Posts Tagged ‘domestic violence’
Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet].
This post title with a “shortlink” attached is:
Evaluate, Coordinate, call “Alienator!” Pt. 4– Three AFCC Ph.D.’s on ONE case & “PAS” = 2011 NH Supreme Court custody reversal. And what’s Warshak got to do with it? [First publ. June 15, 2011, not on blog TOC yet]. (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-JR”. Note: for normal URLs (web addresses), upper or lower case alpha doesn’t seem to matter, but I’ve learned that within this domain (WordPress) and in such short-links, it does.
LGH UPDATE NOTE: My current table of contents only goes back to Sept., 2012; this is a June 15, 2011 post (early on in this blogger’s learning curve!) so would only be found by search, some other link reference to it, or by Year/Month/Date through the “Archives” (by month) on this blog.
I added some quick (not thorough) updates on Overcoming Barriers at the bottom in response to a comment submitted March, 2016…including tax returns, California corporate registration (Massachusetts could also be searched).
For a December 2017 Update (which at first I thought might fit in here), see:
I was just going to add a very short update (that comment, it seems, in March 2016), but instead added a section on renewed Parental Alienation discussions, and the socialist “re-education camps” in Viet Nam after South fell to the North, in 1975. Similar in other countries. Major quality and scope difference — but force is force, and at some levels, it’s also a form of psychological, personal violence. In my opinion. So, the original (written/published in 2011) post begins in maroon font and below a double-line after the following paragraphs and a few quotes:
Speaking of how to continue keeping “Parental Alienation” conversation going — and ordering services to undo it through the family courts — I recently noticed that a “Dr. Craig Childress” (Craig A. Childress, Psy.D.) is resurrecting parental alienation under a different theory; I have some comments on it over at Red Herring Alert (a wordpress blog). “Same old, same old” with new window dressing and tactics (Childress recommends pressuring providers who do NOT recommend IMMEDIATE, safety-for-the-child total separation from the alienating parent (i.e., “mom” typically) through their licensing board, if this could be categorized under some existing DSM-defined disorder.
You cannot really argue with self-referencing, self-congratulating circles of experts on this matter which is why I recommend a more interesting angle of approach: If they incorporate, find tax returns and corporate records; if they get contracts with the courts, or government grants to run “reunification camps” and similar therapy for parental alienation (in its old or new classifications), pay attention to the details!
The technique and ability to re-indoctrinate people in groups, as well as children, was also in common use in socialist countries; I believe the term used was “re-education camps,” referring to those in South Viet Nam after the fall of Saigon in 1975: Search “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps: A Brief History” (that’s supplemental reading, from a man’s father’s oral history — he lived through such camps — from “Choices” program at Brown; see website) or “Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.”
The second link introduces and describes the various levels. I wonder, in the USA, why the country is so heavily invested in a class of professionals whose purpose seems to be behavioral change and keeping up-to-date with tactics and strategies for re-indoctrinating children, women and men into their proper social relationships with each other and particularly after one or more of the same has spoken out about some prior injustice, or sought to escape being subjected to abuse by a family member. These camps apparently went on from 1975 – 1986 until people still being held were allowed to emigrate to the US.
“Vietnamese Re-Education Camps” from “VietNamWar.info.” Posted 4/17/2014 by “kubia”
Following the fall of Saigon on April 30, 1975, Vietnamese Communist government began to open hundreds of “re-education” camps throughout the country. Those camps, as Hanoi officially claimed, were places where individuals could “learn about the ways of the new government” through education and socially constructive labor.
In 1975, it was estimated that around 1 to 2.5 million people1, including former officers, religious leaders, intellectuals, merchants, employees of the old regime, and even some Communists, entered the camps in the hope that they could quickly reconcile with the new government and continued their peaceful life. However, their time in those camps did not last for ten days or two weeks as the government had claimed.
Re-education Camps Levels
The re-education camps were organized into five levels. The level-one camps which were called as study camps or day-study centers located mainly in major urban centers, often in public parks, and allowed attendees to return home each night. In those camps, some 500,000 people2 were instructed about socialism, new government policy in order to unlearn their old ways of thinking. The level-two camps had a similar purpose as the level-one, but attendees were not allowed to return home for three to six months. During the 1970s, at least 200,000 inmates entered more than three hundred level–two camps2.
The level-three re-education camps, known as the socialist-reform camps, could be found in almost every Southern Vietnam province containing at least 50,000 inmates2. Most of them were educated people and thus less susceptible to manipulation than most South Vietnamese in the level-one and two camps. Therefore, the inmates (or prisoners) in these camps had to suffer poorer living conditions, forced labor and daily communist indoctrination.
The last two types of camps were used to incarcerate more “dangerous” southern individuals – including writers, legislator teachers, supreme court judges, province chiefs – until the South was stable to permit their release. By separating members of certain social classes of the old regime, Hanoi wanted to prevent them from conducting joint resistances and forced them to conform to the new social norms. In 1987, at least 15,000 “dangerous” persons were still incarcerated level-four and level-five camps2.
Camp Conditions and Deaths
In most of the re-education camps, living conditions were inhumane. Prisoners were treated with little food, poor sanitation, and no medical care3. They were also assigned to do hard and risky work such as clearing the jungle, constructing barracks, digging wells, cutting trees and even mine field sweeping without necessary working equipments.
Although those hard work required a lot of energy, their provided food portions were extremely small. As a prisoner recall, the experience of hunger dominated every man in his camp. Food was the only thing they talked about. Even when they were quiet, food still haunted their thoughts, their sleep and their dreams. Worse still, various diseases such as malaria, beriberi and dysentery were widespread in some of the camps. As many prisoners were weakened by the lack of food, those diseases could now easily take away their lives.
Starvation diet, overwork, diseases and harshly punishment resulted in a high death rate of the prisoners. According to academic studies of American researchers, a total of 165,000 Vietnamese people died in those camps4.
The End of “Re-education” Period
Most of the re-education camps were operated until 1986 when Nguyen Van Linh became the General Secretary of the Communist Party. He began to close the harsher camps and reformed the others5. Two year later, Washington and Hanoi reached an agreement that Vietnam would free all former soldiers and officials of the old regime who were still held in re-education camps across the country and allowed them to emigrate to the United States under the Orderly Departure Program (ODP). As of August 1995, around 405,000 Vietnamese prisoners and their families were resettled in the U.S6.
– See more at: thevietnamwar.info/vietnamese-re-education-camps/..
The forced “Reunification Camps” (far less harsh, but still forced, and still designed to produce an attitude change) have their professionals willing to engage in these practices.
I think it must take a certain kind of mentality, if not personality aberrancy, to believe in this and what’s more preach about it and take in business to engage in it.
For some reason, those “Re-education camps” remind me of, though lesser in degree, the same idea as, for example, “overcoming barriers.” It’s still based on force — and who knows how many similar programs are operating around the country. As I write this, the Grazzini-Rucki runaway teens were reported (in 2016) to being re-indoctrinated to like their father (who they’d run away from as young teens), while the mother, until recently, was incarcerated for parental interference. See my more recent 2016 posts).
Here’s a sample. I see he’s from Pasadena, California (Los Angeles area). To see it in better formatting (the “copy” function sometimes removes all spaces between words!) click on link:
C. A. CHILDRESS, Psy.D.LICENSED CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGIST, PSY 18857
547 S. MARENGO DR., STE 105 • PASADENA, CA 91101 • (909) 821-5398Page 1 of 10DSM-5 Diagnosis of “ParentalAlienation”
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Why Shariah?” (Noah Feldman, at CFR), “Islam’s Double Standard” (Arthur Frederick Ides) and {No Feminine Nouns at} the Michigan Family Forum’s home (Brian Snavely): But First, Four Women…
This blog should be filed along with my ones about the Gulag Archipelago, and Bahrain Archipelago.
With respect and appreciation intended this season towards:
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Dr. Phyllis Chesler, Nonie Darwish, and Immaculee Iligibazi, who survived the Rwandan Holocaust in a cramped bathroom in a pastor’s house, although others who sometimes sought shelter in churches then, didn’t find it. In their books (I haven’t met any of these women, all activist and all authors, and all who overcame many odds and losses), and in reverse order:
-
Immaculée
Immaculée Ilibagiza was born in Rwanda and studied Electronic and Mechanical Engineering at the National University of Rwanda. Her life transformed dramatically in 1994 during the Rwanda genocide when she and seven other women huddled silently together in a cramped bathroom of a local pastor’s house for 91 days! During this horrific ordeal, Immaculée lost most of her family, but she survived to share the story and her miraculous transition into forgiveness and a profound relationship with God.
(title of page also: “From a country she loved to the horrors of genocide: A journey to understanding and forgiveness.”)
I love what I think this country stands for. I understand we are in a period — perhaps we have always engaged in this – of a different sort of “genocide” and the “genus” we are involved in eradicating is the word Mother and Woman as a functional reality in the major institutions of life — except we comply and fit in. what we are expected to fit in with is becoming nonpersons, and religious and sectarian violence against us and our children because we spoke up against violence and weren’t aware ahead of the family law system that is designed to STOP such speaking up and leaving it. As formerly it was “not without my children,” Nowadays it has become, “OK, but ONLY without your children…”
I think that story needs to be heard, too, and how having children, then losing them to systems, transformed each of us personally, and our relationships with the rest of the world, particularly any religious segments of it. If the U.S. is the BEST for women, then we are indeed in trouble throughout the world.
-
Nonie:
Nonie Darwish (Arabic: نوني درويش) (born 1949[1][2]) is an Egyptian-American human rights activist, and founder of Arabs For Israel, and is Director of Former Muslims United. She is the author of two books: Now They Call Me Infidel; Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel and the War on Terror and Cruel and Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law. Darwish’s speech topics cover human rights, with emphasis on women’s rights and minority rights in the Middle East. Born in Egypt, Darwish is the daughter of an Egyptian Army lieutenant general, who was called a “shahid” by the Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser,[3] after being killed in a targeted killing in 1956. Darwish blames “the Middle Eastern Islamic culture and the propaganda of hatred taught to children from birth” for his death. In 1978, she moved with her husband to the United States, and converted to Christianity there. After September 11, 2001 she has written on Islam-related topics.[3]
She was too outspoken. Respectable organizations headed for the hills when
By: Pratik Chougule
FrontPageMagazine.com | Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Where are the moderates of the Islamic world? The question has befuddled Americans since the September 11 attacks. Indeed, while President Bush and other leaders of the West have fervently defended Islam as a “religion of peace,” there has been a conspicuous dearth of prominent Middle Eastern leaders openly willing to criticize radical Islam or defend the United States and Israel in the War on Terrorism. A recent incident at Brown University this past November sheds light on the perplexing issue.In late November, Hillel, Brown University’s prominent Jewish group on campus, invited Nonie Darwish to give a lecture in defense of Israel and its human rights record, relative to the Islamic world.Her father, Mustafa Hafez, founded the Fedayeen, which launched raids across Israel’s southern border. When Darwish was eight years old, her father became the first targeted assassination carried out by the Israeli Defense Forces in response to Fedayeen’s attacks, making him a martyr or “shahid.” During his speech nationalizing the Suez Canal, Nasser vowed Egypt would take revenge for Hafez’s death. Nasser asked Nonie and her siblings, “Which one of you will avenge your father’s death by killing Jews?”
After his death, Darwish’s family moved to Cairo, where she attended Catholic high school and then the American University in Cairo. She worked as an editor and translator for the Middle East News Agency, until emigrating to the United States in 1978, ultimately receiving United States citizenship. After arriving in the United States, she converted from Islam to evangelical Christianity based on her belief that even American mosques preach a radical, anti-peace message. Due to her decision to convert, Darwish instantly became branded as an “apostate” in several prominent Muslim circles. After 9/11, Darwish began writing columns critical of radical Islam, and authored a book Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror. She is also the founder of the organization Arabs for Israel, which pledges, “respect and support the State of Israel,” welcome a “peaceful and diverse Middle East,” reject “suicide/homicide terrorism as a form of Jihad,” and promote “constructive self-criticism and reform” in the Islamic world.
When Hillel announced its decision to invite Darwish to speak, the Brown University Muslim Students’ Association promptly insisted that Hillel rescind the invitation. Their reasoning: Darwish is “too controversial.” Similarly, the Sarah Doyle’s Women’s Center, which Hillel had contacted to cosponsor the event given Darwish’s advocacy of women’s rights, refused to support the lecture.
After a brief period of internal debate, Hillel buckled to the pressure and withdrew its invitation. In an open letter explaining the decision, Hillel cited a “desire to maintain constructive relationships” with the Muslim Students Association. Inviting Darwish, they argue, “would not be a prudent method of Israel advocacy.” Defending the decision, one member of Hillel stated that Jews “should be especially sensitive about comments which criticize strict religious observance and deem it unacceptable in America.” This member was particularly concerned that his Muslim peers “were extremely offended by this characterization of them as ‘extremists.’”
Amidst a flurry of negative press, including stories in the New York Post,
National Review Online, and the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, the University moved into damage-control mode.
A woman, presumably Brown student, responds in the Daily Herald (newsletter) “Nathalie Alyon ’06: Nonie non grata?“:
The recent Nonie Darwish cancellation betrays Brunonian* values
Published: Thursday, November 30, 2006
{**a.k.a. “Brown,” give me a break with the language, eh?}
I was shocked to read a Jewish Telegraphic Agency report that Nonie Darwish, a Palestinian peace activist, would not be speaking at Brown because the Muslim Student Association, the Muslim chaplain and the Office of the Chaplains and Religious Life are afraid what she has to say is controversial (“Free speech controversy builds as pro-Israel speech canceled at Brown,” Nov. 20). What happened to the Brown I know and love, the haven of liberal education that encourages free thought and debate? Apparently, we have turned into a university easily intimidated when the subject matter gets sensitive.
And, may I add, possibly when the speaker is also female… (and a mother at the time, I think)….
What about Darwish is so offensive to Muslims that Hillel students decided to cancel her appearance to avoid jeopardizing the wonderful relationship between Jewish and Muslim groups on campus? …
Are the Muslim Student Association and the Muslim chaplain not willing to face the reality that there are people using Islam to incite violence, promote terrorism and spread hate across the world? Would they rather keep things simple, inhale hookah smoke with a couple of Jews in the name of multiculturalism and call it a day?
I think the answer there is self-evident….
Now that we know who is not allowed to speak on campus, let’s take a look at some events that have taken place
Good. This young woman (presumably) is on the right track to feminism {a.k.a. females speaking their minds} in the real world…
By the way, isn’t Nonie Darwish (along with President Obama) a PURRRfect example of what risk any fatherless child is of teen pregnancy, runaway, drug use, etc. Look at her disgraceful track record, educationally, and as to contributions to this world. What a burden on society.
(my point being — WARS, too, help make fatherlessness; don’t blame the Mamas!)
She also got silenced at Princeton and Columbia — so mothers silenced in the courts are perhaps in good company? Granted, both quotes from known conservative ezines (exception the BrownDaily, which I don’t know about). But it kinda makes you wonder, eh?
…
Nonie Darwish, the executive director of Former Muslims United and author of Cruel And Usual Punishment: The Terrifying Global Implications of Islamic Law, was scheduled to speak at Columbia and Princeton last week, but both events were canceled under pressure from Muslim groups on campus.
Darwish, a soft-spoken ex-Muslim and daughter of an Islamic martyr, is a champion of the rights of women and non-Muslims in Islamic societies, and leader of the group Arabs for Israel. She had been planning to speak on “Sharia Law and Perspectives on Israel.” She is one of the few courageous voices who speak out against Islamic anti-Semitism and the oppression of women under Sharia.
She is eminently qualified to speak about this, having lived it. Her education is fine. It’s the topic which is politically incorrect even in “liberal” circles..
At Princeton, she was invited three weeks ago and was scheduled to speak last Wednesday. But on Tuesday evening, Arab Society president Sami Yabroudi and former president Sarah Mousa issued a joint statement, claiming: “Nonie Darwish is to Arabs and Muslims what Ku Klux Klan members, skinheads and neo-Nazis are to other minorities, and we decided that the role of her talk in the logical, intellectual discourse espoused by Princeton University needed to be questioned.”
??Character assassination, sounds like to me… Good grief, here’s a Princeton Commentary on it:
Darwish herself, who has never advocated violence against anyone, pointed to this unfounded moral equivalence to neo-Nazism as “the worst kind of intimidation and character assassination aimed at those who dare to question, analyze, or criticize.” And she found it ironic that while her punishment for speaking out as an apostate against Islam’s worst practices was silence at Princeton, it would be death under Sharia law.
But more than the issue of free speech, the scandal has exposed in the religious community a problematic link between faith and politics, one that is the root of any inter-religious conflict. When asked if the religion of Islam were inseparable from politics, Imam Sultan explained, “There are a whole host of theories on how Islam can interact with politics, from the least imposing to the most imposing ways. I find myself agreeing more with the former, but I cannot deny that it is a source of great debate and difference of opinion among Muslims.”
(in “Censored: The Politics behind silencing Nonie Darwish” (Dec. 09, in “THE PRINCETON TORY A JOURNAL OF CONSERVATIVE AND MODERATE THOUGHT)
Yesterday, I completed a QNA with the National Review about honor killings/”honorcides” which appears there today and which you may readHERE. I also did a long interview with a major new service on the subject which is slated to appear tomorrow. Like many other wire services and like the mainstream media, ideas such as mine are usually sidelined, marginalized, attacked, or simply “disappeared.” I do not think this will happen tomorrow.
And now, I have a number of honorable allies. One surely is NOW-New York State President, Marcia Pappas who is now also being attacked for her having linked the Buffalo beheading with “honor killings,” with “Islam,” and even with “Islamic terrorism.” Indeed, she was attacked yesterday by a coalition of eight domestic violence victim advocacy providers in Erie County where the Buffalo beheading took place. I quickly posted a blog which dealt with this, (it deserves a longer piece), but I mainly praised the recent rally in London which was sponsored by One Law For All.
Lo and Behold: A second honorable ally wrote to me. I want to share what he said. His name is Khalim Massoud, and he is the President of Muslims Against Sharia Law, an international organization. After reading my most recent blog HERE, he wrote me as follows:
“There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that (the) Buffalo beheading is a honorcide. We, Muslims Against Sharia, prefer this term to honor murder. Beheading is not just a murder, it’s a ritual. It’s a form of control and humiliating a family member who “stepped over the line,” in this case, wife taking out a TRO (order of protection) and planning to divorce her husband.
Ms. Pappas must be commended for her courage to call a spade a spade. (The) PC-climate presents considerable danger for future honorcide victims. Trying to sweep cultural/religious aspects of honorcide under the rug keeps the problem from being addressed. While most of the media wouldn’t touch the issue with a ten-foot pole, (for) fear they would be portrayed as Islamophobic, a few brave women, the true feminists, like Marcia Pappas and Phyllis Chesler are speaking out on the subject just to be slammed by so-called victim advocacy groups because they dare to expose Islamism’s dirty laundry. Muslim women in America are at great risk because Muslim establishment, with help of the media, wants to portray honorcide as fiction.
Honorcide has no place in the modern world, but especially in the West. It must be forcefully confronted; not written off as domestic violence. Almost a year ago, MASH started STOP HONORCIDE! initiative. The goal is to have honorcide classified as a hate crime. The Buffalo case is a perfect example why honorcide should be a hate crime. The suspect is being charged with the 2nd degree murder. If honorcide were classified as a hate crime, he’d be charged with the 1st degree murder.”
Khalim Massoud
President
Muslims Against Sharia
OK, now again briefly (since I mentioned above), Ayaan Hirsi Ali:
Again, I find it a little disconcerting she is a scholar at a conservative think-tank also known to have “fatherhood” advocacy within its ranks… (AEI.org).
Biography
We were on our front yard of white sand. It was a hot day, like almost all days in Mogadishu. There was nothing unusual about the flies that irritated us or the ants that I avoided for fear of their sharp, agonizing bites. If they happened to crawl under my dress or I sat on them accidentally they would punish me with a sting that made me shriek with pain. That shrieking and hopping about would earn disapproval and even a slap from Grandmother.
I think I was 6 or 7 on that day, maybe younger, but I know I was not 8 because my family had not yet left Somalia. Grandmother was moralizing as usual. On that day, like all other days, she was admonishing me to remember my place.
There was yet another thing I did wrong and I did not have the ability to set right. If only I wasn’t so dimwitted; if only I understood how I was to blame for the flaw that granny abhorred so much.“Cross your legs,” she said, “lower your gaze. You must learn not to laugh, and if you must laugh then see to it that you don’t cackle like the neighbor’s hen.” We had no chickens but the noise of the neighbors’ hens screeching and hooting and trespassing was enough for me to get the message.
“If you must go outside make sure you are accompanied and that you and your company walk as far away from men as possible,” she said.
To my grandmother’s annoyance, I responded with the question: “But Grandmother, what about Mahad?” My brother Mahad never seemed to invite this kind of endless preaching from Grandmother. She answered me like the obtuse child she decided I was.
“Mahad is a man! Your misfortune is that you were born with a split between your legs. And now, we the family must cope with that reality!”
I thought: There was yet another thing I did wrong and I did not have the ability to set right. If only I wasn’t so dimwitted; if only I understood how I was to blame for the flaw that granny abhorred so much.
“Ayaan, you are stubborn, you are reckless and you ask too many questions. That is a fatal combination. Disobedience in women is crushed and you are disobedient. It is in you, it is in your bone marrow. I can only attempt to tell you what is right.”
Grandmother pointed to a piece of sheep fat on the ground. It was covered with ants, and flies were zooming above it, landing on it, sucking it. It was a vile piece of meat that was being warmed by the sun, and a trickle of fat seeped out of it. She said: “You are like that piece of sheep fat in the sun. If you transgress, I warn you men will be no more merciful to you than those flies and ants are to that piece of fat.”
A lot has changed in my life since those days in the sun with Grandmother. Today when I look back I see that I have proven her wrong. I disobeyed, true to my nature, I transgressed, but I avoided the destiny of the sheep fat.
Sitting in an airplane, I have on my lap the memoir of Nujood Ali. The title of the book is “I Am Nujood, Age 10 and Divorced.” My reading list contains another book, by Elizabeth Gilbert. It is called “Eat, Pray, Love: One Woman’s Search for Everything Across Italy, India and Indonesia.” The reason I associate the two books is because of their description of marriage and divorce, and particularly the word “painful.”
Nujood was 8 years old when a delivery man approached her father in Sana, Yemen. After the initial expression of hospitality, the delivery man stated his business: He was looking for a wife. Nujood’s two older sisters were already married, so she was the logical bride, regardless of her age. Her father accepted $750 in dowry money and gave away his 8-year-old daughter. When Nujood’s mother and sisters appealed to him, pleading that she was too young to get married, the father responded with the excuse used by all Muslim fathers who marry off their daughters before they come of age: “Too young? When the Prophet wed Aisha she was only 9.”
In fact, Muhammad wed Aisha when she was 6. According to Scripture, the Prophet waited for Aisha to begin menstruating before consummating the marriage. Nujood’s new husband, Faez, showed no such restraint.
In painful detail, Nujood describes a real nightmare on her wedding night: How she runs away, how she seeks help, how she struggles, how he touches her and she wriggles out of his arms, how she calls out to her mother- in-law. “Aunty,” she screams, “somebody help me!” But there was silence. She describes how he gets hold of her, his awful smell, a mixture of tobacco and onions. She recounts the childish threat she makes–“I will tell my father”–and the husband’s reply: “You can tell your father whatever you like. He signed the marriage contract, he gave me permission to marry you.”
From the time Nujood was able to gather her wits about her she set about planning her escape. The story is recommended reading for anyone who seriously wants to understand what Muslim women can be subjected to.
In Yemen, Nujood’s father, her husband, the judges, the policemen and the broader society–with the exception of a very few–view her situation as normal. And Yemen is by no means unique.
When I turn to Elizabeth Gilbert’s description of a painful divorce it becomes clear to me what feminism has accomplished in the West. Gilbert decides to divorce her husband not because he was forced upon her, but because there is something intangible that he cannot give her. She chose to marry him. Every decision she made was voluntary: to marry him, to buy property with him, even to try for a child. Yet still she felt unfulfilled.
The deep sense of dissatisfaction leads her to abandon her marriage, the life of a privileged woman. She goes to Italy to find a piece of herself, the pleasure of eating. She goes to India to find another piece of herself: the pleasure of devotion. In Indonesia she finds yet another piece of herself: the balance between the pleasures of eating and praying. In India she finds a guru who answers her spiritual needs.
Gilbert’s story shows what feminism can achieve elsewhere, especially in the Muslim world.
But her story also demonstrates something else. Those women in the West who, like Gilbert, have harvested what the early feminists fought for have almost no affinity for women like Nujood–and like me when I was a little girl.
This is not to pass judgment on Gilbert. On the contrary, I admire her intellectual honesty and her pursuit of self-knowledge. The woman I have become in the West now feels closer to the Gilberts of this world than the Nujoods. But I find myself asking as I read these two books: What can current Western feminism offer the Nujoods?
I often am asked by my Western audiences: “Where did feminism go wrong?” I think the answer is staring us in the face. Western feminism hasn’t gone wrong at all–it has accomplished its mission so completely that a woman like Elizabeth Gilbert can marry freely and then leave her husband equally freely, purely in order to pursue her own culinary and religious inclinations. The victory of feminism allows women like Gilbert to shape their own destinies.
But there is a price for this victory: The price is a solipsism so complete that a great many Western women have lost the ability to empathize with women not only in the Islamic world, but also in China, India and other countries; women whose suffering takes forms that are now largely unknown in the West, save in the ghettos of immigrants. They are too busy hunting for the perfect prayer mat or pasta to give two hoots about a case of child-rape in Yemen.
The best we can hope for is not for the West to invade other countries in the hope of emancipating their women. That is neither realistic nor desirable (and remains our least plausible war aim in Afghanistan).
The best we can hope for is a neo-feminism that reminds women in the West of the initial phases of their liberation movement.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Reader Quiz — What Decade Were These Stories? About Fathers..
My last post (Luzerne County) was at least a triple-header, ending with some emotion over a mother of three who has taken her case to the international level in disgrace at the U.S. treatment of her civil rights.
I am changed as I blog also. Maybe it’s just another bunch of incidents to you, but to me, I learn and expand the context of this system, look at its history, reflect when compared with my immediate reality and acquired readings.
What I learned — yesterday — is this: Restraining orders are not enforceable, and probably never were. IF a police officer wishes to arrest, or needs to, the RO may make his job easier. But if he or she witnessed a violation of it, and does NOT wish to arrest, the protected person has no entitlement to that arrest, no matter whose life is at risk. Now that “Castle Rock v. Gonzales” has gone to the Supreme Court and been turned back, it is being quoted in similar cases to protect the officers (not the women or children). While most of government’s operations are self-justified on providing services and protection to the populace, who they are diligently training to expect this from them (and not from within or their local communities). This is closer to feudalism, serfdom, and monarchy.
U.S., Rome, or the British Empire?
It’s time to expose the truths that in the United States of America, and have moved from being “the colonies” (with the colonized populations that came along, or were removed from their lands during westward expansion) to being colonized (if not virtually cannibalized) by our own elected leaders, many who have some real “bad attitudes” towards those they are supposed to represent and serve. Power tends to congregate with power, and unless it’s kept in check, will simply continue to do so, justifying it with manipulation and manufactured “needs.”
- (#1) we are closer to monarchy then ever before, and willingly/passively in more denial of it also, and
- (#2) that this emperor has no clothes has been known for a long time; but the tacit “Bread-and-circuses” agreement to pretend we don’t know, is wearing as thin as the “social services” provided by the superstructure. and
- (#3) in a country such as the U.S., with this Constitution elected officials are sworn with an oath to uphold, the pretense that in practice we are actually OPERATING as a republic (not democracy) is even more deceptive.
Who has the bread, the weapons, and the supply lines to the decision-makers? Who’s issuing the propaganda? That’s the power base. As of about 1980, 1991 (creation of the Health & Human Services/Administration for Children and Families Dept./Operational Div. in the Executive Branch of Government of which the CEO is our President), the fields of propagation (family design) and the downward to Head Start & Home Visitation (education) up through university (foundations sponsoring studies and institutes, often regarding fatherhood and marriage, and the entire work force) have gone from idolizing motherhood (while tolerating beating mothers) and, in response to mothers getting OUT of some of that (feminism/violence against women movement, battered shelters, etc.) to scapegoating single mothers on welfare (for being on welfare), (see bottom of my post), to simply eliminating the word mother from association with the word “family” or “children.”
This is starting to resemble the planned production of human beings from womb to tomb, with the aide of pharmaceutics, apparently, and mental health professionals to categorize and drug the dissidents, which any mother in her right mind would be when she’s been beaten in the home, or terrorized there (or for attempting to leave it) and has noticed — which is what mothers do — the effect of this on her children. They are educated to subjugation and only to the level of their intended place in a fully managed society.
When I say “womb” to “tomb,” I do mean just that . . . . It’s being studied and categorized, and one major database is at ICPSR below. Fertility, lethality, and population studies in 3 urban centers (Chicago, Boston, San Antonia, TX).
Those “in” and cooperate on the planning and distribution of this will prosper, while the supply lasts, and receive government grants and contracts in abundance, which will then compromise them from informing the subject matter (human beings) what the overall plan is. For example
- HQ in Denver: PSI (“policy-studies.com” is the URL, “Performance, Services, Integrity” is the motto)
- Under Child Support Enforcement (one of the 3 major “solutions” area they outsource):
- Noncustodial Parent Programs (“Through our innovative approach, PSI can help increase your collections and improve results for families. Our NCP program expertise extends across the following areas”)
- Case management and community resource referrals
- Enhanced child support services
- Employment and training assistance
- Peer support for NCPs
- Parenting and conflict resolution classes
- Access and visitation services
- Mediation services
- Mental health and substance abuse referrals
- Legal referrals
- Noncustodial Parent Programs (“Through our innovative approach, PSI can help increase your collections and improve results for families. Our NCP program expertise extends across the following areas”)
- Under Child Support Enforcement (one of the 3 major “solutions” area they outsource):
- HQ in Los Angeles: AFCC (“Association of Family & Conciliation Courts“)
- AFCC brings together members of multiple disciplines in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, from all over the world. As a nonprofit professional association, AFCC is unique because members do not share a common profession. Instead, AFCC members share a strong commitment to education, innovation and collaboration in order to benefit communities, empower families and promote a healthy future for children.
- “History of Innovation and Positive Change”For more than 45 years, AFCC and its members have served as a catalyst for generating major reforms. Dispute resolution processes such as child custody mediation, parenting coordination, and divorce education are just a few of the innovative ideas developed by AFCC members. AFCC developed Models Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediators, Child Custody Evaluators and Parenting Coordinators. Task forces and special projects address the ongoing challenges faced by AFCC members and the families they serve. AFCC actively disseminates innovations and ideas {“Parental Alienation, anyone? Mandatory mediation, anyone? Shared parenting, presumption anyone?”} to its members. The ripple effect can be seen in courts and communities throughout the world. {ONE of those stories I copy at length, below, in blue. The ripple effect was most definitely felt, and you can read about it, below.}
- HQ in Denver: what I call “CPR” (Center or Policy Research) [Since 1981, 6 women, only!]
- Childcare and Education;
- Child Support;
- Child Welfare;
- Court Services;
- Health and Medical Issues;
- Incarceration and Reentry;
- Mediation and Alternative Dispute Resolution;
- Fatherhood and Child Access;
- Poverty; and
- Violence and Intimate Partner Violence.
- (OH, and CPR’ssttreamlined connection Connection with Feds:likely HHS & DOJ depts:
- “To make contracting with CPR easier for federal government clients, CPR is a Management, Organizational and Business Improvement Services (MOBIS) and U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) contract”
- In Ann Arbor, MI: “ICPSR” (Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, since 1962 ) Member universities/institutions HERE:
-
ICPSR partners with several federal statistical agencies and foundations to provide access to their data resources.
- search on CPR person “Jessica Pearson” – 1 study (listed below, this is link to it)
-
-
Study Design: Data collection involved a collaboration with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) in the administration and analysis of this survey. Court programs providing divorce mediation and/or custody evaluations in 1993 were targeted. The questionnaire was mailed in late 1993 to 200 institutional members of the AFCC and active providers of family and divorce services in the National Center for State Courts database. A total of 149 public-sector divorce mediation and custody/visitation counseling providers responded with information on their official policies and procedures for identifying domestic violence among the population served, and divorce mediation practices and policies in cases with allegations of spousal violence. Sample: Institutional members of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and active family and divorce service providers from the National Center for State Courts database.
-
- search on CPR person “Thoennes” — 5 studies:
-
20358 Integrated Approaches to Manage Multi-Case Families in the Criminal Justice System in Maricopa County, Arizona, and Deschutes and Jackson Counties, Oregon, 1999-2005
Thoennes, Nancy2005
3142 Role of Stalking in Domestic Violence Crime Reports Generated by the Colorado Springs Police Department, 1998
Tjaden, Patricia; Thoennes, Nancy1998
2566 Violence and Threats of Violence Against Women and Men in the United States, 1994-1996
Tjaden, Patricia; Thoennes, Nancy1996
2561 Divorce Mediation and Domestic Violence in the United States, 1993
Pearson, Jessica1993
3542 Evaluating a Collaborative Intervention Between Health Care and Criminal Justice in Harris County, Texas, 2001-2002
McFarlane, Judith; Malecha, Ann2002
-
-
Did I mention that Jessica Pearson is also (per some sources) a founding member of the AFCC, if not also CRC?
- In fact AFCC, CRC, CPR, PSI, HHS funded studies, and conclusions that MOST of our nation’s real poverty, inner-city, crime & juvenile delinquency problems is simply the ration of sex/conception/marriage, i.e., too few fathers (as opposed to, poor-quality fathers) in the home, and that the solution to this is through seamlessly blending mental health services with child support services, with the legal process — tend to congregate around similar key players.
- Don’t believe me? See RandiJames’ “The List“ or Liz Richards pointing this out in 1993 “Fathers Rights and corrupt judicial cronies,” or again, in 2010, to the House Ways & Means Committee (found at House.gov, this committee, June 17, 2010 hearings, on left side), or an indignant “Fathers Battling Injustice” 2001 complaint “Liz Richards Hates Fathers with a Passion, which provides (if you scroll down) a good listing of key players and their interrelationships — including those on the CRC (Children’s Rights Council) 501(c)3 incorporation papers, and tying into others pushing mediation and Gardner’s “PAS” philosophies through the courts. I’ll try to upload that listing….
Around 1998, a disgruntled grandfather — and CPA — started tracking some of the founding documents of this AFCC, and has something to say about the money trail related to Jessica Pearson of CPR, and AFCC, who weems to be (with others) women of some real foresight and planning, and ingenuity in desgining systems — and evading tax accountability. THIS is listed UNDER “Is Justice for sale in L.A.” a.k.a. at “johnnypumphandle.com”
-
- :Mr. Bryer’s Tort Claim of 1998. You can hear his tone of indignation and upset, and he flat-out calls this Mafia, RICO, money-laundering, etc. The people he is talking about are listed in part, above. I doubt if he ever got justice, or compensation (let alone more discovery), but at least me blew the whistle!. People who want to “reform” the courts ought to at least read the material. OR, they could go back and try to reason more with a professional that may or may not be one of these type of conspirators from long ago. The system remains, I’m pretty well deducing at this point.
- Another take on AFCC et al.: He’s not talking psychology or sociology, but money, IRS, EIN#s and incorporations…
- DESCRIPTION: The ACCUSED ( by this complaint) are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.The crime ring is an underground Mafia that posed as the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – by using the FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927. In recent dramatic announcements, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has informed me that the EIN or FEIN number assigned to the latest version of the organization – the – LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – is an EIN that was not assigned to the organization. It Is a COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EIN!
I previously attempted to get this discovery – in the lawsuit BRYER vs PENTONEY – but 298 judges and commissioners in LOS ANGELES were disqualified on a ruse orchestrated by JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER – a ring leader of the scheme. JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER’S name is on the signature card of BANK OF AMERICA account listed under the name LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EIN 95-6000927.
I was forced into the corrupt county – ORANGE COUNTY – where a co-conspirator named JAMES P. GRAY told me he would throw me in jail if I tried to make any more discoveries. FEARING FOR MY LIFE in a county that is FOREIGN to me – I dismissed my case without prejudice and continued to seek discovery away from the strength of ORANGE COUNTYCONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN. In California – the organization filed as a CIVIC LEAGUE – Revenue and Tax Code 23701g. A CONCILIATION COURT is NOT A CIVIC LEAGUE. The exemption certificate was mailed to a lawyer named Michael Aaronson at P.O. Box 1055, San Carlos California 94070. The STATE 3500 papers states the organization was to improve marriage counseling. However, conciliation court is a STATUTORILY mandated function of the COURT – not a private corporation for lying and thieving judges and their court staff. The income was alleged to be derived from dues and contributions. In reality, the funds came from laundering legal education money through the COURT CONCILIATION DEPARTMENT through the FINANCE DEPARTMENT.
In an incredible BREACH – a Judge from Detroit Michigan was listed as the Second Vice President His name is Victor J. Baum. The corporation number is 576876. I have no record of what EIN they used.
In 1981 – I presume their bank account was still open and they created a new identity called the Association of Family Conciliation Courts. [CPR, above, dates to 1981 also as a nonprofit] This time – Margaret Little – FAMILY COURT SERVICES for LOS ANGELES, and a Colorado individual named Jessica Pearson orchestrated yet another version of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCHEME. Pearson borrowed the EIN of the WISCONSIN AFCC and claimed her office was in Colorado as an ILLINOIS corporation. The LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE became PEARSON’S and Dr MARGARET LITTLE’S California – FOREIGN – CORPORATION.
- (WI, Colorado, L.A. and IL if you can keep up with that…)
- I just found a strange, but possibly corroborating 1986 document, the “February 1986 Newsletter of the Alabama Court News, “Newsletter of the Alabama Judicial System” On page 3, it reads, under headline: “Federal Grant funds Sexual Abuse Study:
-
“The Research Unit of the …(AFCC) and the American Bar Association have been awarded a grant from the federal dept. of Human Development Services* to study sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases. The goal of the study is to find how court officials [such as…?] are presently handling such matters, identify preferred procedures, and develop educational materials on the subject.” “Court officials [sic] desiring to participate in the study should contact AFCC at the following address:
-
- Ms. Jessica Pearson
- AFCC/Research Unit, ?720 Emerson St. Denver, CO 80218
- (303) 837-1555
-
- [Wow… Preferred procedures for handling sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases, such as — Gardner’s theories? They want to educate judges how to rule?] Also – it says since 1981 — at that address:]
-
[*Note: the HUGE “HHS that now dispenses welfare, child support, medicare, head start funds, and sometimes is the largest (as to expenses) Exec Branch Dept — was formed in 1991, as I recall. This is 5 years earlier).
- DESCRIPTION: The ACCUSED ( by this complaint) are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.The crime ring is an underground Mafia that posed as the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – by using the FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927. In recent dramatic announcements, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has informed me that the EIN or FEIN number assigned to the latest version of the organization – the – LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – is an EIN that was not assigned to the organization. It Is a COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EIN!
- In fact the information arm is one of the most important, to quell rebellion before it gets going.
Maybe Rome went down because of lead in the pipes, or maybe some “karma” (or god) just got sick of all the slaughter for entertainment. Ever read about what happened in that Colosseum?
Back to this millennium — and the last decades
of the last one (1980-2010). In re: marriage, abuse, divorce, custody..
And the concept of “protection from abuse” or “restraining orders” as if they were NOT certifiably insane, as to fulfilling their supposed purpose of protecting or restraining.
While the literature tends to focus on, “it’s just a piece of paper and can’t stop a bullet,” the ones we REALLY can’t count on are the arresting officers. It’s an additional component of Russian Roulette that a woman can’t afford. And suing for any sort of damages on the basis of, they had a duty to protect, a procedural due process right to the victim, a substantive due process right to the victim, or in short, any consequences that “absolute judicial immunity” or the 11th amendment wouldn’t make LEGALLY protected (let alone the practical aspects) — they don’t, and probably never did.
Some judges are crooked — I don’t know how many. Some attorneys are also, and get nailed on RICO like the Luzerne judges did, RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations“) being a criminal enterprise. There’s a case I may post out of suburban Chicago (older) where the husband (an attorney) did murder for hire, but not until he’d conspired in advance to wire-tap (jealous), someone had been prepared to dispose of the body (i.e., of his wife) and someone had been prepared to obstruct the investigation. (Alan & Dianne G. Masters, West Suburban Chicago, 1982 she disappears~ 1988 RICO charges)
As RICO does require some organizational skills, and Masters had already been engaged in other forms of crime, all the players to add murder-for-hire to this were in place, and he didn’t resist the temptation to engage, showing us to drop our illusions that every person in public office, or in positions of power, influence, and with access to streams of $$ isn’t per se there for service. Some are, some aren’t. And the ones that aren’t would be normally attracted to people in compromised situations (like a troublesome traffic ticket, an illegal enterprise of their own, or divorcing with children from a frighteningly dangerous spouse who’s already committed some crimes against your body, or your child’s). This attorney was acting more like a pimp with a stable, and some affiliate marekting reps in uniform. Maybe he liked the thrill of the danger and risk (one sees definite business skills that migh twork just as well in legal activities) or maybe it was simple greed.
It didn’t save her life, and no one was ever charged for murder, but the three “perps” got caught on racketeering and put away for a good many years, and fined. Oh yeah, and he had a $100,000 life insurance policy on his wife also.
So are some officers. And some are good. – – – – that’s just life. Why, then, (though) when women come for help, were they then (1990s) and now (2000s) doling out protection from abuse orders as if they were reliably enforceable? They aren’t. They’re real good at getting men angry though.
~ ~ ~ ~I can’t put my story up (or too much of it). But it’s been so many years in this system here. My infrastructure is repeatedly broken down, year after year, and access to things like transportation, (sometimes food), internet, health care (uninsured presently) just shouldn’t be.
~ ~ ~ ~If you have not been in a situation similar to the one I’m about to post (the part below is summary of her judicial proceedings after deciding to leave– having gotten a real severe beating (while naked), a threat for another, having had a young daughter molested by a visiting stepson, her husband was no inner city young black male, but a nasty computer analyst who’d (it turned out) abused his first wife, too.
~ ~ ~ ~Sleep deprivation is a factor and technique of weakening someone (I know). Attack on personal private parts (ditto). Rules almost uniformly designed to remove one’s humanity, with severe punishment for falling short (and they’re impossible to fulfil) with no rule for him. . . . .Having to choose which child you can do more to protect, potentially sacrificing something important for the other. Having your strength or skills as a professional work against you post-divorce. Historic revisionism (no remorse or acknowledgement of injury, and of course the father was the real caretaker all those years). Health care professionals treating injuries and not really asking questions. Your kids watching the assaults.
I’ll pick up this story mid-stream. See if you recognize the characters: judge, psychologists, attorneys (#1, 2, and 3), theme of supervised visitation, and her knowledge that if she requested it, he’d go for custody, professionals continually minimizing the situation and playing their own games . . . all too familiar.
I want to say something about “stories.” THEY HELPED ME while I was in the abusive relationship. One of the cruelest things is the isolation and dealing with the man’s anger when he perceives you may be connecting with someone who might validate or connect with you, and to whom you might report. You might get out, but there also may (or may not) be retaliation for doing so. Or you might be put through hell beforehand, so you get out, in public, in trauma, shaking, or in shock. One trick pulled frequently in our home (with kids) was I’d have enough gas in the car to get there (when a car was available) but not enough to get back. Hearing of women who got out HELPED me. If nothing else, to feel less guilty.
I pick up the story mid-stream, and admit that I am exhausted today.
Overall, I found the lawyers and psychologists very self–promoting and egotistical. It seemed as if everyone was having a good time, playing the game of litigation and psychology. All the while, my life was on the line. My children and I did not matter. I also felt like the lawyers and psychologists were running a cash register business at my expense. They were a lot more interested in my money than my welfare. The first two years of my divorce proceedings cost me more than twenty–five thousand dollars.
As incredible as it might sound, the judge who heard my custody case had an outstanding protective order against him by his ex–wife. I also sensed very strongly that the judge did not like me. For these reasons, I told my lawyer I wanted to seek the judge’s recusal. My lawyer dismissed me, saying, “You’ll just get someone worse.”
@ @ @ @ @Z
I probably never would have gotten Daniel back, except that Russ’s live–in girlfriend (with whom he is still living) contacted the children’s psychologist to report that he was abusing Daniel. This was four or five months after Russ had gained custody of Daniel. I think the girlfriend made her revelation partly because I had told her that Russ was planning to seek full custody of Elizabeth, too. Russ was not really taking care of the kids; the girlfriend was. When she learned that he would be going after Elizabeth too, she said, “WHAT???!!!” I think she cared about the children and knew that Russ’s having custody would be harmful and dangerous for them, plus, I doubt she was interested in being the caretaker for both kids.
After learning about Russ’s abuse of Daniel, I immediately went to my lawyer (Lawyer #3), demanding an immediate petition for a change of custody. He said we could not seek a modification of custody because it was too soon. He said, “Let the ink dry on the judge’s custody order.” That was the last straw and I fired him.
I got a new lawyer and a new psychologist. I recorded a telephone conversation with Russ’s girlfriend about the abuse of Daniel. Russ’s girlfriend was subpoenaed, and because of the recording, I knew––and Russ knew––that the abuse of Daniel would come out. Even if Russ intimidated her into changing her testimony, I think he knew that the tape was credible.
Faced with a situation he could not win, Russ folded. He agreed to a modification and I regained custody of Daniel. I grabbed at the chance to get custody back, even though I had to agree that Russ could have unsupervised visitation with the children. I knew Russ would never agree to supervised visitation. I did not want, and could not pay for, another long, drawn–out battle in court. Besides, based on what I had seen, I did not want to risk what a judge might do.
As far as I am concerned, Russ agreed to the change of custody to save face. No one in authority ever held him accountable for his abuse. People in authority, like the judge and the psychologists, always supported him and held a good opinion of him. Russ wanted to maintain his good image at all costs. By giving up custody of Daniel without a fight, he could avoid the public humiliation of being outed as an abuser.
He portrayed the custody change to the children as a sacrifice he was making because he loved them so much. “This is what’s best for you,” he said. Once again, he took no responsibility for doing anything wrong in abusing Daniel. He showed no remorse.
Even after I had custody of both kids, Russ continued to engage in repeated violations of my protective order through phone harassment and stalking. Additionally, his son, Chip, was there unsupervised when the kids visited Russ. Apparently, though, Chip did not abuse either child further.
@ @ @ @
C. Attitudes Need to Change More than the Law
Domestic violence law is certainly far better than it has been in the past. We have seen progress in the legislative, [77] judicial, [78] and executive [79] arenas. Positive legislative reform is on–going, though there is a backlash as well, driven primarily by the Fathers’ Rights movement. [80]
Changes in the law are important. With better law, good people (judges, police, etc.) can do more and bad ones are limited in the harm they can cause. Law can also have an educational effect. A judge or police officer who initially resists laws and policies that are appropriate for domestic violence cases may ultimately come to see their value.
Mary’s story shows, however, that the primary problem is not with the law but with the human beings who interpret and administer it. The legal system betrayed Mary, but not because it lacked the power to act differently. The judges, psychologists, and lawyers could have protected Mary and her children. They could have understood woman battering, or made a point of educating themselves about it. They could have let go of their stereotypes about what batterers and their victims “look like” and how they act. They could have reexamined their values, under which abuse of Mom is irrelevant to Dad’s fitness as a parent. The list continues indefinitely.
Mary’s custody judge easily had the power to find that full custody with Mary was in the children’s “best interest” [81] and that Russ’s visitation had to be supervised. [82] The judge could have warned Russ, not Mary, that he had to be on his best behavior or he would lose even supervised visitation. The judge could have ordered Russ to undergo batterers’ counseling as a precondition for even supervised visitation. [83]
My point is simple: this did not have to happen. Without in any way ignoring or bending the law, Mary, the children––and Russ––could have been dealt with appropriately. Mary and her children, especially Daniel, may pay for the system’s sexism, ignorance, and indifference for a lifetime. And, as Mary says, society pays too when the aftermath of abuse spills out, as it often will, beyond the family.
@ @ @ @
F. Any “Solution” Not Based on Battered Women’s Experiences
Is Doomed to Failure
We cannot know what to do about domestic violence unless we listen to survivors’ stories. In them are the keys to solutions. Battered women and formerly battered women are telling us what works and what does not. People with professional training can help, but only if their actions and recommendations are based on what battered women and formerly battered women say. [116]
Women like Mary tell us that mediation, joint custody, and couples counseling can be terrible for battered women, [117] yet certain professionals continue to advocate for these things in domestic violence cases. [118] Their arguments, however, are from the viewpoint of the mediator or the system, not the battered woman and her children. [119] Women’s safety concerns are either not addressed or minimized. [120]
Proponents of mediation in domestic violence cases express a near–magical belief in mediation and mediators. They believe that the mediator can tell when mediation is not appropriate or when it should be stopped [121] (another example of the helper’s ego surfacing). Sadly, the only expertise that seems to count is the mediator’s. Battered women’s expertise does not seem to matter. [122]
Sometimes, it seems that battered women’s voices are getting more and more lost. The field has become professionalized, [123] semi–respectable, [124] and partially funded. [125] There has been a parallel tendency to turn the focus away from the victims and toward the professionals. [126]
I do not want to be misunderstood here. I have absolutely no nostalgia for the “good old days” when shelters did not exist or led threadbare existences, and when a professor who wanted to teach Domestic Violence would have been laughed off campus. I have been doing domestic violence work far too long for such foolishness. I relish the voice, the power, and even the respectability that our movement has achieved. But people who really care about battered women must remain ever vigilant against those whose solutions come from their own professional experience and not from victims’ lives.
@ @ @
As a mother and wife, I absolutely agree that families need rules. Nothing is sadder than a house where “anything goes” and there are no rules; everyone is unhappy, especially the children. [131] Nor do I think that every rule, even if somewhat imposed by one family member over others, is abusive.
But rules are different in a batterer’s house. They are never negotiated; they are always imposed. [132] And rulemaking is a one–way street: the batterer sets rules for other family members, while he does exactly as he pleases. [133] Russ ordered Mary not to watch comedies on television, just as he announced that he was quitting his job. Mary knew that even suggesting alternatives might result in violence. But Russ could be away for days at a time, and Mary was not to question his actions.
The rules in a batterer’s house are not just for his comfort and enjoyment. They are an integral part of his plan to control and isolate his partner. [134] As Mary said, the rule about no comedies on television meant she could not exercise her sense of humor, an important part of her self–image. Batterer’s rules also control matters such as whether and when she can leave the house, and how she can spend money. [135] Many rules reinforce the victim’s isolation, such as rules about not having any of her friends over or going out with other people after work. [136][137] She might hear something that made her feel good while listening to the radio, or she might hear a description of domestic violence and recognize herself and start planning her escape. Looking out at the world from her kitchen window (or having someone else look in and see what was going on) might decrease her isolation. Even “little” rules, like “don’t play the radio when I’m gone” and “keep the curtain in the kitchen down” are part of an overall pattern of isolation.
In the functional family, rules are negotiated and renegotiated. [138] One partner may give in to the other, but both partners engage in some give and take. The rules may not fulfill everyone’s needs, but they do not destroy family members’ self–esteem either. [139] In functional families, people are basically satisfied with the rules. [140]
Second, the batterer’s list of rules is ridiculously long and ever expanding and changing. [141] While his partner and children are struggling to comply with his existing demands, new and often contradictory rules are added. [142] This again is in marked contrast with the non–abusive “dinner at six” dad. We have all known non–abusive families where one member (usually, but not always, the father) must be catered to, but his demands are limited and stable. Further, the demanding but non–abusive family member is capable of being satisfied. “Just feed him on time and he’s a happy man” is not something an abused wife would say.
Finally, there is the punishment imposed for non–compliance with rules. [143] The non–abusive man does not beat or rape his wife or children if dinner is not on the table at six. He may pout for a while, or whine, he may even occasionally yell. His reaction may be unhealthy, but the other family members do not live in terror of what will happen if the rules are not met.
Identification protocols for battered women should include questions about rulemaking. [144] Something like this would be good: “Every household has rules under which it operates. Tell me about the ones in your house. What are the rules? How are they established? What happens when they’re not met?” With a sympathetic ear and a little prodding, a battered woman may quickly identify a long list of onerous and changing rules, imposed by the abuser and ruthlessly enforced by him. [145] If she is still in the relationship, or just getting out, she may describe the rules matter–of–factly, and may consider them normal. [146] One advantage of asking about the rules is that she may talk about them much more readily and with less shame than about the violence she has experienced. [147]
H. How Physical and Non–Physical Abuse Work Together:
Why Do We See It as Torture When [XxxxxXxxx] Generals Do It,
But Not When It’s the Guy Next Door?
People are still very ignorant about domestic violence and how it works. If you talk to people and read news reports, the emphasis is always on physical violence. [148] Mary encountered this ignorance when the psychologists, judges, and lawyers minimized her danger because the last severe beating occurred a year and a half before Mary left Russ for good.
~ ~ ~ ~
In other settings, we are well aware of how torturers combine physical and mental abuse to get and keep power over their victims. [154] Appendix B is one of my favorite charts, adapted from Ann Jones’s book Next Time, She’ll Be Dead. [155] In the left–hand column are non–physical torture methods that Amnesty International has recognized and cata
logued. [156] Totalitarian regimes often use these techniques against political prisoners. [157] In the right–hand column are battered women’s descriptions of how their batterers used these same techniques to control them. [158] I have added some examples from Mary’s story to what appears in Jones’s book.
Those who work with battered women must understand the interplay of physical and non–physical abuse. When seen in context, a “slap” is not just a “slap”; it is a warning that the victim must comply with the batterer’s demands “or else.” Repeated phone calls to her at work are not just a sign of a little insecurity. They are part of an overall scheme of isolation and control. Busting up the furniture at home, or throwing the cat against the wall are not unfortunate temper tantrums; they say, “you could be next.” [159]
We should recognize domestic violence as the human rights violation it is. [160] We should draw analogies between domestic violence and torture, [161] to kidnappers and hostages. [162]
READER QUIZ: WHAT YEAR WAS THAT STORY ?
(hover cursor above to find the copyright and which attorney related the story).
Hover over THIS and I’ll tell you when this woman married & got her RO.
It could’ve been a decade later, and wouldn’t have read much different. I found this story after, with curiosity, searching on the man who wrote the article below. I hope readers may go back (click on this link, the “READER QUIZ” link) and actually read Mary’s Story, which was an actual case (name changed), and too damn typical. I doubt a person who has experienced abuse would respond the same as one who hasn’t.
NOW, for comic relief, of the monotous drone of fatherlessness being the nation’s crisis (and we have JUST the solution to fix it . . . . ).
Fall of marriage seen linked to decline in domestic murders Drop in homicides called ‘ironic benefit’ of change
The decline of marriage and the breakdown of stable relationships have produced a paradoxical benefit: Domestic murders have declined, with the most dramatic reductions among African- Americans, a University of Missouri criminologist reported yesterday.
“We’re living at a time of dramatic changes in marriage, intimate relationships and family structure,” said Richard Rosenfeld, speaking in Baltimore at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Those changes have had an ironic benefit in reducing the number of intimate-partner homicides.”
Dr. Rosenfeld’s findings are the flip side of the much-reported increase in young men killing young men, which he said may be attributed in part to similar factors — family instability and lack of supervision by harried single parents
READER QUIZ — WHAT YEAR WAS THIS ARTICLE (ABOVE)?
(author date & cite show when cursor hovers over link)
OK, now that you know when Dr. Rosenfled (a criminologist, not a PSYchologist) found out that the decline in marriage rates among African Americans meant reduced DV homicides among African Americans (although young men were killing each other more, they weren’t apparently killing so many wives or “intimate partners.” )
Let’s say what the head-honcho elected mostly white men were saying about the same year:
I searched the 104th Congress (1995-1996) for the word “fatherless.”
As we know, fatherlessness has been for so long blamed on the nation’s troubles that you can barely walk somewhere in a government agency, or any social service community agency (after you come back from either a Catholic church, where the (celibate?) priests are called “Father” in direct disobedience to Jesus’s command in the gospels, “call no man Father.” Or, an evangelical Protestant, not quite mainline (or, megachurch) where, after the ranks were being drained to women, they are adding testosterone to the doctrine, and teaching men to be more sensitive (in men’s groups, of course).
If you want to go without the straight-up religious variety, there’s always “The Mankind Project” and one can get a seminar of the Robert Bly type. There are fatherhood practitioners everywhere one looks, practically.
All I really wanted was the conversation where a legislator expresses shock and dismay that African American boys and girls are waking up on homes without their fathers. (NOTE: The “Mary” story above happened in the late 1980s, and HER 3 kids were waking up with their father in the home. In fact, her little girl Elizabeth, at age 3, had gotten an early introduction to sex when her stepbrother came there for the summer and molested her, after which her mother had another job of making sure they weren’t left alone together. (That couple were white and suburban, so maybe they didn’t count in this topic).
I got a little more than I expected in this 104th Congressional record:
Beginning
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996–CONFERENCE REPORT
I met a man who was an administrator of one of the hospitals in my community in the 15th District of Florida, and this gentleman told me that, before he had moved to Florida, he had lived in Oklahoma, and he had taken part in a program where he would go into inner city housing projects and read to young children in those projects. This program started because it has been shown in research studies that, if you read to a child, you can improve their reading score. Actually there are some studies that show that, if you read to a child, you may actually be able to raise their IQ slightly, {{Noble cause. Some Oklahoman going to raise inner city kids’ IQs}} and he told me something that I will never forget.
So this anecdotal evidence of an unnamed Florida Hospital Administrator, about (how many years previous?) that administrator going into the projects (hence, he wasn’t from them) was not 2nd-hand but 3rd-hand hearsay — if the event ever indeed happened. The impassioned delivery is to state how Welfare is Cruel — listen up how this is done:
He was going into those projects and reading to those kids, and those children were, by and large, children of single parents on welfare, and he would ask, many of them 5, 6 and 7-year-old children, `What do you want to be when you grow up?’ And, yes, some of them would say I want to be a fireman or a nurse, but some of them would say:
`I don’t want to work. I want to collect a check.’
Not all of them wanted to be firemen or nurses (separate by gender; I don’t know how many female fire”men” there are these days, but we know there are lots of male nurses… And probably were in 1996, too..)
Mr. Speaker, a program that does that to millions of children is not a program of compassion and caring to children. It is a program that is cruel and mean spirited to children.
Here’s the process — a man in Florida heard a man in Florida talk about his experience trying to improve the iQ of little kids in the projects (did he talk to their Mamas?) in Oklahoma, and concludes that (although even in the story some WANTED a profession, others wanted a check) FEEDING such children was mean-spirited and cruel…
Today a young male being born to a mother, a single mother on welfare in the United States, has a greater likelihood of ending up on drugs or in the penitentiary than graduating from high school.
I showed in “Luzerne County” that you don’t have to be poor or (presumable here) black to be a crook. There’s a difference between being a crook and actually being jailed for it. It should be common knowledge now, and I bet then (1996) that America, being the largest jailor (per capita) has those jails disproportionately filled with black males. Some of them got their assaulting their mother’s attacker, too. He’s taking two statistics (if that) and creating a CASUAL connection rather than a CAUSAL one. Of course, how many poor black males — or females of any social status or color — were there in Congress in 1996 to comment on his reasoning process?
And the young females, (single mothers have both boys and girls, right?) — are THEY ending up on drugs or in jail?
The problem that we have with illegitimacy in our Nation today is a problem that has been created by the program that we are trying to change, and you cannot fix this problem by tinkering around the edges. The illegitimacy rate in this country has gone up from 5 percent to almost 25 percent in the white community. In the black community it has gone from less than 25 percent to, in some areas, as high as 70 percent.
If you look at what correlates best, what correlates in communities with problems like teenage pregnancy, drug use, illiteracy, juvenile crime, the thing that correlates best in those problems in those communities, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of illegitimacy, the amount of fatherlessness in those communities. A program that perpetuates and cultivates things like this is a cruel and mean-spirited program, and that program needs to be changed, and our bill makes a serious attempt at doing that.
We are not talking about tinkering around the edges. We are talking about promoting family unity, discouraging teen-age pregnancy and illegitimacy.
The fact that this program perpetuates it, Mr. Speaker, was driven home to me when I was a medical student working in an inner-city obstetrics clinic, and I had a 15-year-old girl come in to see me who was pregnant, and I had never seen this before, and I was so upset. I was grieved to see this. I looked at her and said her life is ruined, she cannot go to college, and I said to her, `How did this happen, why did this happen,’ and she looked up to me and told me that she did it deliberately because she wanted to get out from under her mother in the project, and she wanted her own place and her own welfare check.
Again, on the outside looking in, and one anecdote.
This program needs to stop. The people have asked for it; we are trying to deliver.
WHICH people? I mean, these are elected representatives, are they really speaking for their constituents?
Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Members of the minority to stop their partisan rhetoric and join with us in reforming welfare and creating a program for the poor and the needy that strengthens family, does not undermine them, that strengthens the bonds of marriage, because it is strong families that make strong communities that makes strong nations, and our Nation cannot survive with a perpetuation of a program like this.
Is it the lack of marriage, or the lack of fathers that counts? Because I tell you one thing that makes lack of fathers — WARS. Another thing that previously, broke up families in a callous manner is called slavery.
Who created ghettoes? Who created the two-tier school system, good for some lousy for others (a factor to this date). Who directed one populace into “jobs” and the others (elite ones) into how to run businesses and understand investments, political connections, foundations, and skills that would go along with that goal?
So if you want to know how much we (we WHO???) have invested in the old welfare program over the past 30 years, it is roughly the equivalent of the value of all buildings, all plants and equipment, and all of the tools of all the workers in the United States of America. No society in history has ever invested more money trying to help needy people than the United States of America has invested.
Yet, what has been the result of all of those good intentions? What has been the result of that investment? The result of that investment, 30 years later, is that we have as many poor people today as we had 30 years ago. They are poorer today, they are more dependent on the Government today, and by any definition of quality of life, fulfillment, or happiness, people are worse off today than they were when we started the current welfare system.
When we started the War on Poverty {{and another war in Southeast Asia to follow up on the Korean war I guess}} in the mid-1960s, two-parent families were the norm in poor families in America. Today, two-parent families are the exception. Since 1965, the illegitimacy rate has tripled.
I know that we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are going to lament the passage of this new welfare reform bill. But I do not see how anybody with a straight face, or a clear conscience, can defend the status quo in welfare. Our current welfare program has failed. It has driven fathers out of the household. It has made mothers dependent. It has taken away people’s dignity. It has bred child abuse and neglect, and filled the streets of our cities with crime. And we are here today to change it.
Grammar: Is this guy going to “own” the welfare program, or objectify it? First it was guilt trip, “we have created” and net thing it’s got an independent life, like a disease, perpetuating itself of its own accord, where it can be separated from the rhetorical bosom of the speaker, and be viewed running around tearing up the place. As an “it” it can now have stones thrown at IT first. And after the vivid picture of 5, 6 , 7 year olds wanting to collect a welfare check (“millions of them”) (Seriously, that’s the subliminal message — guilt trip first, it’s ours” and then relieve the guilt by blaming the same thing “we” created, and QUICK, call to action.….) Some action is needed to take away
Let me outline what our program does. I think if each of us looks back to a period when our ancestors first came to America, or back to a time when those who have gone before us found themselves poor, we are going to find that there are two things that get individuals and nations out of poverty. Those two things are work and family. I think it is instructive to note that those are the two things that we have never applied to the current welfare program of the United States of America.
This man seems totally unconscious of the fact that SOME ancestors came to America in the bottom of a slave ship; that a lot of wealth, including likely some of the wealth that helped put people in Congress, came from came from businesses that included plantation labor, sweat shops, and some very, very hard work. When he says “us” as to doling out benefits, he also seems to have forgotten that those taxes came from employees’ wages, courtesy a few reforms dating back to 1939. He seems to have forgotten everything about “Jim Crow” and era of attempting to turn back the clock on some serious industriousness by freed slaves.
The bill before us asks people to work. It says that able-bodied men and women will be required to work in order to receive benefits. It sets a time limit so that people cannot make welfare a way of life. It seeks to change the incentives within the welfare system. And I believe the time has come to change those incentives within the welfare system.
I admit I’m maybe sensitive to this because I know HOW HARD I worked over the years, and none harder than while in a battering relationship that could’ve been a variety of the one above (but a decade later). This relationship, within marriage shouldn’t be happening any more in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s, but it is.
Family Court Systems Purposefully Mask Abuse and Abusers
(SEPARATE TOPIC, above)) just saving the link).
SHARE THIS POST on...
District Attorney Dubious Doings — SF Bay Area
OK, I have done it again folks. I think sometimes all day about what I am going to post, or for some days. Then I toss it onto a post in the form of links I have previously read, or a close approximation.
We have a race for District Attorney in my area, and the Mighty Dan O’Malley’s posters are visible from the commuter bus lanes and even the highways. Dan O’Malley running for D.A. in Contra Costa County, and through the Tunnel to Oakland’s East Bay (Alameda County) Nancy O’Malley it seems was a key figure in obtaining a major grant to start something called the Alameda County Family Justice Center. (ACFCJ).
Now you begin to see the relevance of the topic. Justice Centers are supposedly where one goes to get help getting some justice, or at least information on how to. HAH! Maybe out the door to start with …. D.A.’s of course help prosecute crime, that’s what they do, and we hope that ALL of this is done with due process.
It gets a little upsetting then, to realize that not only is what’s being marketed not making it down to “street level,” when it comes to certain volatile / violent / and criminal / issues that land in family court, but that the head of this major center (a JUSTICE center) might even have been appointed without due process to start with.
This is a $90,000/year post (it says) presiding over and receiving, presumably, federal grants to help us poor men & wimmen who just can’t get along with each other or figure out how to navigate the justice system on our own. Or get attorneys who can stick with us through several years of the process, rather than start, then dump when funds run out, which they will….
And, depending on whether the posts I’m going to paste are accurate, it seems Nancy O’Malley also figured in getting a certain wife of a certain Attorney General appointed to be the Executive Director of this.
THIS POST IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE HARSH, EVEN THOUGH THE RESEARCH IS NOT MY OWN. UNDERSTAND, THESE MAY BE REAL “NICE” PEOPLE, AND MAY GET A LOT DONE. BUT I’M THINKING IN TERMS OF MY YEARS IN THE AREA (MANY) OF PEOPLE I KNOW GOING THROUGH THIS SYSTEMS, AND STANDING IN FRONT OF, OR HAVING APPEALED FOR (ENFORCEMENT) HELP FROM SOME OF THE SAME D.A.’s, judges, prosecutors, and justice centers. Most of the individuals I haven’t actually met. HOWEVER, my point is, when people go and ask some branch of the system to fix itself (pay your taxes, leave it to the experts, and appeal to one of the experts if another area is “off.”) – that’s not simply how things work.
So, unrealistic promises and procedures should NOT be marketed to women, or men, attempting to leave seriously dangerous situations, or with lives, livelihoods, or children at stake. Or friends and relatives.
OK, here goes:
Politics in this famous SF Bay Area, at least Alameda County are, in one blog I read — while probably not equal to Chicago’s or New York’s, known for:
Nepotism, Cronyism, Racism and Corruption
The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it.
{{Quote is from a blog post dated July 2009,
The Alameda County District Attorney’s office is also famous for nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption. D.A. Orloff, did not start this tradition, but he certainly has continued it.
It’s the first two that concern me today, although the outside ones aren’t much better. I note this blog author didn’t say “sexism.” Hmm…
Here’s a trivia sampler of Keeping it “All in the Family” in these interlocked systems — generally speaking:
Some people related to VIPs/Judges hired or promoted by Orloff:
1. Nadia Lockyer, wife of Bill Lockyer [former Calif. Atty. Gen] (hired);
{{She runs the “Family Justice Center” in Alameda County. Questionable appointment process}}2. Lisa Lockyer, daughter of Bill Lockyer [Current Calif. State Treasurer] (hired);
3. Chistopher Bates, son of Tom Bates (hired);
4. Jeff Stark, son of Pete Stark (promoted);
5. Erin Kingsbury daughter of Alameda County Judge Kenneth Kingsbury (Ret.);
6. Paul Hora son of Alameda County Judge Peggy Hora;
7. Paul Delucchi son of Alameda County Judge Alfred Deluchhi (Dec.);
8. Maya Ynostroza, daughter of Alameda County Judge Yolanda Ynostroza;
9. Catherine Horner Dobal, Mother of Alameda County Judge Jeffrey Horner;
10. Jason Chin, son California Supreme Court Justice Ming Chin; and
11. Judge Stuart Hing, Son of Alameda County Administrator Mel Hing (Stuart Hing and Kenneth Kingsbury were employed together as D.A.’s by Orloff.There are other judge’s relatives who are working of did work in the DA’s office, but we are not sure if Orloff hired or promoted them, as we say, nepotism, cronyism, racism and corruption is a tradition Orloff has followed:
12. Mattew Golde, Appointed head of D.A. Juvenile Division in 2007, son of Judge Stanley Golde (Dec.);
13. Ivan Golde, son of Judge Stanley Golde (Dec.); and
14. Amilcar Ford, grandson of Judge Judith Ford.There are many more judge’s kids who got hired, but I believe they pre-date Orloff.
Note: It seems, the relationships are already prepared, groomed, in place.
By hiring Chris Bates and Lisa Lockyer, Orloff had the kids of both the local assemblyman, Tom Bates, and the local Senator, Bill Lockyer (later became the Attorney General of the State of California), working for him. He already had the local Congressman’s kid, Jeff Stark, working for him, and he prmoted Stark.
Names to keep straight here:
- ORLOFF (D.A.) (and Nancy O’Malley, coming up, Assistant’ D.A.)
- LOCKYER
- BATES
- STARK
An Orloff is going to help a Nancy O’Malley stay in place for his position. In turn (or, also), this same O’Malley is going to help Lockyer’s wife get a prime position that attracts a lot of federal grants (Article 1, below). A Deborah Stark commenting on Mrs. Lockyer going for Supervisor (January 2010):
http://www.ibabuzz.com/politics/2010/01/27/deborah-stark-endorses-nadia-lockyer/
Deborah Stark endorses Nadia Lockyer
By Josh Richman
Wednesday, January 27th, 2010 at 12:27 pm in Alameda County Board of Supervisors
Alameda County Board of Supervisors District 2 candidate Nadia Lockyer today announced she has the endorsement of Deborah Roderick Stark, whom she described as “a nationally recognized expert in child and family policy” and a First Five Alameda County Commission member.
The news release delves deeper into both women’s professional bona fides, but doesn’t mention that Lockyer, 38, is the wife of state Treasurer Bill Lockyer, 68, or that Stark, 43, is the wife of Rep. Pete Stark, 78.
The question is: should it?
On one hand, Lockyer might be trying to campaign only on her own qualifications, which seems admirable; on the other hand, her husband’s long political career indisputably enhances her name recognition and political connections. Ditto Stark, to some extent; though she’s certainly a respected child and family policy expert, I find it hard to believe she’s not better known around here as Pete Stark’s wife.
Or is that just because hacks like me keep pointing it out? Does a candidate omit the information with the knowledge (and/or tacit consent) that journalists most likely will report it anyway? And, should we?
…
OK, back to quoting the first blog above, which charged nepotism, cronyism, etc.
None of this would matter, except that the same kind of favoritism is shown by the fact that Orloff never prosecutes a politician or connected person for corruption unless that person has already been caught by the media, and sometimes not even then.
LET’s GET HONEST’s 2 cents worth:
I’ve lived in these two counties for some time, and I wouldn’t give 25 cents for half of what these people say, especially the D.A.’s. Why? I miss my daughters. ONE sheriff saying no ONCE to either domestic violence (in my home while there) or no, do NOT take those girls because the court order says you can’t — oh my, what a difference this would have made.
Especially on inflated numbers of DV victims “served.” I’m still looking for a woman — any woman — who after custody switch on hearsay, or overnight, or by any action involving a felony or violation of due process, actually got them back. Or who, after a restraining order was obtained, then countered by sending the thing to divorce court, actually kept it on and kept custody of and access to minor children in her home.
For more, continue to google these names & “Steve White”. He reports a lot of “stuff” I happen to think smells right, and his manner of reporting includes some research on topics not usually mentioned. I’ve not met him, but now that elections are up, and several officials proclaiming they are against violence towards women and of course adamantly against child abuse, then we should ask, have the figures dropped recently in these areas? And what’s up with the funding.
An on-line look only, then cannot tell the whole story. Another source to be considered is actually walking into the courtrooms, the child support offices, and getting the temperature of an area by living in it, and seeing how incidents are reported in the news, AND by talking with people. Don’t forget to also talk with poor & homeless people (male & female) who are NOT pressing for justice at this point in time; they might just have given it up as a waste of their time.
Because this will make for a VERY long post, I’m going to start with one article dating back to 2006, and then a separate post, perhaps the google references and another article or so. I do not pretend to have researched this thoroughly, just wish to call attention to what’s between the lines and the relationships between KEY PLAYERS in the justice system.
ARTICLE 1: Dec., 2006
(this is a little laborious, but shows how the author thought & acted to get his questions answered).
http://www.indymedia.org/en/2006/12/876740.shtml
Attorney General’s Wife. with no previous experience, Gets Top Job in Alameda County Domestic Violence Center
Steve White 14 Dec 2006 15:36 GMT
This is a very short article and commentary on Nadia Lockyer, wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer, being given a $90,000 per year job as Executive Director of the Alameda County Family Justice Center, a job for which she seems to have no special qualifications. The article also questions the propriety of her employment, considering her husband’s position.
Here is a link to the brochure she put out on her past work and life experience:http://www.alamedacountyda.com/nadialockyer.pdf
if that does not work, please type in:
http://www.alamedacountyda.com/nadialockyer.pdf
This brochure actually gave me a very good laugh. Ms. Lockyer spends three pages telling us about herself, (which all boils down to she had a lawyer father who was involved in Hispanic politics, and she is following his path) and talks about little volunteer work things she’s done, but does not tell us her most important qualification for the job, that she’s married to the Attorney General. All she says at the end is, “Ms. Lockyer is married and lives in Oakland”.
The name Lockyer is relatively rare. Ms. Lockyer uses it, rather than her maiden name, it would seem she wants to have it both ways. She wants political people to know who her husband is, but she doesn’t want the public to realize how she got her job. (a job which is a great political platform, this issue of domestic violence is now thoroughly mainstream)
There is not much question that many long time activists in this field wanted the top job. The Center is only ten minutes drive from the Rockridge area which has been a locus for this movement.
I will attempt to find out what intrigues occurred before she got the job, where her salary is coming from and if any ethical rules have been violated, as far as nepotism and special influence by the Attorney General are concerned.
e-mail:: boatbrain@aol.com
Variations of Ms. Lockyer’s name, in case anyone wants to Google her
Steve White 17.Dec.2006 04:27
Nadia Davis-Lockyer
Nadia Maria Davis-Lockyer
Nadia Davis Lockyer
Nadia Maria Davis Lockyer
Wife of California Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Wife of Bill Lockyer
Wife of Attorney General Bill Lockyer
Wife of State Treasurer Bill Lockyer
Arranged by the District Attorney’s Office
Steve White 28.Dec.2006 18:37
After speaking to several people involved in the selection process, I’ve been told the main player was the Alameda County Chief Assistant DA, Nancy O’Malley.
This was not a big surprise. Alameda DA Tom Orloff is an old ally of Bill Lockyer. In fact, Orloff hired Lisa Lockyer, his daughter, in her first job out of law school. After many years as a DDA, Lisa Lockyer got a job with NASA.To understand how it worked, it’s important to look at who was involved in the process. According to the brochure, there were two selection committees. One for initial screening, the other for final interview.
The first committee was made up of the person who wrote the brochure, (unnamed) and three other people. One of the others was Harold Boscovich, he is a DA staffer.
The second stage was a committee made up again of four people. Of those four, two were local DA staff, prosecutors Karen Meredith and Lisa Foster.
With half the votes in the process, the DA could block any applicant in a tie for the ultimate selection. If the writer of the brochure was Nancy O’Malley, as I suspect, that stage was controlled by DA staff as well.
If Lockyer did commit a crime, under Calfornia Govt. Code Section 81700, he seems to have been helped by three or four people in law enforcement.
Selection process was all for show, Nadia Lockyer is DA staff
Steve White 01.Jan.2007 15:47
I have just received a letter from the Alameda County District Attorney’s office which indicates Nadia Lockyer is an employee of that office.
The letter goes on to respond to my Public Records Act request for all info relaated to her hiring. The DA’s office claims all the info is exempt from disclosure, except for a brochure announcing the job. So they sent me a copy of that announcement.
The denial of information was expected. What was surprising to me is that Lockyer is an employee of the DA’s office. I thought the Family Justice Center was an independent entity which worked with the DA, not a subordinate office.
Under the Alameda County Charter, the District Attorney can hire, fire, and promote anyone he wishes, without any need for approval from other branches of county government. (Alameda County Charter Section 35)
The entire selection process seems to have been unnecessary as far as Alameda County law is concerned. There was no need for two selection committees, or even one selection committe.Therefore, one has to suspect that process, which was pretty much a farce anyway, was either for show, or was intended to create the appearance of complying with Federal rules on spending the Federal grant money given to the project.
The plot thickens. I wrote to Bill Lockyer and told him if there is any basis for it in California law, (and now maybe Federal law) I will be suing him for violating California Govt. Code Section 87100.
Violations of Federal Laws
Steve White 11.Jan.2007 17:10
It seems there was a violation of Federal Laws in the actions taken to get Nadia Lockyer the top job.
The OVW, Office on Violence Against Women, sent me the following letter:
————————————————————————-
Dear Mr. White:Thank you for expressing your concerns regarding the Alameda County Family Justice Center. All OVW grantees, including Family Justice Centers, are required to follow the Office of Justice Programs Financial Guide, which is available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/finguide06/index.htm. In addition, grantees must follow certain circulars from the Office of Management and Budget, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/OMB/grants/grants_circulars.html.
Thanks again,
Marnie Shiels
Office on Violence Against Women————————————————————————–
I clicked the first link, which as the first page of a book on guidelines and rules for Federal graants, then went to the chapter entitled “Conflicts of Interest”
Reading that, it seems pretty clear Lockyer violated the Federal law, and presumably this is why they went through the big show of pretending to use an objective process to pick his wife for the job.
These folks knew they were doing something shady from the start.
Further evidence is that everyone involved is trying to duck my Public Records Act requests for more information. More on that in my next post
Phony Statistics put out by ACFJC
Steve White 25.Sep.2007 13:37
The first week of September, 2007, the ACFJC announced a large grant from the US Department of Justice, and in the grant announcement, which naturally everyone was very happy about, they added some statistics on how much good the ACFJC had done so far.
The stats were impressive. They claimed “Since it’s launch” the ACFJC had reduced Domestic Violence (DV) deaths from 26 to 6 in 2005, and, they had provided services to “20,000 victims and their families”.
Both claims were untrue. I checked with the Alameda County Public Health Department, and it turned out there has been a very long term decline in DV deaths, from 26 in 1996, eleven years back, to 6 in 2005. The Center opened in the last half of 2005, in August.
So, that first claim gave the Center credit for something that happened long before it existed. And, by the way the DV death decline is a nationwide phenomena, with the national numbers approaching the same as the county.
As for the “20,000” victims claim, I pointed out to the aide to Supervisor Lai Bitker that I doubted that number was true as well. I had no way to check on it, there was no other agency with hard numbers such as Public Health has for death rates, (actually, the death rates may not be solid numbers either) but I doubted there were that many victims helped. The reason is simple. If you go to ACFJC and just stand outside, watching the people come in, not many do. Not nearly enough for them to have helped 20,000 victims in just two years.
Since the web page has been changed to say, “provided 20,000 services” I think my guess was right there. I think it’s very likely, to get that “20,000 services” number, ACFJC included every time they answered the phone or gave out a brochure. Seriously, stake the place out, you may wait a couple hours before anyone who is not staff comes in.
I don’t doubt they are helping some people, but the claims made should bear some resemblance to reality. There was a big push for the need to centralize DV services in the County, but to me it looks like it could not have made much difference in how many people they actually reach. What is lacking is any kind of cost/benefit analysis. By inflating the numbers, the ACFJC was trying to deceive the public into thinking the benefit was much greater than claimed.
The Alameda County Family Justice Center is one of many local agencies funded by the Federal Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, (OVW).
The center is relatively new, and there was a recent search for the Executive Director. Eventually, Nadia Davis Lockyer was given the top job, which pays about $90,000 per year. (initial pay was $65,000 but extra money was found to make it $90,000. I am researching where the extra money came from)
{{Endquote}}
ARTICLE 2: Sept. 2009
Op-ed: Orloff and Other Oakland Stories
Clinton Killian
Last Updated on September, 22 2009 at 02:19 PM
(original link has a nice photo)(style changes — bold, color, etc. –are mine)
Earlier this month, Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff announced his resignation after 15 years in office. He was slated to run for re-election June 2010. In his resignation letter to the Board of Supervisors, he requested that his second-in-command Nancy O’Malley be appointed to succeed him.
This caused quite a stir since the District Attorney is an elected office. When the vacancy occurs before an election, the law gives the Board of Supervisors the power to appoint a successor to fill out the unexpired term. This means that there would be no open election and the appointee would not have to face policy questions.
{{Naturally, the domestic violence community women, the family law courts, flourishing as ever, weren’t really notified that we might want OUR issues — like unenforceable court orders, for one — like violation of due process through the entire system, for another — like unfair practices within the child support system, and the grants behind those practices, or like why programs that claim they are to help both “parents” only help one gender of parents, generally speaking (Access/Visitation, etc.). And much more… }}
This early retirement and appointing your successor is an old political ploy. It gives the successor a leg up to run for election as an “incumbent” against all challengers. It is one of the ways that the Oakland City Council remained Republican dominated until the late ‘70s. Not to be out done, the Alameda County DA’s office has not had an open election without an incumbent in nearly 100 years, the last one being before 1920. This appears to be the same thing that Mr. Orloff and Ms. O’Malley have practiced.
The Board of Supervisors rushed forward with the appointment by holding a perfunctory public hearing and then took a vote. They did not have any type of public selection process whatsoever. That’s right: no public notice inquiring if there was anyone interested in being appointed, no public interviews, no public hearings, no vetting of candidates — nothing. Three of the five supervisors determined what normally all Alameda County voters should get a chance to decide.After all, no public scrutiny is an Alameda County DA tradition.
Notice there was not not one peep out of the three who voted for this instant appointment. There was no justification of their exclusionary “hurry-up” process. It has to make you wonder why it was so imperative to appoint a successor immediately. The number two person could easily run the office in an interim basis while the Board of Supervisors took 10-20 days to hold public hearings, gather comments, vet applicants and make a public decision.
It would have been nice to hear from the potential District Attorneys about their views regarding prosecution of criminals in Oakland and Alameda County, the use of preventive measures for minor crimes to keep people out of the criminal justice system, targeting violent criminals throughout to remove them from our streets, targeting drug dealers to reduce crime – It would have been great to see democracy in action.
Instead, we had a gang of three make the decision for you, the voter, now and in 2010. Yes, lets’ hope someone shows the gumption to run. Applause should be given to Supervisors Keith Carson and Nate Miley who refused to go along with this charade. Maybe the Board of Supervisors should write better ground rules for the appointment of elected officials so that there is an open public process.
(Carson is African-American, O’Malley is, whattaya think?)
((Of note to me — LetsGetHonest blog author — two of the county supervisors who DID vote for this, apparently (Alice Lai-Bitker & Gail Steele) are outspokenly proclaiming themselves against violence against women, and child abuse. They have a reputation for this…. )))
The drama and pain and trauma and economic devastation — NEEDLESS, I believe — my particular family (3 generations of at least our kids’ two family lines are now involved, plus some elderly relations to another ex- ex-girlfriend, if you can keep that straight…) been going through has gone under these reigns, and these individuals’ jurisdictions. ))
And the guy Steve White commenting on it again:
Nancy O’Malley’s political scheming
The objections about the appointment process did not seem to include any objections to Nancy O’Malley personally. That’s a shame, because her true character should be made known. One example – when the former head of the Alameda County Family Justice Center quit a few years back, O’Malley rigged the selection for the new one so that Nadia Lockyer, wife of then Attorney General Bill Lockyer, would be sure to get the job. This was not really legal, both state law and federal law were against it, so O’Malley used a ruse to create the appearance of an impartial system. She used two “selection committees” of four person each to chose who got the job, but then stacked the committees with two DA staffers each, in other words, her own subordinates. With a tie vote on each committee, she could block any other candidate from being chosen while she blocked Lockyer from being rejected. This is the way she operates. Worse than Orloff.
By :Steve White On : September, 30 2009 at 01:43 PM
When I think about the salaries of some of these officials, the grants-funded organizations and the salaries of some of those heading them up (some of which I from time to time research) and the simple truths of this system that are NOT told to women separating from abuse, or how the few guided steps they take now may have put entire lives off course for a decade or more — – – – well, I have an issue with nepotism, cronyism, inflation of “people served” and violation of simple appointment rules for people with this amount of influence in our community.
When I remember how hard I worked to penetrate this bureaucracy, and to find even a phone or a internet access after years in the courts, or how to obtain unemployment after the last job was lost, and how humiliating it is to be in this position for simply seeking JUSTICE and OUT — it’s a little much.
Nothing personal, Orloff, O’Malley, Lockyer (although your agency did “squat” (nothing) for me this decade, and yes, I DID call, more than once over time), Stark, Steele, Lai-Bitker, and so on.
My personal experience with the D.A.’s departments (sheriffs, police, etc.) was it was almost as horrifying as dealing with my ex, to realize armed men were angry with me for expecting a court order to be respected. I no longer believe that family, civil, and criminal are any more separate than Legislative, Judicial or Executive Branches of the U.S.
I have been shouted at for seeking help to protect my own children from being abducted, as if I was the problem, and not seeking to solve one, and I called supervisors, and got little to no response. Go ask someone else…
It would’ve been better to have the “forget you” emblazoned on posters, and move on with life understanding how lawless a land we live in, and plan accordingly.
Next post, I hope to simply put up some more search results on these topics and these people.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Wykenna Watson challenges a plea-bargain on restraining order violation. Her criminal contempt IS upheld. But Supreme Court Justices: C.J. Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy & Sotomayor “Strongly Dissent..”
This just in. . . . .
These notable Honoraries, from the Highest Court in our nation, which court’s Chief Justice gets to swear in the President of the United States in an oath to protect & defend the Constitution, . . . . . are objecting to her actually expecting the violation of a RECENT restraining order to be taken seriously, for once, and not plea-bargained. This may go a ways towards making such restraining orders less “certifiably insane.”
This Washington Post article tells how a woman challenged a DISMISSAL of charges on a 2nd assault by her boyfriend, which assault was also a violation of a restraining order (probably of the criminal one…)
She is saying “NO!” to those who plea-bargained him OUT of an assault AFTER a civil restraining order was in place. The U.S. Attorney’s Office let him off easier, and she said NO by filing for criminal contempt.
She can’t exactly go after those who plea-bargained him quite so easily. For one, they are armed…..So she went to uphold the concept of “ORDER” meaning “ORDER” and violating it intentionally as SERIOUS.
By Josh White | May 24, 2010; 2:30 PM ET
The U.S. Supreme Court today dismissed a case originating out of the District that challenged the ability of a private citizen to bring criminal contempt charges against someone else in a domestic violence case.
Split 5-4, with a strongly worded dissent by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court declined to interfere with a lower court decision that upheld guilty findings on criminal contempt charges against John Robertson, who was convicted in the District of violating a restraining order against him.
But as part of a plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Robertson agreed to plead guilty to the first attack if prosecutors were willing to dimiss charges for the second attack, which they did.
Watson, dissatisfied with the outcome, later that year herself filed criminal contempt charges against Robertson. After a two-day trial, Robertson was convicted, sentenced to an additional year in jail and ordered to pay Watson $10,000 in restitution.
Ms. Watson showed some real courage & savvy in doing this, as the 2nd assault itself represented (in context) a form of retaliation for saying no the first time.
Speaking for myself, and many other women, we have been discouraged by repeated failures of the CRIMINAL section of government (D.A. on down)’s failures to arrest, prosecute, and keep in jail, batterers who escalate their actions after being confronted.
This article doesn’t say (upfront) whether mutual children were involved, which adds another layer of possible intimidation and threat to the woman confronting abuse.
I have found it very frustrating to experience all the results of crime, including trauma, job loss, and curtailed social connections, and repeatedly return to “family court” and have our case funneled through mediation as if it was still a personal squabble. SPeaking for myself only, I have been treated with disdain and disrespect (repeatedly) in seeking this.
Failing to prosecute or show consequences for assault & battery, whether misdemeanor (THIS time) or felony-level, sends a clear message to the perpetrator: “no holds barred, go ahead, we won’t really punish you….” and it also sends a message to people who support the woman in noncriminal ways. It taxes their resources also. I believe this is WHY California law had this clause, even though it’s largely ignored in practice:
Google search of “clear and present danger” only pulled up references to spousal abuse on the 2nd page of searches. That the first one was from my blog! tells me it’s not a common topic of conversation these days….
Search Results
“Clear and Present Danger”…fuzzy usage by AFCC « Let’sGetHonestBlog
Dec 1, 2009 … The Legislature hereby finds that spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and physical well-being of the citizens …
familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/…/clear-and-present–danger-fuzzy-usage-by-afcc/ – Cached- [DOC]
Domestic Violence, by its Nature, Frequently Results in Forfeiture …
– 3 visits – 10/15/09
File Format: Microsoft Word – View as HTML
Domestic violence victims frequently fail to assist in their batterer’s prosecutions. ….. “[Since] spousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental … Code § 273.81 (West 2005) (establishing Spousal Abuser Prosecution …
http://www.law.berkeley.edu/files/GilesAmicusBrief.doc – SimilarCHAPTER 2.5. SPOUSAL ABUSERS – Sections 273.8-273.88 – California …
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 …
law.justia.com › … › California Code › California Penal Code – CachedA Critical Look at Janet Johnston’s Typology of Batterers by Lundy …
Janet Johnston’s work attempts to make this sort of clear demarcation, ….. A new, negative image of the other spouse is crystallized out of this desperate … how batterers present in public, including some of the most dangerous. … Johnston’s work may, in the aggregate, be contributing to the danger of the …
www.lundybancroft.com/art_johnston.html
The fact that sometimes people die, or suffer serious injuries, or kids are kidnapped and cut off with contact from the other parent, bypassers sometimes are hurt, and property (houses, businesses) may get trashed in the process — is, I’d say, an “indicator” of “clear and present danger” to more than just those “intimate partners.”
But in Family Law and Civil Law La-La-Land, you couldn’t tell, in practice.
I keep general tabs on the local courtrooms or “family court services” areas in at least two counties in California. Well, I’ve been in the system for years, also. And I have noticed that the material even “Saying” the words “Domestic Violence” are becoming rarer and rarer. They are replaced — even when distributed right next to a window whose title is “restraining orders,” with brochures published, for the most part (in one county) by the ubiquitous “AFCC” (see my blog, search term, or search the web) and/or Child Support Brochures, all aspects of parenting. I.e., a marketing plug for the professionals in memberships of AFCC.
In the other county, there were multiple brochures put out by the local State Bar. The ONLY one (of same format) put out which said “Domestic Violence” on it was put out by a family-law section of this state bar. By now, most of us should know that to become a certified (even) family law specialist doesn’t require much training at all in domestic violence, and less in child abuse issues, which overlap. ….
In the social services office, at another address, again, a large (and well-populated!) room, as I usually do, I looked for materials on domestic violence. There was ONE brochure, and the word is (FYI no longer “violence” but “Abuse.” However the same group that put this very small brochure about “abuse” out (even though the nonprofit’s name contained the word “violence”) had a duplicate one more about parenting issues.
We have become a nation of family counselors and psychologists, judging by the courtrooms, and where the public funding is going. Forget crminal prosecution for criminal acts — the line has blurred.
Into this, walks a woman whose case hit the Supreme Court, AND I notice that there was “STRONG DISSENT” that private citizens should actually take action to treat contempt of a court order as serious, in addition to an assault on a woman by a man after he’d already been reserved a restraining order.
Well, she’s right, and I think we just see where the Supreme Court considers the government/private citizen divide.
We might well wonder who switched the priorities from government — for whom citizens pay — serving the citizens, to the citizens serving the government. Anyhow, continuing with this article……
Robertson appealed, arguing that any such charges against him were in violation of his plea agreement with the government, and could not be initiated by a private citizen. The Court of Appeals rejected that arguments, finding that the criminal contempt prosecution was brought as a private action and not in the “name and interest of the United States or any other governmental entity.”
In a case that garnered great interest from defense attorneys and those who work to fight domestic violence alike, the Supreme Court ultimately opted not to get involved, with a one-sentence opinion letting Watson’s victory stand and appearing to validate D.C. laws that allow victims to initiate such prosecutions regardless of plea agreements with the government.
In other words, there’s hope for actual consequences for violating court orders saying “Don’t Tread On Me!” Good.
(please read rest of article, link above).
NOW, let’s take a look at that dissent, and WHY the Supreme Court doesn’t want to let go some of the power of the criminal sector to actually go towards its designated end, stopping crime, if a lowly WOMAN, and a Private Citizen, takes action to defend her rights to expect the courts and police and prisons (etc.) to defend her physical person…
Remember, “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.” Which one of those comes first, and which one of those should we really leave up to a distant politician, legislator, or US Attorney’s Office to plea-bargain out?
I read on-line often enough of criminal sector complaints that women sometimes drop charges. A lot of conferences and discussions takes place on those bad women for not participating in the prosecution. There have been discussions on whether it’s appropriate to hold a WOMAN in contempt for NOT participating in being a witness, or in the prosecution of criminal level domestic violence. In some of these cases, she is weighing what the system will (or in too many cases, WON’T) do against the safety of herself, and/or, her family members (kids or parents). To fail to weigh this is to be flippant with human sacrifice — it bears weighing, this “life” thing….
Now a woman IS participating in the prosecution, and here’s the “STRONG DISSENT” from the highest court in the land:
Roberts’ 12-page dissent, joined by Justices Scalia, Kennedy and Sotomayor, strongly argues for the issue to be revisited.
“The terrifying force of the criminal justice system may only be brought to bear against an individual by society as a whole, through a prosecution brought on behalf of the government,” Roberts wrote, arguing that changing that concept gives rise to “unsettling questions” about defendant rights. “Our entire criminal justice system is premised on the notion that a criminal prosecution pits the government against the governed, not one private citizen against another. The ruling below is a startling repudiation of that basic understanding.”
Here is the dissent:
Per Curiam
NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested tonotify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
No. 08–6261
v. UNITED STATES EX REL. WYKENNA WATSON ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
[May 24, 2010]
P
ER CURIAM. The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
It is so ordered.
I
In March 1999, Wykenna Watson was assaulted by her then-boyfriend, John Robertson. App. 40. Watson soughtand secured a civil protective order against Robertson, prohibiting him from approaching within 100 feet of her and from assaulting, threatening, harassing, physically abusing, or contacting her.
Id., at 20. At the same time, the United States Attorney’s Office (USAO) was independently pursuing criminal charges against Robertson arising from the assault.
This puts her case in a situation that not all women get to — some of them (us, in my case) don’t even get the police, or DA’s office to start the criminal charges. I wonder if this had been a family law case if it wouldn’t have been shunted to the local Family Law Facilitator’s Office before she knew what happened to her. Did it involve a kickout, or was it closer to what society actually recognizes as wrong — assaulting a woman in public or about her business, rather than “behind closed doors.”??? In which case it’s easier to discredit.
On June 26, Robertson violated the protective order by again violently assaulting Watson. On July 8, he was indicted for the previous March incident; shortly thereafter, the USAO offered, and Robertson accepted, a plea agreement resolving those charges. Id., at 26–30. At the top of the boilerplate plea form, the Assistant U. S. Attorney added in longhand: “In exchange for Mr. Robertson’s plea of guilty to attempt[ed] aggravated assault, the gov’t agrees to: DISMISS the [remaining] charges[,] [and] [n]ot pursue any charges concerning an incident on 6-26-99.” Id., at 28.
i.e., Are such plea forms so common, there is a “boiler plate” for them. But this Assistant U.S. Attorney went one farther and said, he’s not really a bad guy, he just was disturbed by the breakup of the relationship, and if he’ll make OUR job (if not her life) easier, we’ll let him off without the full punishment.
The Superior Court accepted Robertson’s plea and sentenced him to 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment.
That there’s a lot. Wonder what the quality of the first assault was.
Id., at 30, 46, 53. A few months later, Watson filed a motion to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against Robertson forviolating the civil protective order, based on the June 26 assault. See D. C. Code §16–1005(f) (2009 Supp.); D. C.Super. Ct. Domestic Violence Rule 12(d) (Lexis 2010); In re Robertson, 940 A. 2d 1050, 1053 (D. C. 2008). After a 2day bench trial, the court found Robertson guilty on three counts of criminal contempt and sentenced him to three consecutive 180-day terms of imprisonment, suspending execution of the last in favor of five years’ probation. The court also ordered Robertson to pay Watson roughly $10,000 in restitution. App. 2, 63–64. Robertson filed a motion to vacate the judgment, which the court denied. Id., at 1059–1060.
He said, “I don’t want to take responsibility for the assault.”
Robertson appealed. Criminal contempt prosecutions,he argued, “are between the public and the defendant,” and thus could “only be brought in the name of the relevant sovereign, . . . the United States.” Brief for Petitioner 8, 10 (quoting Brief for Appellant in No. 00–FM–1269 etc.
(D. C.), pp. 20–21, and 940 A. 2d, at 1057; internal quotation marks omitted). So viewed, the prosecution based on the June 26 incident could not be brought, because the plea agreement barred the “gov[ernment” from pursuingany charges arising from that incident.
The Court of Appeals rejected Robertson’s arguments, in a two-step holding. Step one: “the criminal contempt prosecution in this case was conducted as a private action brought in the name and interest of Ms. Watson, not as a public action brought in the name and interest of theUnited States or any other governmental entity.” 940
A. 2d, at 1057–1058 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). Step two: because the criminal contempt prosecution was brought as an exercise of private power,that prosecution did not implicate a plea agreement that bound only the government.
And so forth. This next paste is from the end of the dissent:
Allegorical depictions of the law frequently show a figure wielding a sword—the sword of justice, to be used to smite those who violate the criminal laws. Indeed, outside our own courthouse you will find a statue of more than 30 tons, Authority of Law, which portrays a male figure with such a sword.
{{para. added by blogger}} According to the sculptor, James Earle Fraser (who also designed the buffalo nickel), the figure sits “wait[ing] with concentrated attention, holding in his left hand the tablet of laws, backed by the sheathed sword, symbolic of enforcement through law.” Supreme Court of the United States, Office of the Curator, Contemplation of Justice and Authority of Law Information Sheet 2 (2009) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file).
A basic step in organizing a civilized society is to take that sword out of private hands and turn it over to an organized government, acting on behalf of all the people.
Indeed, “[t]he . . . power a man has in the state of nature is the power topunish the crimes committed against that law. [But this]he gives up when he joins [a] . . . political society, and incorporates into [a] commonwealth.” Locke, Second Treatise, §128, at 64.The ruling below contravenes that fundamental proposition, and should not be allowed to stand. At the very least,we should do what we decided to do when we granted certiorari, and took the unusual step of rephrasing thequestion presented: answer it.
I respectfully dissent from the Court’s belated determination not to answer that question
As to that, I refer to the Declaration of Independence…. when highest officials in a state, or country, violate its own laws (with impunity) and retaliate against those who protest, we in a different context than the actual separation of either CHURCH & STATE, or — and I have done some homework on this — “PRIVATE MONEY” and the state.
I’d have given a lot for any male figure with a weapon in his hand and the laws in the other hand. But in the past 20 years, I’ve yet to find one willing to intervene between me and the male figure I married, who at times had weapons in his hands, and I assure you, there was no consideration of the laws, or upholding them, in context. To this day, I wonder how life might’ve been different had I been “woman enough” to “man up” and fight back. But as I was pregnant and a mother at the time, I had other considerations. . .
So, I have not examined this in detail, but am posting it as recent, and relevant. I hope readership will consider it the article & the dissent, and those issues in more detail.
When it’s “blown off” as a misdemeanor, or not take seriously, the overall standard of what’s acceptable — in our country (or locality) goes downhill. It sends a message that this WILL be tolerated. It’s OK to assault your girlfriend.
I’m a woman, and I’m a mom. I had daughters, not sons. I do NOT think it’s OK to assault one’s girlfriend, or boyfriend, and I know how hard it is to breakup from a “committed” relationship, although I must say, from the start, my own was a nightmare.
I also know where support is, and isn’t (mostly isn’t) in these matters. DOn’t ask your pastor to stick up for you, or priest, in most cases. Maybe on a short-term, but when it gets stuck in the courts? Who’s going to help then?
(dates to 1987, but old doctrines — especially Calvinist — die hard….)
///
Sexual and Family Violence: A Growing Issue for the Churches
by Lois Gehr Livezey
Dr. Livezey is assistant professor of Christian social ethics at Princeton Theological Seminary, Princeton, New Jersey. This article appeared in the Christian Century, October 28, 1987, p. 938. Copyright by the Christian Century Foundation and used by permission. Current articles and subscription information can be found at
www.christiancentury.org. This material was prepared for Religion Online by Ted & Winnie Brock
. . .
John Calvin wrote the following words to a battered woman seeking his counsel:
We have a special sympathy for poor women who are evilly and roughly treated by their husbands, because of the roughness and cruelty of the tyranny and captivity which is their lot. We do not find ourselves permitted by the Word of God, however, to advise a woman to leave her husband, except by force of necessity; and we do not understand this force to be operative when a husband behaves roughly and uses threats to his wife, nor even when he beats her, but when there is imminent peril to her life . . . [W]e . . . exhort her to bear with patience the cross which God has seen fit to place upon her; and meanwhile not to deviate from the duty which she has before God to please her husband, but to be faithful whatever happens [“Letter From Calvin to an Unknown Woman,” June 4, 1559, Calvini Opera, XVII, col. 539, in P. E. Hughes, editor, The Register of the Company of Pastors of Geneva in the Time of Calvin (Eerdmans, 1966) , pp. 344-345].
{{Let’s Get Honest comments: That’s all of this post for today, I provided the links, you do the legwork!}}
SHARE THIS POST on...
Intergenerational Impact of Ongoing Molestation…McNeill/Vargas case
Sunday, the SF Chronicle (print edition) had a front page article on a young man who, after years of molestation by a certain older man (from the time he was ELVEN [11] into his TWENTIES [20s]) took matters — and a gun — into his own hand, and calmly shot the guy, to death, in front of his wife. The young man was Vargas, the older one, McNeill.
There are lessons to be learned in the article, and in how the press handled it.
Mr. Vargas has a young daughter, per the account I’m linking to today, and the older one, McNeill, apparently having finished his run of molesting the young adult, was seeking contact with this granddaughter.
Let’s think about the Grandparent Visitation issues, as well as the ACCESS/Visitation issues, acknowledging that where abuse HAS occurred, either of beating a parent in front of a child, or of using a child for one’s personal gratification (either one is illegal, inappropriate, and consists of USING a person, whether an adult person, or a young person, to satisfy one’s primal instincts, rather than finding a creative — and LEGAL — outlet for expression of them.
I too, searched on-line for this, and it was NOT featured under front page links to the same newspaper. Our society is so communally stressed, I think they just cannot handle the hard truths until they hit home. Even then (collectively), only temporarily.
So here are some High School Seniors from San Mateo (per blogsite) commenting on this event. The blog is: “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to National Affairs.” As I have found personally, the younger people are, typically the more honest they are going to be in general on some of the deep issues of life.
The focus of the article had been what the TOWN thought about how to punish this young man, as well as the surviving widow. My paragraphing is probably different than on their site..
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Cold-blooded murder. Town says it was justified?
I read this very interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle today. Unfortunately, there is no link for it online (SFGate says the article is only available in print). The article was titled “Town says abuse drove man to kill,” and it was on the front page of the newspaper.
The article discussed the trial of 32-year-old Aaron Vargas who is accused of murdering his 63-year-old former neighbor, Darrell McNeill. On February 8th of last year, Vargas went to visit McNeill. After exchanging a few words with the man, Vargas proceeded to shoot McNeill in the chest with “a .44-caliber round from a Civil War-style cap-and-ball revolver.” McNeill died slowly, and Vargas stayed and watched as he took apart his weapon.McNeill’s wife, Liz, was present during the entire event. According to Liz, “Vargas told McNeill ‘he was lucky’ his wife was there.” After shooting McNeill, Vargas told the dying man “you’re not going to hurt anyone again.” He then revealed to Liz that McNeill had molested him as a child.Vargas returned home and told his mother, Robin Vargas, that he’d shot McNeill. He also revealed that McNeill had abused him during his childhood.Apparently, the abuse began when Vargas was 11-years-old and went on a fishing trip which McNeill also attended. Robin recalls that following this particular trip, Vargas’s grades plummeted and he became very withdrawn.Apparently, the abuse continued until about 4 years ago, when Vargas finally stood up to McNeill.But, McNeill did not back down easily. He continued to call Vargas and drop by his house, even offering to babysit his young daughter.
Vargas was arrested later that night. However, over the course of the past year, support for Vargas has grown. Quite a few other men have come forward and revealed that they were also victims of McNeill’s abuse. In fact, several people had filed reports against McNeill over a decade ago. None of the reports were ever followed up on.Many within the community, including McNeill’s wife, Liz, think that it would be inappropriate to sentence Vargas to a life in prison. Liz has said that she would prefer Vargas to “receive counseling instead of a lengthy prison term.”In fact, it seems that the only people pushing for a harsh sentence are the detectives investigating the case and the district attorney.In this case, I have to say that I feel it would be inappropriate to sentence Aaron Vargas to a life in prison. He was abused by McNeill for 17 years!! I cannot even imagine the emotional pain Vargas must be experiencing. While I think he does deserve some prison time, I feel the focus should be on providing Vargas with the counseling and support he needs to move on.While we cannot condone murder, I think there needs to be proper attention paid to the fact that Vargas was clearly not in his right mind. He had been abused for so many years, he just wanted the pain to end. What really irritates me is that there had been previous allegations against McNeill, but nothing had been investigated or followed up on.If McNeill had been prosecuted a decade ago, so much abuse could have been prevented.There is one point in the story that I find slightly confusing. Liz McNeill was present during the entire murder. She saw Vargas shoot her husband, and was there during the half hour in which Vargas waited for McNeill to die. I do not know the exact circumstances, but wouldn’t it have made sense for her to call the police? Vargas’s gun only had one bullet, which he used on McNeill.It seems like McNeill’s death could have been prevented.
I searched on this same site for “Domestic Violence” and found a link to a huffington post article. A “Tip O’ the Hat” to the blogsters….\
When Getting Beaten By Your Husband is a Pre-Existing Condition
With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.
It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.
Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you’re more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.
In human terms, it’s a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.
My personal experience, both in marriage, and in court, is that when human terms clash with economic terms, the economic terms, in general, prevail. However, economically-motivated practices — like endless attempts to TEACH judges and others that woman-beating and child-molesting is wrong, but NOT wrong enough to deprive the woman-beater or child-molester of ongoing contact (supervised — at someone’s expense — or Unsupervised, with eventual consequences to society) — or even of contact PERMANENTLY (as a deterrent to OTHER woman-beaters or child-molesters) – – are often sold with a human-terms window-dressing.
That’s how Bush sold Abstinence AND marriage education. We can see who is and who isn’t supposed to abide by those standards by reading the headlines involving political, sports, and celebrity headlines. Or by taking a typical look at one’s local high school.
In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.
All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the “Gang of Six” on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn’t immediately return a call from Huffington Post.
At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. “If you have no insurance, it doesn’t matter what services are mandated by the state,” he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006.
[[THIS article is from 09/14/2009)
The fact is, economies are BUILT around allowing abuse to continue — but just to certain populations. And other economies are BUILT around, supposedly, handling it.
Here’s a link to the fact that the SF Chronicle’s PRINT-ONLY policy (and the 9 headline stories it did NOT have on-line. May be on-line Tuesday?).
Worth The $3? Today’s Print Only Chronicle With Bonus Video!
by Eve Batey [[Thank you, Eve]] February 21, 2010 3:00 PM
February 21, 2010 3:00 PM
As you might recall, the recently Chron announced that, in an effort “to provide a better reading experience for Sunday print subscribers and to differentiate it from our website,” certain items that appear in the print and e-edition Sunday Chronicle would not appear on their website until the following Tuesday.
Not that folks who buy their Sunday print Chron as a single copy would necessarily know that! because, as you can see from the video below*, this week the Chron modestly chose to hide their print only content from the casual browser:Oh, Chronicle. Anyway, our print only stuff this week’s the 4 front page stories, and 5 columns: Native Son, Matier & Ross, Willie’s World, Scott Ostler, and Ray Ratto. What are these 9 “news” stories the Chronicle didn’t consider imperatively newsy enough to make available to SFGate readers for a few days? Let’s see:
Critics blast real estate reform Some people who are selling their houses are pissed because year-old changes to the appraisal system seem to be causing their homes to be valued at less than what they feel they’re worth. Worth the $3? If it’s been a year, it can probably wait until Tuesday.
Town says abuse drove man to kill A Fort Bragg guy admits he killed another man (with a Civil War era gun!), says he did it because they guy had been molesting him since he was 11, then “badgering and pursuing” him for several years thereafter. And everyone in Fort Bragg seems to believe him, and doesn’t think he should do time. It’s odd that a story based in Fort Bragg, a town so far from San Francisco that the Chronicle includes a handy map in the story, should so dominate the front page. That said, it’s an interesting story, in a magazine sort of way. Worth the $3? Get a cup of coffee and read it on Tuesday.
(for the other 7, click on link…)
Anyone able (today) to find more about that McNeill/Vargas story on-line, than what I just posted here — the high school student’s blog, and this person commenting on it NOT being on-line, let me know — comment today, send a link today. Or tomorrow.
Let’s take a moment and think about the IMPACT on someone’s failure to prosecute for this man’s molestation, upon:
- Himself
- His daughter, and her future without a natural father in the home.
- The mother of his daughter
- The widow (she became a widow; imagine handling that truth about your own husband…)
- The molester (he died)
There is indeed a STORY behind those failures (think “Garrido/Dugard”) as there is behind the Town that didn’t know this was going on.
Other people came forward after this homicide, and spoke their truths.
Here’s a blog on this from July, 2009, The Press Democrat:
By LAURA NORTON
THE PRESS DEMOCRATPublished: Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 4:05 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 4:05 a.m.( page of 7 )
The winding mountain road that twists out of Fort Bragg and east into redwood forests was dark and deserted the night last February when Aaron Vargas drove to the home of a man he had known since boyhood.
This was not a social visit.
Vargas, 31, carried an antique black powder revolver, one that requires the loading of primer, wadding and a projectile before cocking the weapon, details that would become important months later.
Pause to digest this age. Another story says the abuse stopped only 4 years earlier, making Vargas 27 years old when it stopped. I really suspect that Vargas’ awareness of what might be his daughter’s fate was a factor in the action he took to make sure it wouldn’t.
On this night the gun was made ready to fire. Vargas approached, and now stands accused of pointing the gun and firing a single shot into Darrell McNeill’s chest while McNeill’s stunned wife, Liz, looked on.
As the 63-year-old man lay dying, according to court testimony, Vargas disassembled the gun, placed it on the kitchen counter, and told McNeill’s wife why he was there: The man he shot was his molester.
McNeill, Vargas later told family, first molested him when he was 11 years old. He said he was just one of many boys who fell victim to McNeill, a man long seen in the community as a loyal husband, community volunteer and friendly salesman.
Darrell McNeill settled in Fort Bragg while working for the old Union Lumber Co. He led the local Mormon Church’s Boy Scout troop in the 1980s and mentored youth in the Big Brother Big Sister program before that.
Parents. PLEASE! Understand that there is more than one motivation running through people who want unmonitored access to your kids. I know that’s hard to handle, but be alert, OK? Know what’s up behind closed doors (figuratively speaking). Do the McNeill’s have kids?
He sold families their refrigerators and washing machines from the store he established. That he could lead a secret life molesting child after child was unimaginable, yet even his widow now believes the allegations to be true.
She now wonders if she ever really knew the man she was married to for 25 years, the man who fell on hard times when his business went bankrupt and he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
There were no clues, no signs to the abuse, she said.
The men who have come forward to Vargas’ attorney to say they, too, were abused, are men Liz McNeill calls her “boys.”
Like Vargas, they were kids that hung around the house to play, kids with whom her husband had a good rapport.
“What I learned that night, I didn’t know had happened,” said Liz McNeill, whose eyewitness account of the shooting likely will be pivotal in the jury trial set to start in September.
She has asked prosecutors to reduce the charges against Vargas.
The community is struggling with questions of justice — for a homicide victim now branded a child molester, and for an accused killer who claims to be a sexual abuse victim. One is buried, the other in jail.
Prosecutors, however, say vengeance is no excuse for murder and the crime deserves 50 years to life in prison. A pretrial hearing will take place this month.
Supportive words
As the trial date nears, more than 1,000 comments asking the District Attorney’s Office not to prosecute the case have been posted on a Web page set up by Vargas’ family. Some of the comments are from victims of sexual abuse. Most are from current or former Fort Bragg residents. Many are coming to terms with a dark secret they may have lived with for decades.
Since the shooting, at least eight alleged victims have come forward to Vargas’ attorney, Tom Hudson, revealing stories of widespread sexual abuse spanning more than a decade, some of them detailed in written statements.. . …
The motive, Vargas’ attorney says, was the bottled-up rage from years of abuse.
Fort Bragg in the 1980s was a town of just over 5,000 people. It was a quiet, idyllic place to raise a family, said Jere Mello, a Fort Bragg resident since 1966 and a current City Council member.
——–
WHY NO NEWS ABOUT AARON VARGAS — JAILED FOR KILLING HIS ABUSE (Fort Bragg forum, Sept, 2009)
[[THIS COMMENTATOR — from UK — wonders, also…]
I have scoured the web but have been unable to find much information about the case of Aaron Vargas, jailed for killing the man that abused him and others in the community sexually and psychologically for over 20 years.
The abuser, Darrell McNeill, abused many children in the small community of Fort Bragg, California. The abuse was reported to the police by victims, and by a former wife of McNeill. Photographic evidence was even produced but no investigation was done. McNeill was never even questioned.
The relevant factoid I just picked up — Mrs. Liz McNeill is a second wife — the former wife reported his abuse. A lot of “next women,” will need to overlook prior abuse, or naturally discredit it, in the interests of their new relationship.
Don’t think men don’t know this. I’m glad Liz McNeill is doing the right thing — thank you. I’m sorry for HER loss as well — including the loss of the illusion of who was that man she was married to. And maybe a better understanding of his former wife.
I feel required to say, from experience, that men like McNeill know where to find their next women, and how to charm them. If we are society that undervalues women and over-values men, this is a partial consequence. People will NOT NOTICE things they otherwise would, in interest of relationship #2.
I do not doubt Mrs. McNeill when she says, there was NO evidence of the abuse. Child molesters can’t keep it up without secrecy. Vargas’ own mother didn’t know, either, til her told her.
Earlier this week Aaron appeared in court in a bid to get his bail reduced to allow him to return to his family and baby son. The application was denied and the bail was too much for the family to manage. No report in the press about this?
I understand the jury trial is due to begin Sept 28st 9am ~ Ukiah Courthouse.
From a blog on myspace. linked to the saveaaron.com website.
The Anderson Valley Advertiser – June 3, 2009
By Freda Moon‘At the end of June, Aaron Vargas will stand trial for a crime that would normally be seen as inexcusable: He is accused of driving to Darrell McNeill’s trailer home on Fort Bragg’s Farrer Lane, shooting his former neighbor with a .44 caliber black powder revolver and then waiting nearly a half-hour for the man to die—all while McNeill’s wife, Liz, waited nearby.
But very little about Vargas’s case—neither the story of his life nor public reaction to his crime—is normal. Following the February shooting, McNeill’s death has had the unusual effect of eliciting empathy for a murderer and revulsion for his victim. That’s because, in this case, the dead man’s sins weigh heavy on the community’s conscience. They are sins that are only now surfacing, one after the next, revealing child abuse that appears to span decades and includes the sexual molestation of not only Aaron Vargas, but McNeill’s own sons and a growing list of other local boys—now adult men—with whom Darrell McNeill crossed paths during his 63 years.’Why no coverage, surely this is a case worthy of international attention but nothing in the local press or online?
Why no outrage?
Aaron supporters have set up a number of sites and groups and are desperate to raise awareness about this case but nothing else in the media.
Why no investigation into Mcneill after all the initial complaints and explicit photographs. Is someone trying to cover up the failures of the justice system?
Aaron needs rehabilitation and counselling, not jail. Don’t let the justice system just let him down again.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/fort-bragg-ca/TBO24P8KKUVNS4JE2
[[Back to my commentary, here…]]
PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN GET JUSTICE IF THEY ARE GOING TO REPORT THEIR OWN ABUSE AND TRUTHS ABOUT IT.
This is not that hard a crime to prosecute from evidence of who shot whom, and as such, the prosecutors went right for it. Abuse is harder, because abusers have to maintain secrecy, lies, and so forth. It’s HARD to speak up.
I have been repeatedly, repeatedly, citing this SITE:
Bridging the gap between childhood trauma and negative consequences later in life
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?
- Recurrent physical abuse
- Recurrent emotional abuse
- Contact sexual abuse
- An alcohol and/or drug abuser in the
household
- An incarcerated household member
- Someone who is chronically depressed,
mentally ill, institutionalized, or suicidal
- Mother is treated violently
- One or no parents
- Emotional or physical neglect
The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study:
Bridging the gap between childhood trauma and negative consequences later in life.
{{GREEN ITALICS HERE = MY COMMENTS}} I no longer associate with the people who retain denial of the domestic violence I endured. It has required building an entirely different life. I also am in a professional switch, because the events surrounding it (I’m not talking sexual abuse, but battering within the home, and the patterns of control, intimidation, and so forth involved), for reasons relating to ongoing safety and past reminders of jobs lost during the FREQUENT, COURT-ORDERED, CONTACT with no safeguards for me, or my kids, during them. Safeguards not just from abduction, physical harm, but also repeated emotional trauma.
As a mature adult, it took all I had to handle it, and deal with this. I do not know how resilient my children are going to have been until they are adult. I do know that there is a high price to be paid for denial, and that it does go intergenerationally until stopped. Trauma just doesn’t “go away” without an outlet.
When courts allow the PARENTS or RELATIVES of an abuser (domestic) of child molester to be the household or adult supervising exchanges, they are insane. It makes no sense that a family that raised a person who can’t restrain him or herself, should then be overseeing the consequences of their lack of restraint. Go figure….
But, We have a different “Clear and Present Danger” according to the professional organization basically running the family court system:
Is clear and present danger to the physical and mental health of the citizens of the State of California, a spousal batterer? (like the California code says, at least last time I read it, and it’s on this blog, too).
Is clear and present danger the economic crisis? Here’s a search result from last April, as this man says?
Commentary: Budget a ‘clear and present danger’ to our kids
To put it into perspective, the president’s budget would double the national debt in five years, increasing it from last year’s $5.8 trillion to $11.7 trillion in 2013, and would almost triple the debt in 10 years, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. At the end of the president’s budget, an average household in this country will owe $130,000 in debt just to support the government.
The burden of this debt will be borne by our children, and they will bear the cost of this through a dollar that is diminished in value or through higher taxes. So the money they might use to send their children to college, or buy a house, or live a better lifestyle will be eliminated or significantly reduced.
Editor’s note: U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, represents New Hampshire. He withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary in the Obama administration in February.
Article: Judd Gregg “Special to CNN”
The president’s proposal adds, on average, almost $1 trillion a year to the debt to dramatically increase the size of the government. This rate of spending is not sustainable and this course of action will put our country on the road to bankruptcy.
As families sit at their kitchen tables to assess their own budgets and priorities, they know they will have to make hard choices about how they spend their money and what they sacrifice to grow their savings. Yet the president’s budget neglects to make its own hard choices. It has zero savings for major entitlement programs which are on track to cost the nation more than $67 trillion in the next 75 years.
Sen. Gregg wrote:
we may be the first generation to pass on to our children a country they cannot afford.
I have been reporting on this blog that we ought to track spending for the Designer Family Programs as they course through the courts. WHO IS GOING TO DO THIS? Some of the professionals profiting from that? Judges? Mental Health professionals?
Is altruism really the motive throughout this system?
Let’s see what the AFCC conference has to say. I already blogged twice on this
First time:
“Clear and Present Danger”…fuzzy usage by AFCC « Let’sGetHonestBlog
Second time:
AFCC Feb. 2010 Presenters — Family Law Vocabulary 101… « Let …
AFCC – The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
www.afccnet.org/conferences/chapter_conferences.asp –
A Legacy of Innovation and Collaboration
The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) took root in California in the spring of 1963 with the creation of the California Conciliation Courts Quarterly, the first publication to promote the interchange of ideas between California’s conciliation courts. Judge Roger Alton Pfaff, presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, wrote:
California has become a model for conciliation services as a part of the judicial function for other states to emulate and each year we find jurisdictions creating such services. It may well be that in the not too distant future this little publication may have a wider dissemination with similar courts in other states.
Judge Pfaff’s words proved truly prophetic. The publication, which now goes by the name Family Court Review, is presently read by thousands of subscribers around the world in countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Meanwhile, AFCC has grown from a handful of California counselors and judges to an international association of judges, lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators, parenting coordinators, parent educators, court administrators, counselors, researchers, academics, and other professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.
For more on that, see JohnnyPumphandle site and “free Richard Fine” sites!
SHARE THIS POST on...
(Yet another) Court-enabled infanticide on court-ordered visitation
You want to know why I call the DV Restraining order process “certifiably insane?” Whether granted, or NOT granted? Here’s why.
-
Local News in Victorville, CA
Pinon Hills man plans murder of infant son, suicide on Facebook
Comments 55 | Recommend 8
February 01, 2010 11:19 PMIn a chilling letter posted on Facebook for anyone to see, Stephen Garcia, 25, of Pinon Hills appears to detail how he planned his suicide and the murder of his 9-month-old son.
…..
Thinking that it is going to help us is grasping at straws. Instead, make a safety plan.
However, this mother had a choice of possibly going to jail for contempt if she decided to disobey a court order that overrode her mother’s instincts.
“I led everyone on my side of the family to believe I wouldn’t of done this because I did not want them to know…” the letter reads. “I had been thinking about doing this for months.”
In other words, the guy was deceitful, deceiving even his own family. However, the mother of his son, who apparently knew him more “intimately” saw the danger, and tried to stop it. She tried with the usual tools that women in this position are given: Seek a restraining order.
She didn’t even GET one, because there had been no prior criminal record.. Therefore, he could not have possibly been a danger. Sure…
The post may help San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Homicide investigators piece together what led to the Sunday morning tragedy, when Garcia took his infant son during a court-ordered visitation, drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks and ended both of their lives.
In the letter posted to his Facebook profile, Garcia claimed the deaths were an attempt to save his son from a difficult life — and to punish the baby’s mother, Katie Tagle, for refusing to come back to him.
“Our deaths are a lot for her,” the post continues. “It will have to suffice as her punishment. But that is not the reason I did it. It was the only way we could be happy without Katie. I did this out of love for our son, to protect him and myself.”
Saved letters, text messages and massive files containing e-mails and other correspondence give a glimpse into Garcia’s obsession, cursing Tagle and her family in some posts and asking her to return to him in others.
Court documents tell more of the story, with Tagle filing a request for a domestic violence restraining order on Dec. 11, 2009. On Jan. 12 that order was denied, as it was found Garcia was not a “threat to petitioner or the minor child.”
A search of his criminal record showed no history of domestic violence, battery or similar offenses in San Bernardino County. However, in one of a slew of other online letters attributed to Garcia, it states, “I’m sorry for hurting you. I’m sorry for hitting you. I’m sorry I made the wrong choices.”
On Jan. 17, shortly after the final visit with Judge David Mazurek, Garcia joined a Facebook group called “Organ Donor.”
In the days leading up to the murder-suicide, Garcia posted a half-dozen videos and dozens of photos of Wyatt with cryptic captions such as, “Please, it’s not too late.”
On his MySpace page, his mood over the last week was listed as “tested,” “bummed” and “scared,” with “one more day :(” his final post.
Hours before officials got a call Saturday night that Wyatt was missing and Garcia had threatened to kill him, he made his final online post: “We love you all.”
The suicide note was posted on Garcia’s Facebook profile Sunday, about eight hours after Hesperia Sheriff’s deputies found the bodies in Garcia’s car. It appears Garcia left directions for someone to post the letter and make it public for everyone to see.
The lengthy post also reads as a will, with directions for how to distribute his possessions and personal notes to family members and friends. It also states that Garcia left a signed letter in his truck, confessing to the killings and explaining why he did them.
Though Garcia mentions using a gun, investigators have not released information on how he killed Wyatt and himself, stating only that they both died from “traumatic injuries.”
Anyone who may have information about this case is asked to call Detective Ryan Ford or Sgt. Frank Montanez at the Sheriff’s Homicide Detail at (909) 387-3589 or call WeTip at (800) 78-CRIME.Brooke Edwards and Natasha Lindstrom contributed to this report.
Beatriz E. Valenzuela may be reached at 951-6276 or at BValenzuela@VVDailyPress.com.
Here’s the SFGate Report on this:
SoCal man mentioned son’s killing on Facebook
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
(02-02) 09:04 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —
A newspaper says a San Bernardino County man who killed his 9-month-old son and himself left a Facebook message saying he did it out of love.Sheriff’s officials say 25-year-old Stephen Garcia of Pinon Hills was on a court-ordered visit with his son Sunday when he drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks, killed the boy and committed suicide.
The Daily Press in Victorville says Garcia left a message on his Facebook profile about eight hours after his body was found. The note, apparently posted on his behalf by someone else, says Garcia had been thinking of the crime for months and wanted to punish the baby’s mother for leaving him.
Garcia says the deaths are the only way he and his son can be happy without her and says he did it out of love to protect the boy.
Information from: Daily Press, www.vvdailypress.com (the first article, above).
He did it for “love.” Some kind of love….
Here’s a fellow-blogger’s reaction.
And a site worth spending time on. . . .
See the heartbreaking MySpace page that belongs to the father and the bizzare RIP on it.
Judge J. David Mazurek needs to held accountable on this, and charged as an accomplice in this murder. This needs to happen to every judge that allows abusers to take children, and then hurt or murder them. Maybe then judges will start taking domestic violence seriously. Thanks to the father’s rights advocates and their “false allegations” drivel, they have turned America’s judges into a bunch of pussies who absolutely have no clue. Just get the child to the father….doesn’t matter if he is violent or not. It is time to stop listening to the mantra from these groups and start taking these violent guys seriously, and start putting judges in prison that don’t.
We Moms are NOT de-sensitized to this insane callousness to who lives, or who’s going to die. But if a Mom goes to jail in protest, what good is that to her children? If she doesn’t go, then the risk goes to the children. And/or her, and/or innocent bystanders, in some cases.
THIS overentitled, disillusioned, and unable to have a vital purpose in life other than punishing the mother of his child (how perverted is THAT?) was only 25. Bet he attended a public school system, possibly in this great state. Did he do college too? If so, to what point? Whether or not, there is clearly an attitude problem, a spiritual problem, and a moral problem. I don’t think the millions upon millions (literally) going to the California Healthy Marriage Coalition are going to stop troubles this entrenched. This guy was narcissistic, period. And to a point, he was a product of a system that encourages — and does not DIScourage — this. It’s a system where women have to fight uphill to get away from ground zero in their own lives.
I wonder how well we (well, people) are also reading characters before having babies. Makes you think, right?
BUT: Apparently the courts are, and clearly the judges are callous. Or, they are bound by the requirement to keep an ongoing stream of unwilling clients to their cronies. Excuse me, colleagues.
Well, no, I don’t think the judges are not clueless, and they are not pussies, I believe. They just don’t care! Why? What’s at stake if they do? . . . . An entire system.
A bribe perverts justice. I’m not accusing this particular judge of taking a bribe, but the court docket below tells clearly that they passed the buck to family court because there were custody and visitation orders. That’s how it goes.
And family court was SET UP from the start, at least per some sites (CANOW.org family law page, NAFCJ.net, and some others) to be abuser-friendly, and father-friendly (despite allegations to the contrary).
It was just business as usual. And if you want “business as usual” to change, friends, you have to change who is paying for the “business as usual,” and in the bottom line, this is the taxpayers. The Dept. of HHS in combo with some DOJ (Office of Violence Against Women) sources are conferencing together, educating together, declaring together, but the ONE thing they are NOT doing is confronting t he mandated mediation or custody evaluation where there’s conflict. And that “required outcome” model of the court process.
The judge is not going to be charged as an accomplice to murder. With luck, and persistence, he MIGHT be held accountable if this becomes a pattern. The people most highly motivated to do this are probably already victims of the court system, and are still in the process of trying to stay housed, alive, and their kids alive also.
However, what we MIGHT do for the next batch of innocent young mothers who show up thinking that family court is something you can walk into, and then also walk OUT of with a restraining order, is warn them…
HERE’s the Docket:
12/11/2009 – She requests ex parte DV restraining order.
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
WOW, lots of “Tagles” in this jurisdiction. This appears to be Katie Tagle in a previous relationship, or another Katie Tagle. In this one, she was charged with domestic violence.
Either way, the KNEE-JERK reaction of the court is to:
1. Consolidate with a family law (dissolution, I guess case).
2. Make a really STUPID order as to where violence has been alleged. THIS one has a daughter, “Dakota” and they are to alternate every other DAY, and — of course — go to mediation, or else.
Here: 2007 DOCKET, different couple (or at least, father)….
Action: (Choose)04/04/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…04/03/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR
04/03/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M2
| BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING. |
| CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ |
| REPORTER: GARY RAGLE |
| – |
| PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT |
| DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT |
| – |
| PROCEEDINGS: |
| DECLARATION RE: 4 HOUR NOTICE FILED. |
| WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE JR IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. |
| CASE CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE(S) MFL010729 MASTER FILE MFL010729 |
| – |
| {{NOTE: THis “consolidation” is where the issue of the DV gets basically lost, and is intentional. It happened to me. … This consolidation action violates due process for at least one of the parties, but is routine…}}HEARINGS: |
| CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/04/07 AT 08:29 IN DEPARTMENT M3. |
| – |
| TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS: PARTIES STIPULATE TO |
| SHARE CUSTODY OF DAKOTA TAGLE ON AN ALTERNATING |
| BASIS BEGINNING 04/01/07 EVERY OTHER DAY UNTIL |
| FURTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. WEDNESDAYS DAKOTA |
| IS TO BE PICKED UP BY FATHER FROM DAYCARE UNTIL |
| 04/18/07. IF IT IS MOTHERS DAY FOR EXCHANGE IT |
| IS TO BE MADE AFTER MOTHER GETS OFF WORK. |
| THESE ORDERS ARE TEMPORARY UNTIL FURTHER ORDER |
| OF THE COURT. THINK: IF violence truly occurred, the Court just buried discussion of it, and made SURE that the child IS going to be in the full, unmonitored (not that I’m thinking monitoring makes a difference) custody of the abusive parent. |
| – |
| THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO REPORT ON 04/11/07, AT 08:00 TO FAMILY COURT SERVICES AND TO COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE FAMILY COURT SERVICES COUNSELORS DURING ALL STAGES OF THE MEDIATION/EVALUATION {{Do you GET this yet? The racket is going through mediation and evaluation and counseling. Yes, I said “racket.” See “Access/Visitation funding” which was thinly veiled way to get more fathers (although it says “noncustodial PARENTS, in practice, and even the language frequently slips into saying, FATHERS) more time with their children. I have blogged on this earlier..} |
| PROCESS. CUSTODIAL PARENT(S) SHALL MAKE CHILDREN AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES REQUESTED BY COUNSELOR. |
| PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND ORIENTATION ON |
| 04/09/07 AT 3PM. |
| ACTION – COMPLETE |
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
| ==MINUTE ORDER CHANGED OR CORRECTED BY P MARTIN; CHANGES MADE ARE AS FOLLOWS: TO CHANGE TO ORIENTATION == |
It might be that she filed for divorce, and he quickly filed for DV. I don’t know without further research.
Here’s the minutes of the order, the next day. As you can see, the court called the DV “mutual combat” (Sure, right….) and ordered them to a “Strengthening Families Class.”
Here it is. We are talking, now 2 YEARS (almost) before another infant son died:
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR (==link here)
04/04/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3
| BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING. | |||||||||||||||||
| CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ | |||||||||||||||||
| REPORTER: GARY RAGLE | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT | |||||||||||||||||
| DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PROCEEDINGS: | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — SOMMER MERCER IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — CARLOS TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| WITNESS — MARIA BROWN IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
| EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. | |||||||||||||||||
EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:
|
|||||||||||||||||
| COURT FINDS MUTUAL COMBAT AND ORDERS PERSONAL | |||||||||||||||||
| CONDUCT ORDERS AGAINST EACH PARTY. | |||||||||||||||||
| THE RESTRAINED PERSON MUST NOT DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON OR PEOPLE: | |||||||||||||||||
| HARASS, ATTACK, STRIKE, THREATEN, ASSAULT (SEXUALLY OR OTHERWISE), HIT, FOLLOW, STALK, MOLEST, DESTROY PERSONAL PROPERTY, DISTURB THE PEACE, KEEP UNDER SURVEILLANCE, OR BLOCK MOVEMENTS. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| THESE ARE NON-CLETS ORDERS. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND THE STRENGTHENING | |||||||||||||||||
| FAMILIES PROGRAM AT THE NEXT START CYCLE. | |||||||||||||||||
| – | |||||||||||||||||
| HEARINGS: | |||||||||||||||||
| ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SET FOR 08:30 AT M4 IN DEPARTMENT | |||||||||||||||||
| PETITIONER TO PREPARE ORDER AFTER HEARING. | |||||||||||||||||
| ACTION – COMPLETE | |||||||||||||||||
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
There are “Strengthening Families” programs across the nation. A search found one from San Bernadino, UTAH (not this case, obviously), but this is probably typical of how it’s organized and got started:
(see original link, above for visuals. This is, naturally, an “Evidence-based” practice. The evidence in the Tagle case, out of San Bernadino, CAL is still that something ain’t getting that job done. …. No matter, the court-ordered parenting classes continue…)
The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) is a parenting and family skills training program that consists of 14 consecutive weekly skill-building sessions. Parents and children work separately in training sessions and then participate together in a session practicing the skills they learned earlier. Two booster sessions are used at 6 months to 1 year after the primary course. Children’s skills training sessions concentrate on setting goals, dealing with stress and emotions, communication skills, responsible behavior, and how to deal with peer pressure. Topics in the parental section include setting rules, nurturing, monitoring compliance, and applying appropriate discipline.
SFP was developed and tested in 1983 with 6- to 12-year-old children of parents in substance abuse treatment. Since then, culturally modified versions and age-adapted versions (for 3- to 5-, 10- to 14-, and 13- to 17-year-olds) with new manuals have been evaluated and found effective for families with diverse backgrounds: African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, Australian, and Canadian.
| Goal / Mission | The goals of this program are to improve parenting skills and children’s behaviors and decrease conduct disorders; to improve children’s social competencies; and to improve family attachment, harmony, communication, and organization. |
| Results / Accomplishments | SFP has been evaluated at least 18 times on Federal grants and at least 150 times on State grants by independent evaluators. {{I question HOW independent…}}The original National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) study involved a true pretest, posttest, and follow-up experimental design with random assignment of families to one of four experimental groups: 1) parent training only, 2) parent training plus children’s skills training, 3) the complete SFP including the family component, and 4) no treatment besides substance abuse treatment for parents.
SFP was then culturally adapted and evaluated with five Center for Substance Abuse Prevention High-Risk Youth Program grants by independent evaluators using statistical control group designs that involved quasi-experimental, pretest, posttest, and 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. Recently, SFP was compared with a popular school-based aggression prevention program (I Can Problem Solve) and found highly effective (effect sizes = .45 to 1.38), employing a true experimental pretest–posttest, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up design in two Utah school districts. A NIDA four-group randomized clinical trial with about 800 primarily African-American families in the Washington, DC, area also found good results. |
| Categories | Social Environment / Family Structure Social Environment / Children’s Social Environment |
WHICH (to me) JUST GOES TO PROVE, THERE’S NO “FREE” LUNCH. YOU GO TO A NONPROFIT (POSSIBLY FUNDED B Y THE US GOV’T OR A STATE, OR BOTH) OR THE GOV’T (VIA AN AGENCY) FOR HELP — OR FOR THAT MATTER, ENROLL A CHILD IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR EDUCATION– AND YOUR CHILDREN, AND PROBABLY YOU, will, (read my lips), will BE “AT RISK” of becoming the subject of a demonstration, or randomized trial of some behavioral management theory.
in this case, Ms. Tagle went to a judge seeking protection for her (new) infant son, and lost. Again, I do not know that this is the same Tagle. Possibly, possibly not. Different man, though. Last names not changed. Was this a rebound relationship?
Oh yes, the 2009 docket, in reverse chronologic order. No dissolution in this one:
- Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition Image
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/12/2010 9:00 AM DEPT. M3 OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
01/11/2010 ANDREW H. LUND IS REMOVED AS ATTORNEY FOR STEPHEN GARCIA, AND PRO/PER IS ADDED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUPP DECL BY KATIE TAGLE BY MAIL ON 01/07/10 AS TO ATTORNEY ANDREW LUND, FILED. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 DECLARATION OF KATIE M TAGLE FILED Not Applicable
01/05/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANSWER TO TRO/IE BY MAIL ON 01/05/10 AS TO KATIE TAGLE, FILED. Not Applicable
01/05/2010 INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA Not Applicable
01/05/2010 ANSWER TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA, PARTY REPRESENTED BY ANDREW H. LUND. Not Applicable
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
12/11/2009 CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT RECEIVED. Not Applicable
12/11/2009 EX PARTE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
12/11/2009 REQUEST FOR ORDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION Not Applicable
12/11/2009 REQUEST AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED.(DV) Not Applicable
Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Action: (Choose)02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/12/2010 – OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FI…12/15/2009 – EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC…
EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
12/15/2009 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3
DEBRA HARRIS PRESIDING. CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE – PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY LORI SMITH FOR ANDREW EUND FOR RESPONDENT. – PROCEEDINGS: OSC/MOTION HELD. BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED. DECLARATION REGARDING EXPARTE NOTICE FILED. EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. EX PARTE ORDERS DENIED. – HEARINGS: OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE IS SET FOR 01/12/10AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT M3. ACTION – COMPLETE === MINUTE ORDER END ===
For those unfamiliar with the process, let me narrate:
- She asks for ex parte protection (12/11/09) which starts a process, and gives the respondent time to go get an attorney, which he does. The request for protection stands, it’s just not ex parte — a requirement which is for safety purposes, because of potential for retaliation.
- 12/15/09 the OSC for EX PARTE (immediate, without telling the other party) protection is apparently denied and the request for protection is continued to 01/11/10. NOTE: Christmas seasons, holiday seasons, can be very dangerous for the parties when there’s been a breakup; as it highlights “family” and a family is breaking apart…
- On 01/05/10 the man, who by now has an attorney (WONDER WHO PAID FOR HIM… ACCESS / Vistation FUNDING?), Mr. Lund, and files an answer.
- The parties exchange income and expense reports (if family law is going to make some money off this, it’s important to know which side has the money…. If not, they’ll be sent quickly through mediation, not evaluations….).
- On 01/07-08/10 the woman files and serves (by mail) a supplemental declaration to the man’s attorney, properly (Proof of service).
- On 01/11/10, the man’s attorney QUITS. (not enough money in it for him? Or, the case has already been, basically, decided).
- On 01/12/10, the OCS for a normal domestic violence protection order occurs, as follows:
OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
01/12/2010 – 9:00 AM DEPT. M3
| J. DAVID MAZUREK PRESIDING. |
| CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH |
| COURT REPORTER JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND |
| – |
| PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT |
| RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT |
| – |
| PROCEEDINGS: |
| OSC/MOTION HELD. |
| BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
| COURT FINDS THERE IS A PENDING PROCEEDING IN |
| THE VICTORVILLE COURT THAT IS SUBJECT TO CUSTODY |
| AND VISITATION ORDERS. |
| – |
| COURT FINDS THERE IS NOT THREAT TO PETITIONER |
| OR THE MINOR CHILD. |
| THE OSC IS DENIED. |
| – |
| ORAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES BY RESPONDENT IS |
| DENIED. |
| – |
| BOTH PARTIES ARE REMINDED BY THE COURT OF THEIR |
| FAMILY COURT SERVICES APPOINTMENT FOR THEIR |
| VICTORVILLE CASE. |
| COMPLAINT STAGE AT DISPOSITION – OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL) |
| DISPOSITION OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL) |
| COURT ORDERS ENTIRE ACTION DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. REASON: REQUEST DENIED.. |
| ACTION – COMPLETE |
| === MINUTE ORDER END === |
- This (civil, I presume) venue tosses the ball back to the FAMILY law venue, and reminds them to be good little girls and boys, and go to Family Court Services.
- 01/26/2010 (LAST week, folks), something regarding fees is filed.
- 01/30/2010 — Father kills son on court-ordered visitation, and then himself. (NOT ON DOCKET).
- 01/31/2010 — Sheriff’s Dept. reports to press (see top of post):
01-31, 18:38 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —
Authorities in San Bernardino County say a 25-year-old father and his 9-month-old son have died in what investigators believe is a murder-suicide. A sheriff’s news release says deputies found Stephen Garcia and son Wyatt Garcia dead in a vehicle on a rural dirt road in the Twin Peaks area early Sunday.
The release says the Hesperia Sheriff’s Station had received a report Saturday night that Garcia took his son during a court-ordered visitation and threatened to kill the child and himself. The department did not say how the pair died, only that they “sustained traumatic injuries.” The county coroner will conduct an autopsy on both father and son this week.
Stephen Garcia was from the Pinon (pin-YONE) Hills area and his son was from Yucca Valley.
- 02/01/2010 Someone requests a Court Transcript.
I had not meant to spend so long on this case, After all, EVERY WEEK, even in my own Golden State, it seems someone ground up by this system, dies. If not a child also. I can’t keep up.
But it does illustrate the futility of (I think– make your own decision, and this is NOT legal advice) seeking a civil restraining order, versus criminal, versus, better yet, some kind of safety plan. Then again, for women with kids leaving abuse in the family law, there does not appear to be any safety. Congressmen (Danny Davis was active in a case) will help fathers haul kids back from overseas (China, Brazil, come to mind recently), but good luck getting yours back from your own state, or a next door state.
And again, a word to the wse — not that it’s an excuse — but cool it on the rebound relationships, if this was one.
AND — whoever posted on Facebook, and whoever SAW what was posted on facebook (i.e., a cry to have his threats taken seriously, as they should’ve been), YOU are responsible if you knew this couple, and did nothing. Sorry, but you are.
AND all of us need to get on the stick about this family law system. The AFCC and all their experts that PROFIT from these situations leading to, basically, more deaths, is convening in February — this month. Do research, people! It’s not rocket science, just an investment of time!
I think that if marriage, and relationships are continuing to be this dangerous to have, and leave, it is a testament to the strength of testosterone (and other hormones) that people continue to engage in sex, let alone ongoing relationships. Good grief!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A task force or a committee is not going to stop this stuff. A good audit, ongoing, by someone with courage (and other source of income) MIGHT make a dent….
Wish I had time to say more, but I don’t.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Rocky Mountain High– if you’re in one of these professions…
or should I say, Rocky Mountain HYbrid? Sure looks like one here….
A.k.a. Carpet Bagging on Divorce Distress, at high altitudes…
I just had an odd question: Why is SF’s famous, and well-established Family Violence Prevention Fund, a pace-setter and leader in the field of violence preVENtion conferences and training, promoting conferences like this?
I mean, I just got on “endabuse.org” and searched for “family law,” to see if they actually address some of the rampant troubles with the family law system. After all, they are a FAMILY violence prevention fund….
Here are links on top right, first page”:
Do you see anything about preventing violence against WOMEN? In fact, women show up, if they’re immigrants. A search of “fathers” versus a search of “mothers” on this site pull up entirely different stats — you should try it some time.
This came up on page 1 of search results, only the 4th item:
clipped from Google – 11/2009
The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 46th annual conference will be held at the Sheraton New Orleans and will examine how family law research, practices and processes have evolved.** It will feature 70 workshops, including three-hour advanced sessions, three plenary sessions and a choice of six daylong pre-conference institutes.Sessions will address challenges to conventional child custody wisdom including assertions about 50/50 parenting, the child’s role in the process, the resiliency of children after divorce, the changing role of court systems in resolving family disputes, and more. For more information, click here.
…
**:have evolved.” Wake up. Want to know how? Look at AFCC’s “About us” or history page — this was not accident, it was intentional transformation, and “how” they evolved was particularly through conferences such as the AFCC puts on, policies which the FVPF has now more overtly (i’m not sure for how long they were ever truly independent) bought into….
I DID “click here,” which brought me not to New Orleans, but to Denver. At which point, this post was conceived and “evolved” — we deserve to know that the organization called “endabuse” is advertising for, and sponsoring conferences for, the organization that is promoting doctrines specifically originated to cover up domestic VIOLENCE (not “abuse”), Child Abuse (is the term, although it does violence to children), and incest, etc. . . . To cover up criminal behavior and change it into something else, linguistically.
/ / / / /
Let me clarify “AFCC”, in case you’re under 20, IN one of these professions, and haven’t been a parent involved in divorce: Custody Switches Happen. HOW do they happen? When something is confronted by one parent, or reported by a children, generally speaking. WHY does this occur? Well, a variety of reasons, but generally in retaliation for reporting. (From what I can see). I mean, what’s the common (?) or $$-and-cents for pulling a sole-custody switch midway through a growing child’s life? It’s $$ and sense from a certain perspective… The “best interests” of the child is not as common sense as we might wish to think (see my blog on slavery & domestic violence, a recent one).
But I’m blabbing here: AFCC, per Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net, and I have to agree after my studies, at least of grants patterns and some of the printed materials, not to mention experiences:
This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring [of] judges who dominate the family court system and public policy in many states. These judges are not only hearing a large percentage of domestic litigation, they are also writing the state laws covering custody, divorce and child support. In addition they influence HHS-ACF agency which controls most of the grant funds going to the state level agencies and courts. Their people are getting the grants and using for the fathers rights cases.
READ ABOUT THESE GROUPS TO COMPREHEND THE EXTENT OF THIS COLLUSIONAFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
“AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.” . . . .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 [[using this PAS to retaliate against those reporting abuse, including sometimes sexual abuse of minors]]as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard Gardner. Their 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.
The LEGAL disincentive for defaulting on child support obligations is a contempt of a court order action. There was no problem in using this against the protective mother in Oconto Wisconsin, recently, so I know the judges “understand” the concept. But when a father is involved, somehow we need to give them “incentive” to care about their children’s welfare by helping “bribe” (you give me this, I may give you that, perhaps) them to carry this out in the form of stepping up to that child support plate. That alone is suspect to me, as well as many other aspects of the child support system.. . . . . Women are supposed to care, men have to be bribed to?
ALSO, Is that what any type of courts are FOR? To resolve family conflict? I thought that’s what counseling and therapy was for. Sounds like we have a confusion of purposes somewhere (and should throw out the Constitution as irrelevant, as well as laws). ANYHOW, here they are:
| Exhibit and advertise at AFCC 47Th Annual Conference June 2-5, 2010 Denver, Colorado More information>> |
AFCC Training Programs In Baltimore, Maryland December 7-8 & 9-10, 2009More information >> |
AFCC Training Programs In Houston, Texas February 22-23 & 24-25, 2010More information >> |
Subscribe to the AFCC free Monthly eNews Subscribe>> |
‘Traversing the Trail of Alienation: Mountains of Emotion, Mile High Conflict‘
…AFCC’s Annual Conference is the premiere event for family law, mental health and dispute resolution professionals. AFCC’s 47th Annual Conference will bring together between 800-1000 judges, lawyers, mediators, social workers, psychologists, parenting coordinators, parent educators and others.
I’d like to pause here for a brief prayer: “Lord, deliver us from all do-gooders, parent educators, and unsolicited profiteering helpers that may cross my life, or my children’s this day, in Jesus name, Amen.” (I’d rather SEE a sermon than attend a parenting seminar any day. This is parenting: you get your kids SAFE, FIRST, and teach them right from wrong based on behavior, character — not family function. You do not assault & batter yourself, and you protect them from those who do, to the best of your ability, and empathize at least when you can’t. How many of those parenting educators have actually GONE through what family law system has put us through, and after DV, too in many cases? Moreover, I’m not paid for being a mother. In some contexts, doing this can be criminalized as resulting in family “conflict,” i.e., taking a stand somwhere along the line!)
The exhibitor forum is centrally located in a high traffic area near conference beverage breaks and is designed to maximize visibility of exhibitors. Exhibitors receive admission to all conference sessions, meal functions and networking opportunities, including AFCC’s famous Hospitality Suite.
Don’t miss this great opportunity to build your business with AFCC
Join AFCC for a look at innovations and interventions for addressing our most difficultwork. This conference will build on a special issue of
guest edited by Dr. Barbara Fidler and Professor Nicholas Bala. The program and journal will examine the latest interventions
designed to address family conflict involving allegations of alienation, featuring unique perspectives from
judges, lawyers, mental health and dispute resolution professionals.
Family Court Review on alienation, forthcoming in January 2010,
FVPF should not be promoting this! Why are they? Oh– I forgot to tell you:
| Fiscal Year | OPDIV | Grantee Name | City | Award Title | CFDA Program Name | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $- 1 |
| 2009 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,353,812 |
| 2009 | DHHS/OS | Family Violence Prevention Fund | SAN FRANCISCO | FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM | Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 (ASIST2010) | LISA JAMES | $ 31,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,323,812 |
| 2007 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,394,127 |
| 2006 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,145,872 |
| 2005 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | ESTA SOLER | $ 496,000 |
| 2005 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,240,689 |
| 2004 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,215,689 |
| 2003 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,133,236 |
| 2003 | CDC | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE SUPPORT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention_Investigations and Technical Assistance | ESTA SOLER, PRESIDENT | $ 102,186 |
| 2002 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,113,796 |
| 2001 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 958,542 |
| 2000 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 804,542 |
| 1999 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 698,710 |
| 1998 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 678,710 |
| 1998 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | LRNI MARIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1997 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 637,604 |
| 1997 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | JANET NUDELMAN | $- 9,549 |
| 1995 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grants to States and Indian Tribes
|
JANET NUDELMAN | $ 451,525 |
Do you see the word “discretionary” in the “grants to shelters” ??label? Really, it’s about conferences and training, not actually STOPPING violence. For another, perhaps, because they can: I mean — this is 2009, alone.
| Recipient Name | State | Federal Funding (for this search) | DUNS Number |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | California | $10,825,813 | 618375687 |
Funding is going GREAT for THIS nonprofit:
Assistance to Recipient(s) “family violence prevention fund”
(FY 2000-2010)
| Federal dollars: $33,745,685 Total number of recipients: 1 Total number of transactions: 67 |
Look at which branches are funding it now — the best of both worlds, from HHS and DOJ both. One is promoting fatherhood through federal grants, another is spouting out millions (and that’s literally) to organizations like this, and others, to “train” judges how to recognize domestic violence (clue: look in the law, look at the facts, look at the bleeding, look at the casualties) and be good and address it, supposedly.
Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance
| DOJ – Office of Justice Programs | $18,464,457 |
| HHS – Secy. of Health and Human Services | $11,107,290 |
| HHS – Administration for Children and Families | $4,071,752 |
| HHS – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | $102,186 |
HERE”s the CALIFORNIA chapter of AFCC, transforming the words “clear and present danger” (lifted DIRECTLY from the legislature’s own definition of a spousal batterer) into a budget crisis — which the same group has contributed to!
Whose children ARE they now? Are they your subject matter or the progeny of two parents? When you see a kid, do you see a $$ sign for your profession?
Apparently so, and government grants to ENDABUSE.org going to promote AFCC — a membership charging organization — for professionals to hawk their wares, while too many parents are UNaware of it.
Which I hope to stop, obviously!
That’s what I call Carpetbagging, no matter what the altitude.
Would like to analyze a bit more, but time and technical limitations prevent. Check this out yourself….
SHARE THIS POST on...
So Many Valuable Lessons from the “Giles Amicus Brief” (2005)
(1) . . . BUT FIRST, let me (have some fun) present(ing) the DILEMMA of FAMILY LAW & CUSTODY in the face of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:
CHILD CUSTODY, supposedly:
1. Safety & Welfare: The court’s “primary concern” is to assure the child’s health, safety and welfare. This codified policy is a companion to the Legislature’s express finding and declaration that “the perpetration of child abuse or domestic violence in a household where a child resides is detrimental to the child.” [Ca Fam § 3020(a) (emphasis added); see also Ca Fam § 3044]
(KINDof sounds like California Penal Code 273, spousal batterers are a clear and present danger to the physical and mental health of the citizens {{including LITTLE ones??}} of the state of California. And so what is done about this? The old 1-2-3.
- 1. Restraining order, in one venue or another. Possibly a night, or more, in jail (often not, but sometimes it happens), or in egregious circumstances, maybe even anger management classes. . . . .
- 2. IF all are alive, when restraining order is about to expire, and kids exist, THIS is where family law can come in. Alternate plan – it can come in right away, in other cases. BOOM! There goes safety and separation.
- 3. Thus it remains, until another “event’ happens, either a child-stealing, a custody-switch (with supervised visitation for the former PROTECTIVE parent, often a mother). Or 18th birthdays. Or (ad lib…).
IN THE INTERIM, spice it up with child support orders (and attempts to enforce them), parenting education, and a heavy dose of therapeutic jurisprudence.
2. “Frequent and continuing contact” with both parents and shared parenting: ((??)) Further, an appropriate custody/visitation award must take into account the codified policy “to assure that children have frequent and continuing contact with both parents after the parents have separated or dissolved their marriage, or ended their relationship, and to encourage parents to share the rights and responsibilities of child rearing in order to effect this policy” . . .except where the contact would not be in the child’s best interest pursuant to Ca Fam § 3011 [Ca Fam § 3020(b) (emphasis added)]
==================
WOW, that “joint” stuff is what took me out from actually having a post-separation LIFE, of any significant duration at any significant endeavor. The most years I ever got it up to was four in a row, one job, but the dynamic is this: SEPARATION WITH SUCCESS FOR (the nonviolent spouse) == ESCALATION TO CAUSE FAILURE (from the enabled abuser)– ever tried to “share parenting” after domestic violence? Or during it, for that matter? During it, it was my job. PERIOD. Along with a whole lot of other non-paying jobs, including doormat and punching bag, wife, lover (when he was in the mood) and erstwhile Mom. And bringing home the bacon. After it, it was his, PERIOD. Or the other closest male in the family. I just was to take the remote control orders. I protested, I lost custody. Not even legally. So be it. Thank you, Mia Patria, fatherhood movement, engaging fathers, fatherlessness crisis, and faith institutions. . . . . .
(God, I miss those girls!)
(2) . . . Criminal v Family Law — from STOP FAMILY VIOLENCE website:
Creating Justice Through Balance: Integrating Domestic Violence
Juvenile and Family Court Journal, September 1, 2003
The core values underpinning family law—particularly as it addresses child custody and visitation—too often are at odds with the safety needs of victims of domestic violence. Family law, which has developed {{ACCORDING TO THIS SOURCE — and, I HAPPEN TO DIFFER PERSONALLY–FAMILY LAW historically had promoters, founders, etc.}} as a mechanism for defining, recognizing, establishing, reordering, or supporting the familial and intimate relationships that people have with one another, is frequently inadequate to address domestic violence. In contrast, the specialized domestic violence law provisions operating within family law function under rationales and theories distinct from those underlying family law. {{And are one weak-assed response to them, too!}} The inherent substantive tensions that arise when the two bodies of law are simultaneously implemented can result in conflicting court orders, unsafe interventions, and inappropriate remedies for survivors of domestic violence.
NEWS ARTICLE
Custodians of Abuse
Boston Phoenix, January 9, 2003
Nearly 25 experts in custody litigation involving child-abuse claims were interviewed for this article. All had the same three complaints about family court — regardless of which state’s court system they were familiar with: – Family courts do not rely on criminal investigators to examine child-abuse claims. They rely on family advocates called guardians ad litem (GALs) – psychologists, social workers or lawyers who lack expertise{{AND/OR INTEREST….}} in investigating child sexual abuse. – Normal courtroom checks and balances don’t exist in family court. Unlike in criminal and civil court, there are no juries, plaintifs often lack legal representation, hence judges can act without scrutiny. Often judges act in ways that violate basic rights of due process. – Gender bias and traditional stereotypes of how women and men parent children continue to prevail in family court. As a result, while conventional wisdom has it that mothers almost always fare well in family court, statistics show otherwise. More
(PAY ATTENTION NOT ONLY TO ARTICLE, BUT ALSO PUBLICATION….)
The above shows some of the dilemma — 2 languages, 2 approaches, 2 different sets of expectations, goals, and most importantly — standard of evidence when it comes to DV. Yet one family can be experiencing behavior that is appropriately addressed in criminal, yet attempts made to handle it in family. In general, no can do — I say.
(3) . . .Giles Amicus Brief, 2005
At the end of the LAST post, I have a segment from a well-known — if you track these things — “Giles Amicus Brief.” I explained why posting it, and gave a sample with highlighting of sentences, and a few comments, as to how it goes with domestic violence.
Well, now I’m pasting the whole dang thing in here. I believe that those who are literate, and able to visually sort legal cites from common English sentences will get a heads-up on what the criminal sector is saying about the crime of domestic violence: the laws, the District Attorney folk, and those who help prosecute. The word “prosecute” applies to the criminal sector. The word “mediate/reconcile/educate (etc.) belongs to the family law sector. Get used to both of them! (Some couples experiencing violence never even made it to the criminal prosecution point — I’m one of those, and it was a shame, and a factor of the many enablers and public inability to put a NAME to the CRIME. Or to accept that it had happened. We’re talking California, and we’re talking turn of this century — not turn of the LAST century. Backlash, denial, residual misogyny, or suppressed misogyny just waiting to spring into action, I don’t know. But it’s unfortunate for the children. And everyone else.
This brief will, perhaps, provide a backdrop of wonder and amazement at the trouble the family law sector has in “explicating domestic violence in the context of custody” and holding conference about who hits whom more. Meanwhile, officers responding to a call, I’d bet, bring their guns AND if they have them, bulletproof vests. That’s an indicator, OK? Sure, it was a quarrel, a dispute, but any officer is still going to go in armed and protected….
Moreover, some officers — like some PEOPLE — are also privately batterers. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, and hope whoever responds to the call, isn’t….
Moreover, I find it incredible that, given the amount of domestic violence that’s STILL prevalent, obviously (see headlines), the criminal people who are putting SO much efffort, and funding, into prosecutions (at least so I hear — I haven’t seen too much personally, though I hear it occurs. Typically where one hears it occurred is after another headline — see other pages in my blog) — how can they possibly fail to realize what is going on in the family law system, which is closer to THIS:
(and after which you and yours may feel & look more like THIS than not…..)
(To protect the innocent, I have NO relationship to any of sources of the images, and only utilized Google Image Search to find them).
(I’m assuming readers would prefer NOT to have 1,000 of my words, when 3 images would get the job done just as well).
AN FYI on HOW IT CAN GO, PROSECUTING DV –
For readers who have a high tolerance (or desire) to seek out the statements of the argument, and the ability to not be dissuaded by formatting of legal cites and extensive references, if that language is an unfamiliar one. Go for the words you DO understand, and assemble the concepts. There’s a lot of data in here. . . .
(Excerpt from the end):
Arguably, some victims may refuse to assist in their batterers’ prosecutions due to factors that the batterer does not cause, including love and the hope that the batterer will change. Linda Kelly, Domestic Violence Survivors: Surviving the Beatings Of 1996, 11 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 303, 308-309 (1997) TA \l “Linda Kelly, Domestic Violence Survivors: Surviving the Beatings Of 1996, 11 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 303, 308-309 (1997)” \s “Linda Kelly, Domestic Violence Survivors: Surviving tThe Beatings Of 1996, 11 Geo. EOImmigr. L.J. 303, 308-309 (1997)” \c 3 . However, even in these circumstances, trial courts may determine that the batterer caused the victim’s unavailability by preying on the victim’s emotions and promising to change.
{{Also it will discuss factors of initimdation and fears of reprisal, and whether or not the batterer caused these in intention to silence a witness or as a factor of what domestic violence simply is . . . . . The case, GILES, is where he was (I believe, but can’t affirm) protesting hearsay evidence that yes, he was the murderer — and his rights to confront his accuser were supposedly compromised, in that she was dead. Talk about a fine point — but an important, Sixth Amendment one. Yes, this is a vital issue, and this is how it sometimes plays out in the trial courts.
Tom Lininger, an assistant professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, conducted a survey of more than sixty prosecutors’ offices in California, Washington, and Oregon regarding Crawford’s impact on domestic violence prosecutions. The survey included responses from 23 counties in California (which collectively included eighty-eight percent of California’s population). Several courts have recently cited Lininger’s domestic violence research findings, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005) TA \s “United States v. Hall, No. 04-50193, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17148, at *21 n.6419 F.3d 980, 988 n.6 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2005)” .
“Crawford” will be explained in the Amicus…..
Why “Giles,” My friends?
This came up when I searched “clear and present danger” of spousal batterers. While the purpose of this Amicus Brief is to discuss the Crawford rule, as applied to a man accused of a DV murder who protested (using, I believe, that “Crawford rule” that his 6th amendment rights (to confront his accuser in court) ruled out the admissibility of statements from (either 911 calls, or prior statements), it’s KIND OF IRRELEVANT in that he had, allegedly, killed her. They are saying, if he is allowed to call on this rule (and a narrow interpretation of it), that provides a profit from wrongdoing (a.k.a., case in point, femicide). . . .
To non-attorney on-lookers it may seem pretty fine-tuned argument, given a homicide happened. But what about right to defense?
My purposes in pasting it here are a little different:
- Sample of legal argument (not a motion, but a legal reasoning process) in which almost every assertion is cited.
- The attorney for the groups filing (who are listed at the end), is Nancy K.D. Lemon, Esq., at UC Berkeley. She is pre-emininent in DV law, and in training others in applying it, AND future attorneys. So you are reading the work of a person very informed in the field of Domestic Violence.
- IT TALKS ABOUT THE ESSENCE OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, I BELIEVE TRUTHFULLY.. . . AS THE PATTERN, WITH ESCALATION, AS COMPREHENSIVE, AND WITH EVER-PRESENT POSSIBILITIES OF ESCALATING.
- IT TALKS ABOUT THE PRIME ISSUE OF VICTIM / WITNESS INTIMIDATION.
- IT ACKNOWLEDGES THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM (couldn’t tell, again, from most family law proceedings….)
- TO ME, IT HIGHLIGHTS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TYPE OF REASONING IN THIS FIELD OF LAW (CRIMINAL) AND FAMILY LAW (a specialized — I say, bastardized — version of civil law).
The dilemma of families stuck in the one system, yet dealing — systemically — with problems that fall clearly by evidence and definition within the crimnal — is serious. They can be like flies in amber. Their squeaks will not be heard in one venue, where if properly addressed (and that’s a big IF) in the other, someone would be in jail. The public needs to understand this! It’s a public problem affecting public bottom lines, and draining the one economy and putting the drained funds into the hands of those who run certain systems. . . . .
For readers who can deal with a level of discomfort, if legal language is new to you, and go for the plain English language, if the “cites” are too burdensome, there is a lot of valuable information in this brief, filed in December 2005. For those who can handle the cites also (unfortunately, because my source didn’t transmit the active links, it seems some of the fine-print cites show up in duplicate or triplicate — oh well, just look for the next complete English SENTENCE) — they have significance, quoting some of the major “players” (organizations, nonprofits, published works) in the DV field.
As should be obvious, by now, to readers, I am speaking from the perspective of still dealing with the impact of years of DV upon my life as a single woman and mother, and in recent years, the added drama of becoming noncustodial in an egregiously illegal and trauma-producing manner. And without further recourse to reverse the bad ruling. This document explains SOME of why what may seem like the obvious thing to do, safety was a factor all round in doing it, as well as finances, as well as legal know-how.
A previous, better-highlit version (of this 25 page brief!) was not saved last night, and so what you see is what you get. You are on your own in this one, but I trust that the experience will help those who can navigate the rapids of a legal brief. At the end, (if it’s new), consider yourself a little drenched, but let’s hope slightly different for the experience.
Also, for women or others in need of writing their own, it shows the level of detailed reasoning, and SUPPORTING EACH POINT, that should be involved when filing anything on your behalf. Don’t let sloppy stuff go on the record.
The word count in the brief (it says towards the bottom) is 7,000+ exempting certain cites. The word count in this post, now, is 10,850. Have a nice day! Please COMMENT if this was helpful, or not — thanks.
Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Respondent in People v. Giles
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The Rule of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing (“the Rule”) extinguishes a defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation right where the defendant procured the witness’s unavailability, regardless of the defendant’s intent.
Crawford v. Washington does not require courts to exclude a victim’s relevant statements where the defendant himself has guaranteed that the victim cannot testify in court. Crawford states that a defendant can forfeit his Sixth Amendment confrontation rights through his own wrongdoing. A defendant will profit from his wrongdoing when, regardless of intent, the defendant procures a witness’s unavailability and the court suppresses the witness’s testimony as a result. Should the court adopt the defendant’s flawed understanding of the Rule, abusers who have harmed or terrorized their victims to the point where they are no longer willing or able to testify will be acquitted much more often than previously. Since neither the Sixth Amendment nor Crawford requires this result, this Court should not suppress the deceased victim’s statements in this case.
The Rule applies equally where the defendant procured the victim’s unavailability by killing the victim or by instilling fear of reprisals. Unavailability often results where, in absence of a direct threat, the batterer has abused the victim to the extent that the victim reasonably fears retaliation. Batterers should be held responsible for causing the victim’s unavailability where a victim fails to assist the prosecution based on a reasonable fear of retaliation.
Restricting the Rule to cases where the defendant intended to procure the victim’s unavailability would have a deleterious effect on domestic violence prosecutions. Many batterers cause their victims’ unavailability without intending to silence the victim’s testimony at some future trial. Rather, a desire to control the victim motivates a batterer’s abusive behavior. Furthermore, a victim’s statements regarding prior abuse or threats are often the only means of establishing the batterer’s motive, identity, and propensity to abuse. For example, since domestic violence homicide is often the result of an escalating series of battering incidents, the trier of fact must be able to hear evidence of prior abusive incidents in order to establish the defendant’s motive in killing the victim.
The California Legislature has recognized the need to admit previous acts of abuse in domestic violence cases and California courts have traditionally admitted this evidence in the form of previous prosecutions, previous convictions, and eyewitness testimony. However, many batterers successfully terrorize and sequester their victims so that the victims do not file charges and so that there are no eyewitnesses to abusive acts. The defendant’s flawed understanding of the Rule would give batterers an incentive to further abuse and isolate their victims in order to prevent the justice system from intervening.
In order to ensure the continued viability of domestic violence prosecutions and support the Legislature’s efforts to combat the domestic violence epidemic, judges must be allowed to determine that a batterer who causes a witness’s unavailability through murder or by instilling fear of reprisals has forfeited his right to confront the victim. This Court should affirm the decision of the court of appeal.
ARGUMENT
THE RULE OF FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING APPLIES EVEN IF THE DEFENDANT DID NOT INTEND TO PREVENT THE VICTIM FROM TESTIFYING
The Rule of Forfeiture is based on the equitable principle that the accused should not profit from his wrongdoing. See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59 (1879) TA \l “See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)” \s “See Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 158-59 (1879)” \c 1 (If a witness is absent because of the accused’s wrongful procurement, “he cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he has kept away”; “The [forfeiture] rule has its foundation in the maxim that no one shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong.”); Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1370 (2004) TA \l “Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354 (2004)” \s “Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 62, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 1370 (2004)” \c 1 (“[T]he rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing (which we accept) extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.”).
A wrongdoer would profit from his wrongdoing whether or not he intended to procure the witness’s unavailability because, in either case, the accused’s wrongdoing prevents the victim from testifying at trial.
The Rule applies where the wrongdoing consists of intimidation or other means to keep a witness from providing adverse testimony. See generally Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 160 (admitting testimony of a witness from a prior trial because the defendant refused to reveal her location to a process server). See also State v. Wright, 701 N.W.2d 802, 814 (Minn. 2005) TA \l “State v. Wright, 701 N.W.2d 802 (Minn. 2005)” \s “State v. Wright, 701 N.W.2d 802, 814 (Minn., 2005)” \c 1 (“We agree with amici curiae that perpetrators of domestic violence frequently intimidate their victims with the goal of preventing those victims from testifying against them. Thus, a forfeiture by wrongdoing analysis is particularly suitable for cases involving domestic violence.”).
However, a defendant would equally benefit from his wrongdoing if, after the batterer caused the victim’s unavailability, the court failed to admit the victim’s testimony At least two courts have held that the Rule applies to a defendant who caused, without specifically intending to do so, the witness’s unavailability at trial. The Kansas Supreme Court held that “[Where] the trial court determines as a threshold matter that that the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her [,] [the] accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right.” State v. Meeks, 88 P.3d at 794. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has held that, in contravention of the Rule, a defendant would benefit from his own wrongdoing if a court excluded a victim’s testimony after the defendant procured the witness’s unavailability by killing her. United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 1999) TA \l “United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 1999)” \s “United States v. Emery, 186 F.3d 921 (8th Cir. 1999)” \c 1 .
RESTRICTING THE RULE TO CASES WHERE THE DEFENDANT INTENDED TO PROCURE THE VICTIM’S UNAVAILABILITY WOULD HAVE A DELETERIOUS EFFECT ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROSECUTIONS
Domestic Violence Assaults And Homicides Are Tragically Frequent
For at least the past fifteen years, California law enforcement has annually received between 180,000 and 250,000 domestic violence calls for assistance. California Attorney General’s Office, Domestic Violence-Related Calls for Assistance, 1986-2003 TA \ \c 3 , available at http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/candd/cd03/tabs/57.pdf; see also TA \l “Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 18290 (West 2005)” (“There are hundreds of thousands of persons in this state who are regularly beaten.”); Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey 38 (U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Nat’l Inst. Of Justice No. 183781, 2000) TA \l “Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey 38 (U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Nat’l Inst. Of Justice No. 183781, 2000)” \s “Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, Full Report of the Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey 38 (U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Nat’l Inst. Of Justice No. (Nov. 2” \c 3 (indicating that about 1.5 million women and 834,700 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner each year), available at http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/183781.pdf. In 1998, California law enforcement agencies made 56,892 arrests in domestic violence cases. Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Report on Arrests for Domestic Violence in California, 1998, Vol. 1, No. 3, at 4 (1999) TA \l “Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Report on Arrests for Domestic Violence in California, 1998, Vol. 1, No. 3 (1999)” \s “Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Report on Arrests for Domestic Violence in California, 1998, Criminal Justice Statistics Center Report Series, Vol.ume 1, No.umber 3, at 4 (1999)” \c 3 , available at http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/misc/dv98.pdf. Furthermore, the California Legislature has acknowledged that domestic violence is “the single most unreported crime in the state.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 18290 (West 2005) TA \s “Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 18290 (West 2005)” .
Far too often, an escalating series of abusive incidents leads to homicide. See Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 18290 (West 2005) TA \s “Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 18290 (West 2005)” (“[In many cases] acts of domestic violence lead to the death of one of the involved parties.”); People v. Linkenauger, 32 Cal. App. 4th 1603, 1606 (1995) TA \l “People v. Linkenauger, 32 Cal. App. 4th 1603 (1995)” \s “People v. Linkenauger, 32 Cal. App. 4th 1603,at 1606 (1995)” \c 1 (“We again confront a situation that, unfortunately, is becoming all too common, domestic violence culminating in murder.”). Nationwide, an average of three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends every day. Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Subcommittee on Crime, Correction & Victims’ Rights, Ten Years of Extraordinary Progress: The Violence Against Women Act 30 (2004) TA \l “Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Subcommittee on Crime, Correction & Victims’ Rights, Ten Years of Extraordinary Progress: The Violence Against Women Act (2004)” \s “Sen. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Subcommittee on Crime, Correction & Victims’ Rights, Ten Years of Extraordinary Progress: The Violence Against Women Act 30 (2004)” \c 3 , available at http://biden.senate.gov/documents/VAWA_Report.pdf. In California, the Criminal Justice Statistics Center reported that there were 187 domestic violence homicides in 2003. Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Review of Domestic Violence Statistics 1993-2003 TA \l “Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Review of Domestic Violence Statistics 1993-2003” \s “Criminal Justice Statistics Center, Review of Domestic Violence Statistics 1993-2003” \c 3 , HYPERLINK http://caag.state.ca.us/cjsc/publications/misc/dvsr/rpt.pdf.
The Nature Of Domestic Violence Makes It Likely That A Batterer Will Cause A Victim Witness’s Unavailability Through His Behavior That, While Not Necessarily Intended To Silence The Victim’s Testimony At Trial, Instills A Reasonable Fear Of Reprisal In The Victim
Domestic violence victims frequently fail to assist in their batterer’s prosecutions. This decision is often based on the victim’s fear of reprisal, including fear of violent and severe non-violent acts. These fears are reasonable even in absence of a direct threat because they are based on the witness’s intimate knowledge of the batterer’s behavior. Batterers may therefore cause a witness’s unavailability either by directly threatening the victim or by instilling fears of reprisal. In response to this common evidentiary problem in domestic violence cases, trial courts must be allowed to determine whether the batterer caused the victim’s unavailability by instilling a fear of violent or severe non-violent retaliation, thereby forfeiting the defendant’s right to confront the victim at trial.
This Court has recognized that domestic violence victims are more prone than other crime victims to refuse to cooperate after initially providing information to law enforcement. See TA \l “People v. Brown, 33 Cal. 4th 892 (2004)” \s “People v. Brown, 33 Cal. 4th 892, 907 (2004)” \c 1 People v. Brown, 33 Cal. 4th 892, 907 (2004) TA \s “People v. Brown, 33 Cal. 4th 892, 907 (2004)” (citing expert witness testimony regarding the “tendency of domestic violence victims to recant previous allegations of abuse as part of the particular behavior patterns commonly observed in abusive relationships”). In fact, a recent study indicates that between eighty to ninety percent of domestic violence victims recant their accusations or refuse to cooperate with prosecutors. Davis v. State, 169 S.W.3d 660, 671 (Tex. App. 2005) TA \l “Davis v. State, 169 S.W.3d 660 (Tex. App. 2005)” \s “Davis v. State, 169 S.W.3d 660, 671 (Tex. App. 2005)” \c 1 (citing Tom Lininger, Evidentiary Issues in Federal Prosecutions of Violence Against Women, 36 Ind. L. Rev. 687, 709 n.76 (2003) TA \l “Tom Lininger, Evidentiary Issues in Federal Prosecutions of Violence Against Women, 36 Ind. L. Rev. 687 (2003)” \s “Tom Lininger, Evidentiary Issues in Federal Prosecutions of Violence Against Women, 36 Ind. L. Rev. 687, 709 n.76 (2003)” \c 3 ).
Domestic violence victims may fail to assist in their batterers’ prosecutions because their batterers have specifically threatened them with reprisal. Alana Bowman, A Matter of Justice: Overcoming Juror Bias in Prosecutions of Batterers Through Expert Witness Testimony of The Common Experiences of Battered Women, 2 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 219, 248 (1992) TA \l “Alana Bowman, A Matter of Justice: Overcoming Juror Bias in Prosecutions of Batterers Through Expert Witness Testimony of The Common Experiences of Battered Women, 2 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 219 (1992)” \s “Alana Bowman, A Matter of Justice: Overcoming Juror Bias in Prosecutions of Batterers Through Expert Witness Testimony of The Common Experiences of Battered Women, 2 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 219, 248 (1992)” \c 3 . According to a recent study, batterers threaten retaliatory violence in nearly half of all prosecutions. Eve S. Buzawa & Carl G. Buzawa, Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response 183 (3d ed. 2003) TA \l “Eve S. Buzawa & Carl G. Buzawa, Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response (3d ed. 2003)” \s “Eve S. Buzawa & Carl G. Buzawa, Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response 183 (3d ed. 2003)” \c 3 ; see also Cal. Pen. Code § 136.2 (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code§ 136.2 (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Pen. Code (2005) § 136.2 (West 2005)” \c 2 (directing courts to identify domestic violence cases so that they may issue various orders on their own motions, including protective orders, that will keep defendants from intimidating or dissuading their victims).
However, based on their intimate knowledge of the batterer’s behavior, many victims reasonably anticipate retaliation even without a direct threat and consequently do not assist the prosecution. See United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, 988 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005) TA \l “United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980, (9th Cir. 2005)” \s “United States v. Hall, No. 04-50193, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17148, at *21 n.6419 F.3d 980, 988 n.6 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2005)” \c 1 (“The difficulty of securing the testimony of domestic violence victims . . . against their batterers is well recognized.”) (citing Tom Lininger, Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford, 91 Va. L. Rev. 747, 769 (2005) TA \l “Tom Lininger, Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford, 91 Va. L. Rev. 747 (2005)” \s “Tom Lininger, Prosecuting Batterers After Crawford, 91 Va. L. Rev. 747, 769 (2005)” \c 3 ); Buzawa & Buzawa, supra, at 183 TA \s “Eve S. Buzawa & Carl G. Buzawa, Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response 183 (3d ed. 2003)” (noting that despite increased societal attention to domestic violence, the rate of prosecution is still limited by victims’ inability to cooperate with prosecution).
The Ninth Circuit recently acknowledged that the source of domestic violence is “power and control [that] pervades the entire relationship” so that “the battered woman’s fear, vigilance, or perception that she has few options may persist…even when the abusive partner appears to be peaceful and calm.” Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003) TA \l “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 2003)” \s “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003)” \c 1 (citing Mary Ann Dutton, Understanding Women’s Responses to Domestic Violence: A Redefinition of Battered Woman Syndrome, HYPERLINK “http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink 21 Hofstra L. Rev. 1191, 1208 (1993) TA \l “Mary Ann Dutton, Understanding Women’s Responses to Domestic Violence: A Redefinition of Battered Woman Syndrome, 21 Hofstra L. Rev. 1191 (1993)” \s “Mary Ann Dutton, Understanding Women’s Responses to Domestic Violence: A Redefinition of Battered Woman Syndrome, 21 Hofstra L. Rev. 1191, 1208 (1993)” \c 3 ). This Court also described this pattern in People v. Brown, noting that “even if there has been no other episode of violence, the victim may change her mind about prosecuting the abuser and may recant her previous statements.” 33 Cal. 4th at 907 TA \s “People v. Brown, 33 Cal. 4th 892, 907 (2004)” .
Furthermore, the California Legislature has defined domestic violence to include violent and various non-violent acts, supporting the proposition that victims may reasonably fear many forms of reprisal. Specifically, the California Evidence Code states that domestic violence is “physical or sexual abuse, neglect, financial abuse, abandonment, isolation, abduction, or other treatment that results in physical harm, pain, or mental suffering, the deprivation of care by a caregiver, or other deprivation by a custodian or provider of goods or services that are necessary to avoid physical harm or mental suffering.” See Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 (West 2005)” \c 2 (following the meaning of domestic violence set forth in TA \l “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005)“ \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005)” \c 2 Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005) TA \s “Cal. Pen. Code § 13700 (West 2005)” ). Additionally, the California Family Code defines abuse as causing bodily injury, sexually abusing a person, or placing a person in “reasonable apprehension of serious bodily harm to that person or to another” and, further, it provides that a victim may obtain a restraining order to protect against the batterer’s non-violent reprisals, such as “stalking, threatening,…harassing, telephoning,…[or] destroying personal property.” Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6203, 6320 (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Fam. Code § 6203 (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Fam. Code §§ 6203, 6320 (West 2005)” \c 2 .
Most commonly, a victim reasonably anticipates a physical assault, including sexual assault or even death, if the victim attempts to end a battering relationship and assist in the batterer’s prosecution. In fact, victims are at the highest risk of severe abuse or death when they challenge the batterer’s control in their attempts to leave. Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 837 TA \s “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003)” ; see also Martha R. Mahoney, Victimization or Oppression? Women’s Lives, Violence, and Agency, in The Public Nature of Private Violence 59, 79 (Martha Albertson Fineman & Roxanne Mykitiuk eds., 1994) TA \l “Martha R. Mahoney, Victimization or Oppression? Women’s Lives, Violence, and Agency, in The Public Nature of Private Violence (Martha Albertson Fineman & Roxanne Mykitiuk eds., 1994)” \s “Martha R. Mahoney, Victimization or Oppression? Women’s Lives, Violence, and Agency, in The Public Nature Of Private Violence 59, 79 (Martha Albertson Fineman & Roxanne Mykitiuk eds., 1994)” \c 3 (describing the phenomenon of “separation assault” in domestic violence relationships and finding that the majority of domestic violence homicides occur upon separation).
Victims may also reasonably fear serious, non-violent reprisals. For example, a victim may fear that the batterer will abduct or injure the couple’s children. See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 125 S. Ct. 2796, 2800-2802 (2005) TA \l “See Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 125 S. Ct. 2796 (2005)” \s “See TownCity of Castle Rock v. Gonzalesz, 125 S. Ct. 2796, 2800-2802 (2005)” \c 1 (describing incident in which batterer violated his wife’s restraining order against him, abducted his three children, and murdered them.); see also Maureen Sheeran & Scott Hampton, Supervised Visitation in Cases of Domestic Violence, 50(2) Juv. & Fam. Ct. J. 13, 13-21 (1999) TA \l “Maureen Sheeran & Scott Hampton, Supervised Visitation in Cases of Domestic Violence, 50(2) Juv. & Fam. Ct. J. 13 (1999)” \s “Maureen Sheeran & Scott Hampton, Supervised Visitation in Cases of Domestic Violence, 50(2) Juv.enile &and Fam.ily Ct. J.ournal 13, 13-21 (1999)” \c 3 (citing research that establishes a definitive link between parental child abduction and domestic violence). In fact, twenty-five percent of batterers directly threaten to kidnap the couple’s children if the victim pursues legal action. Buzawa & Buzawa, supra, at 183.
Additionally, because many victims depend upon the batterer for financial support, they may reasonably fear financial ruin or homelessness if they assist the prosecution. A batterer’s control of the victim’s access to money and employment is common in domestic violence situations. Diane R. Follingstad et al., The Role of Emotional Abuse in Physically Abusive Relationships, 5 J. Fam. Violence 107, 109 (1990) TA \l “Diane R. Follingstad et al., The Role of Emotional Abuse in Physically Abusive Relationships, 5 J. Fam. Violence 107 (1990)” \s “Diane R. Follingstad et al., The Role of Emotional Abuse in Physically Abusive Relationships, 5 J. Fam. Violence 107, 109 (1990)” \c 3 . A victim may reasonably fear that, without the batterer’s financial support, she and her children are at risk of becoming homeless. U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: A 27-City Survey (2004) TA \l “U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: A 27-City Survey (2004)“ \s “U.S. Conference of Mayors, A Status Report on Hunger and Homelessness in America’s Cities: A 27-City Survey (, December 2004)” \c 3 (citing domestic violence as the primary cause of homelessness in forty-four percent of the cities surveyed).
Furthermore, many undocumented abused immigrants are at a heightened risk of financial ruin if they leave their batterers because they may not be able to obtain employment or public assistance. Leslye E. Orloff et al., With HYPERLINK “http://web2.westlaw.com/find/default.wl?DB=1137&SerialNum=0105667923&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&ReferencePosition=317&AP=&mt=California&fn=_top&sv=Split&vr=2.0&rs=WLW5.10” \t “_top” No Place to Turn: Improving Advocacy for Battered Immigrant Women, 29 Fam. L. Q. 313, 317-19, 324 (1995) TA \l “Leslye E. Orloff et al., With No Place to Turn: Improving Advocacy for Battered Immigrant Women, 29 Fam. L. Q. 313 (1995)” \s “Leslye EL. Orloff et al., With No Place to Turn: Improving Advocacy for Battered Immigrant Women, 29 Fam. L. Q. 313, 317-19, 324 (1995)” \c 3 (“The battered immigrant spouse rarely obtains the cooperation of her husband in obtaining a work visa … In addition, virtually all public assistance programs bar undocumented immigrants from receiving benefits and limit the eligibility of legal residents.”).
Undocumented immigrant victims may also fear that their batterers will prevent them from obtaining legal status. Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, Power and Control Wheel, in Domestic Violence Law 38 (Nancy K.D. Lemon ed., 2005) TA \l “Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, Power and Control Wheel, in Domestic Violence Law (Nancy K.D. Lemon ed., 2005)“ \s “Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, Power and Control Wheel, in Domestic Violence Law 38 (Nancy K.D. Lemon ed., 2005)” \c 3 (noting that immigrant women may stay in abusive relationships due to the threat or fear of being deported). For example, if an immigrant victim is deported, she may be separated from her children indefinitely, especially if the children are United States citizens. Orloff et al., supra, at 324. The victim may return to poverty, famine, a health-related epidemic, civil war, political persecution, or a country that does not protect her from domestic violence. Karyl Alice Davis, Unlocking the Door by Giving her the Key: A Comment on the Adequacy of the U-Visa as a Remedy, 56 Ala. L. Rev. 557, 571 (2004) TA \l “Karyl Alice Davis, Unlocking the Door by Giving her the Key: A Comment on the Adequacy of the U-Visa as a Remedy, 56 Ala. L. Rev. 557 (2004)” \s “Karyl Alice Davis, Unlocking the Door by Giving her the Key: A Comment on the Adequacy of the U-Visa as a Remedy, 56 Ala. L. Rev. 557, 571 (Winter, 2004)” \c 3 . Additionally, the victim may no longer be able to provide financial assistance to her family in her home country, or her friends and family may ostracize her if she seeks to separate from the batterer. Id.
More generally, a victim of domestic violence may fear reprisals even when the victim seems to withdraw cooperation with the prosecution out of a desire to reconcile with the batterer. Many batterers provide “loving gestures,” such as “expensive gifts, intense displays of emotion, sending flowers after an assault, making romantic promises, tearfully promising that it will never happen again,” that in fact threaten the victim with abuse if she does not respond. See Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 837 TA \s “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003)” . The Ninth Circuit recently stated, “[P]hysical abuse, threats of harm, and isolation are interwoven with seemingly loving gestures. … Amnesty International [] describes such ‘occasional indulgences’ as a method of coercion used in torture…The message is always there that if the victim does not respond[,] the perpetrator will escalate [the abuse].” Id. (citing Leslye E. Orloff, Manual on Intra-family Cases for the D.C. Superior Court Judges 15 (1993) TA \l “Leslye E. Orloff, Manual on Intra-family Cases for the D.C. Superior Court Judges (1993)” \s “Leslye E. Orloff, Manual on Intra-family Cases for the D.C. Superior Court Judges 15 (1993)” \c 3 ). Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a victim’s decision not to testify against the batterer is not typically the result of passivity or submission but is rather an attempt to stop the violence, based on experiences where cooperation with the batterer proved to be a successful strategy. See Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 838 TA \s “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003)” .
.Finally, the batterer’s intimate knowledge of the victim greatly and reasonably enhances the victim’s fear of reprisal. Unlike most other perpetrators of violent crime, the domestic violence defendant typically has lived with the victim, thereby becoming familiar with the victim’s thoughts, behaviors, habits, and daily routine California Center for Judicial Education and Research, California Judges Benchbook, Domestic Violence Cases in Criminal Court 23 (2000) TA \l “California Center for Judicial Education and Research, California Judges Benchbook, Domestic Violence Cases in Criminal Court (2000)” \s “California Center for Judicial Education and Research, California Judges Benchbