family, but nationwide), I find the over-use of domestic disputes “arising,” as if out of nowhere, and without cause, to be misleading.  Such things “arise” or “emerge” like the sun “rises” (or appears to).  There is generaly a reason for the season, or the emotions.  In the field of child CUSTODY, if there is something in the courts, than any dispute with that is a dispute with the courts, and not a private family matter.


Officers said  Ornelas shot himself in the head after a short pursuit.Ornelas and his ex-girlfriend have a three-month-old girl who was with her before the shooting, Miley said.

They are, or are not, living together?  Not shown – did she take off with the little girl after her relatives intervened?  (PROTECTIVE mother, eh?)  Apparently the little girl missed seeing someone shot, which was good, eh? But I’m sure the fatherhood folk will get her back with her Dad, if he survives.  After all, if not, he might shoot someone else.  Or, simply be an uninvolved Dad, not pay child support, and burden the state with welfare, if she can’t figure something else out for a livelihood.

The shooting occurred at 6:45 p.m. Monday in the 16200 block of Benwick Street in the unincorporated county area of Valinda.

Ornelas wanted to see the child but his ex-girlfriend didn’t want to give the baby to him, Miley said. Then a dispute arose.


Whose words is Miley reporting?  Why doesn’t he mention, “according to..” as he wasn’t actually there to see?  In courts, hearsay is hearsay.  Miley didn’t witness the dispute, so someone reported it to him.  

Apparently this WAS the dispute, and a common (and dangerous, sometimes) one it is, indeed.

AKA, baby as property.  Custody order was, or was not, in place?  I have an idea.  AT THE HOSPITALS, unmarried Moms are assigned sole custody which continues even during marriage til further notice or ABSOLUTE proof of neglect or abuse.  If a Dad is on the scene, participating, and proved this with DNA, let’s return to the days of “shotgun marriages” as it appears that the alternative is shotgun (or knife, or ball bat) “give me the kids.”


 It takes less than a half hour or so to start a baby, and around 9 months to finish the process.   MOTHERS, PHYSICALLY, ARE INNATELY MORE BONDED TO THEIR CHIDLREN BECAUSE THOSE KIDS ARE INSIDE THEM BEFORE BIRTH.  THEIR BODIES CHANGE REMARKABLY DURING PREGNANCY, AFFECTING MANY TIMES OTHER SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS (NOT ALWAYS, BUT USUALLY).  LABOR IS INDEED “LABOR.”  HAVING SEX IS, SUPPOSEDLY, MUTUALLY FUN, BUT LABOR TAKES HOURS (USUALLY) AND CAN INVOLVE HAVING PARTS OF A WOMAN’S BODY CUT (CAESARIAN) OR SNIPPED (EPISIOTOMY), SOMETIMES BY AN OVEREAGER MALE DOCTOR. (I thankfully avoided this, primarily by avoiding the hospital til right before birth, for one daughter, who was born very healthy).  Afterwards, if women nurse (“breast is best,” remember?  See my post, Australian authorities and Canadian trying to balance this with couples which split up so early).  It’s a radical readjustment of relationships, and I think a great one.  Therefore, to avoid shootings, abuse, threats to cut and 911 calls, kidnappings, and potential infanticide around exchanges, I have a simpler way (??).

UNMARRIED MOTHERS  — not their grandmas and not their boyfriends and not their aunts — GET CUSTODY UNLESS THEY ARE ON DRUGS or involved in gangs, etc.  As such, THEY are responsible unless rape (including statutory) or incest was a factor, and even then, she has the majority sayso because it’s HER BODY, and authorities go after the (____holes).   If stupidity on the woman’s part {{such as picking up, getting pregnant by, and then marrying an ex-Porn king on a rebound marriage at a bar, as happened earlier this year, resulting in her being beat to deathwith a ball bat on the baby’s 1st birthday, and the baby (GIRL) being, briefly, abducted}}was a factor, they still get custody and must learn to take care of their children somehow, and let’s give them the support.  If a young man, or middle-aged man, in this day and time is stupid or callous enough not to use a condom, when he’s uncommitted to the young (or older) woman, then he’s just not mature enough to handle children and can go practice first on small animals and at a job.


1.  Money, in the form of at a minimum reduced child support payments.  The Bible, at a minimum (I cannot speak for th eKoran or any other writinges) says clearly that the love of money is the ROOT of all evil.  Any version of paying a man to “love” his own offspring is promoting this.  It also is disturbingly close to human trafficking, when child support is reduced in exchange for pushing or enabling men to spend more time with their kids than the existing laws otherwise would enable them.  

2. Children themselves.  This is why sites like “Courageouskids.net” have become necessary, and why some adult children SUE the participants in their traumatic childhood once they turn 18.  This is not the majority of divorcing families, but it IS a social problem.  And ONE case of child molestation or any form of abuse or neglect during exchange with a newly-enfranchised father is too much.  ONE is too much!  As to foster care, it’s not much better.  But I believe the children would be better off with a STABLE relationship with their mother, and particularly when such a mother has already separated because of violence to her by the Dad.  Or, violence to her children by the Dad.  

I am witness -and by far not the only one — that THE destabilizing effect in my post-separation life was the family law system, as tweaked by both the father (and friends) and — I learned, belatedly — a system of grants designed to tweak it in favor of noncustodial “parents,” but oddly enough, many, many of those programs have the word “fatherhood” in theiir titles, and even more in their texts, while the word “mothers” barely appears in:  Family Violence Prevention Fund (unless under a special category) and on whitehouse.gov.

I had restraining order on, and a healthy, solvent, contributing-t0-the community, kids actively involved in the community lifestyle.  This was attested to by social workers, parents of kids I taught, and colleagues, and by how the children were doing also.  The ONLY way to make all that evidence disappear was to haul me into family law, defending custody of the girls, fighting to assert joint legal, and in a venue famous (I later learned) for suppressing evidence in favor of psychobabble bearing no (and citing no) evidence, and from there repeatedly upending my own life, as mother leaving violence and trying to economically re-invent myself, and with sole physical custdoy of two daughters.  

WITH RESTRAINING ORDER OFF, AND “THE SKY’S THE LIMIT” AS TO INTERFERENCES WITH MY ABILITY TO WORK AND LIFE ON A WEEKLY AND MID-WEEKLY BASIS, YEAR ROUND, NO VACATION BREAKS AND NO SUMMER BREAKS (any and all contact was cause for arguing, debate, threat, and more and more involving law enforcement to adjudicate — and THEY refused to enforce clear orders, repeatedly, which is their job !! Even up to a custody order!) our daughters, have had the “crime pays — if you’re male” and the double standard passed on.  They learned firsthand the dangers of reporting abuse and leaving it.  They have learned it’s better to stuff it, internalize and blame themselves, or externalize and find someone to hate (better to join in with the gang rather than go against it).  Apart from, and to some extents DURING the initial restraining order, the only true peace we had was while it was on, and the caretaking parent could actually function as a normal human being and they could, by association feel fairly normal with their peers and in the activities at which they were prospering.

We are at a turning point as a society (always, but especially now, it seems).  Either women are full-status citizens or they are second-class citizens.  Now, women, including young women, have had a taste at full-status; the horse is out of the barn, “who let the dogs out?”

While we have not used that responsibly gender-wide, I think I could make a pretty good case that men haven’t either (see Holocaust, wars, weapons of mass destruction) etc.  And a woman who has a fighting chance off being treated like a human being without ALL of society, including relatives, religious institution(s), law (and its inforecment) and such in her society, MIGHT just fight rather than crumple.  We have internet and books, and courageous people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali have already spoken out, just as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcom X did on racism.  Phyllis Chesler exists and has published, and I’m only naming a very few obviously.  

Now, either it can be guerilla warfare, plus some other forms of male on female terrorism in order to try to chase a bunch cats (ever done that?), or the males — including those in the mainstream media — can start to adjust.  When people separate, there are going to be custody disputes.  Either we could go back — and I do mean REgress — to some fundamentalist religions that endorse honor killings, genital mutilation, forced marriages, and whipping, stoning, or otherwise punishing women for showing signs of life, and a piece of skin, and raise generations of haters and women who cannot even trust in each other (polygamy is by definition something of a supply & demand artificially enforced situation) OR we can go the other direction, and stop men from trying to turn back the clock and “just deal” with women as BOTh citizens AND occasionally mothers.  To fully deal with this, the educational system (I’m talking scheduling more than content) needs to be loosened up and homeschooling de-stigmatized, allowing family members to actually get to know each other, and not feel like oddballs in the community because they are actively participating in it daytimes.  Don’t give me the Philipp Garridos for an example — he was under failed sex offender supervision.  For every such incident, there is at least an equal one that takes place IN schools, including shootings, sexual assaults and “worse,” dumbing down and slowing down.  Or failing to fully support those who need more help.  

One of the worst things I know — and I DO know it — is where males incite their associated females to hurt other women.  I’ve seen it (and been targeted, while with children in the home).  If there is no solidarity on basis of gender, and no fair legal protection, and faith communities are so economically codependent with their own males (plus the volunteer services of the wives and kids that come with them, AND at times the distressed single women or single mothers that come for social/emotional nurturing too, having no families of their own) they cannot confrton domestic violence and child abuse, or even confront a member on crimianl charges of any sort against family members — that’s terrible.  

This young woman’s relatives stood in for her, and took bullets.

Sorry to digress, but I am thinking this morning, about how ridiculous it is to read incident aftter incident, when I already know what resources are being poured — a tsunami, virtually – into agencies that are supposedlyo fixing the situation.  Maybe we ought to just let go of the paradigm of “fixing” families at all.  If they’re broken, let them be broken, but when anyone breaks a law, bring consequences, and bring it WITHOUT respect of gender, or where the pay is coming from.  (Yeah, in which utopia….)

Authorities aren’t sure how the shooting unfolded but according to family members, the girlfriend’s father, Jesus Rizo, and brother, also named Jesus Rizo, intervened in the dispute.

Now THAT is brave.  Or foolhardy.  But I might have too, being there.  

The ex-girlfriend’s 58-year-old father was shot in the forearm and her 16-year-old brother was wounded in the upper arm, authorities said.  {{IN OTHER WORDS, they’re not actually saying this young man Ornelas did it?  They “were shot” and “were wounded” (passive tense}}

Everyone else, including the infant, had an age, what was Mom’s?

The incident continued to a home in the 1600 block of Mullender Avenue, where authorities chased Ornelas.

Witnesses and authorities said Ornelas sped down the street in a car, ran to the back of the house, entered it and put a gun to his throat.


IN the house, shot in the head, or BEHIND the house, shot in the throat.  Only the EMTS know for sure.

Sounds like a combination of witnesses.  Someone saw him speeding down the street in a car.  Unless they were faster than him, someone ELSE saw him behind the house, and he did indeed shoot himself, with the same gun that shot the relatives.  Maybe details will come out, but probably not before some other young man or disgruntled ex tries to nab another young child somewhere in these United States, and pulls off another police-report-producing incident involving threats or weaponry.  

It was there that Ornelas attempted suicide, deputies said.

Staff Writer Ruby Gonzales contributed to this story.


(626) 962-8811 ext. 2236


ANOTHER COMMENT:     NAMED people in this story:  4 males:  Sgt. Miley, Bryan Ornelas, Jesus Rizo & Jesus Rizo — all male.  We also have all of their ages except the Sgt’s.   

UNNAMED people in this story:  the only 2 females (not county Staff Writer Ruby Gonzales, who contributed) ”  the infant girl and her mother, who  was named, in order “ex-girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, ex-girlfriend, girlfriend, and ex-girlfriend.”  Neither her age nor name is not in there, or where she was during the shooting, although that the child wasn’t there seems clear.  She exists only as a man’s ex (a guntoting suicidal, orders-giving, retaliatory one, it seems).  NOTHING is said of her emotions or fears or reasons for declining to hand over a 3-month old baby.  (3 months, FYI, is pretty young.  That is a dependent child.  She was the mom….).  No reasons is given that she was not interviewed (as in, “could not be reached for comment” or “declined to comment.”    The story is only in the violence.  The headline emphasizes the man’s pain and suffering, and “self-inflicted wounds” — the word “wound” is a term used in warfare — the “wounded.”  This obscures the man’s violence.  Although someone (probably him) clearly DID shoot, because there are 2 relatives in the hospital; I tend to doubt it was the mother who fired the gun — the headline emphasizes that he was “Accused” of “attacking” family is very misleading.  He DID attack (shoot) and was chased for police by hit, to which he responded in an “adult” manner by fleeing.

I wonder, where was the girl’s MOTHER.  If an older female relative had been on the scene, might she have been able to talk down the young man?  She wa snot his “property” (i.e., sexually intimate) and she was not another male challenging the young man’s “property,” i.e., his little girl, and the order-giving status he held towards his “girlfriend.”  It seems to me that this situation might have done better with a voice of moderation around.  Then the armed officers show up (appropriately) and chase the guy.  

The account as given (he fled, and shot himself) It’s plausible.  It would fit a social pattern.  It may be true.  Point is, to the readers, it’s still hearsay, largely from the deputies.  No other witnesses are named in the article.


Now, this is the trouble with trying to find more information.  I googled “ornelas suicide” and unfortunately got this, a Mr. & Mrs. Ornelas

SANTA ANA – 3 Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide

March 20, 1993,  

A 44-year-old Santa Ana man apparently killed his wife and then himself after fatally shooting a man he incorrectly suspected of having an affair with his wife, police said Friday.

Homicide detectives believe Jose Lopez Ornelas shot Albert Lujan Galindo, 30, outside Galindo’s apartment on East Pine Street early Thursday morning, Santa Ana Police Sgt. Art Echternacht said.   {{note age difference — jealousy. }}

A neighbor discovered Galindo lying in a pool of blood just outside his apartment about 5:30 a.m.

Police said Ornelas then apparently drove his wife, Diane, 45, into southern San Diego, where he apparently killed her before fatally shooting himself, Echternacht said.

Police said the case is still under investigation and would not elaborate on what linked Ornelas to the Galindo slaying.

San Diego police, who are investigating the apparent murder-suicide in the Otay Mesa area, discovered Jose and Diane Ornelas slumped over in his 1988 Chevrolet pickup truck about 10 a.m. Thursday.

The truck was first sighted on the side of Otay Mesa Road near Heritage Road about 8 a.m., police said. The engine was running, the hood was up and the lights and radio were on, according to San Diego Police Lt. Greg Clark.

There was a small handgun in Jose Ornelas’ right hand, police said.

Friends and neighbors told police that Diane Ornelas and Galindo drove together to their custodial jobs at UCI Medical Center in Orange, Echternacht said, and “all indications are that they were not romantically involved at all, but the husband apparently got jealous.

A hospital spokeswoman said Diane Ornelas and Galindo had worked at the hospital for about 10 years. Police said they do not know why Jose Ornelas may have been jealous.

AND, another Google result:

Yet another Ornelas was just going to work, in Las Vegas Area (I guess) and landed in the middle of a “strange crime spree blamed on alcohol & depressants” (2008).  It really was out there, too. . . .

Strange crime spree ends in suicide

Alcohol, anti-depressants** blamed in Sunday’s string of events

When Marcos Ornelas was walking to work Sunday, the waiter at Joe’s Crab Shack thought it was going to be another normal afternoon.

But as he got closer to the restaurant near the intersection of Flamingo Road and the 215 Beltway, he was greeted by dozens of police cars and a helicopter circling overhead.

(**as opposed to economy, despair over breakup of a marriage (or affair), jealousy, resentment at actually having been punished for previous criminal activity, or simply a custody exchange, or God, or the devil….)


More on the Bryan Ornelas case, topic of this post:  3 Hospitalized in Valinda Shooting


Benwick Street after “a dispute … regarding child custody,” said Sgt. Dwight Miley of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department’s station in Industry.

Ornelas had been arguing with his ex-girlfriend when the two men tried to intervene, and Ornelas shot each man in the arm once with a handgun, Miley said.


Given how many sheriff-described “disputes” end up with people in the hospital, and sometimes dead or dying, I object to the word “dispute.”  If it is not actually a legal term, remind me to save up my money, attend one of the joint DV-training conferencees women like me are generally not allowed as speakers, and get my two bits in.  In addition to recommending early intervention and immediate prosecution of any felony (or misdemeanor) domestic VIOLENCE (not “abuse”) incidents, officers should be fined 1% of their weekly paycheck every time they (post-shooting) say the word “dispute” in connection with the incident.  This should go into a pro bono legal fund for women fleeing family violence who are bounced into the family law arena.  This will not actually equal the federal funding to states to help noncustodial fathers, BUT it would be at least a drop in the bucket.  

The sergeant said Ornelas and the woman (aka “girlfriend” aka. “mother”) were the parents of the infant at the center of the dispute.  A Sheriff’s Department helicopter hovered overhead as Ornelas fled the home in a vehicle with patrol cars in pursuit.


A 16 yr old is a man…  A mother is a girl.  However the 21-year old Ornelas is behaving kind of immature here, like a baby (only armed).

Ornelas led deputies to another home in the 1600 block of Mullender Avenue, where he ran inside and shot himself with a rifle, authorities said. Ornelas had been at that home earlier in the day and was known to the residents there, Miley said.

{{which may explain the “witnesses and authorities said.”  }}

{{This young man seems to have been pretty adept with firearms (if not emotionally mature) I would recommend that, should he survive,  — and it will come, believe me, the young mother get some weapons training, and the father be informed that she has it,  for the next court-ordered custody exchange.   After all, she may or may not qualify for federally- or state-funded supervised visitation, but even their own materials admit that women are still sometimes shot, and killed, outside such exchanges.  Her male relatives may not want to put their bodies inbetween for target practice next time.  She will be smart enough, soon enough, to realize that if a MOTHER uses a gun in an illegal manner against a father, she’s going down for more years than he is.  And the female prisons, I heard, are not so overcrowded as the male.}}    Perhaps mace, or a Taser, or pepper spray, might be a deterrent for such a father, but I don’t know offhand.  He doesn’t seem like the law-abiding, in control of his emotions.}}



Like the incident (a month or so earlier, post) in Minnesota, I’m wondering how the man could, being chased by police, pull off a suicide so fast.  I don’t handle guns, so I don’t know, BUT the first account says gun to his throat (a rifle?) and out back, not inside.  He was carrying a handgun and rifle both?  He was being pursued by police AND helicopter, but chose the rifle, not the handgun, to commit suicide with??  If he was going to do this, why not do it at the scene?  Who actually witnessed the last shot?

I can see why people are tempted to leave answering such questions up to the professionals, or local communities.  For one, with the internet, and nationwide coverage (of sorts), incidents like these seem to arise with breakneck speed.    Are they copycats?  Are these public messages to women/mothers as a whole that, “don’t even THINK about confronting me, or this could be you”?


Even if no action is taken, it is important, I feel, to think critically about what one reads.  I am uncomfortable (extremely) when the only source cited in a news report are the deputies, especially when an incident involves blood, hospitals, or any crime scene clean-up.



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

with 2 comments

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


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

A.  Put events in order.  

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

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

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

And then Alternately

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

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

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


Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past

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

Comments (0) 


The Wichita Eagle

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lyons’ ex-wife could not be reached.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Moving on in our sequencing:

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

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

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

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


NOW — figure out this timeline if you can:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


Now here is about the slain officer:

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


Sheriff was Ambushed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Based on that evidence, Hinshaw offered this account:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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







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



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

Domestic Violence

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

Online Resources:

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

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

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

Resources for Law Enforcement


Child Exchange and Visitation Center Program – (CEVC)

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

Mighta been helpful for Jenifer Lyons . . . . . 

The Essential Elements and Standards of 

Batterer Intervention Programs in Kansas  

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

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

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

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

during this process: 

Developed and/or Reviewed by representatives from the following: 

Alternatives to Battering, Topeka 

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

Family Crisis Center, Great Bend 

Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board 

Halley Counseling, P.A., Girard 

Johnson County Office of Court Services 

The Family Peace Initiative, Girard 

Kansas District Judges’ Association 

Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall 

Kansas Attorney General Steve Six 

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

Kansas County and District Attorney Association 

Kansas Department of Corrections  

The Mental Health Consortium 

Office of Judicial Administration 

Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Center, Hutchinson 

Wyandotte Mental Health Center 

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

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

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

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

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

for providers of batterers intervention programs. 

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

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

Intervention Programs in Kansas.   

For More information about this initiative, contact the  

Director of Victim Services in the office of 

 Kansas Attorney General  

Steve N. Six 

120 S.W. 10th Avenue 

Topeka KS 66612-1597 



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



Child Custody, Support and Visitation Rights – Kansas Bar 

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

Crisis Resource Center of SE Kansas –

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

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


  1. Overland Park Visitation Attorney | Leawood KS Parenting Plans 


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

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

    These forms are the most current versions 

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


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

leave a comment »

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


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


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

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

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

1.  IN open court — in open, and 

2.  Behind closed doors — in private.

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

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

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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

Last Updated: 6 June 2005


REASONS FOR JUDGMENTIntroduction – the proceedings

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

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

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

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

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


RELEVANT:  What the jailed Dad wants.

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

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

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

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


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



What is the ACE Study?

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

 What’s an ACE?

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


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


Origins and Essence of the Study (2003)




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).



%d bloggers like this: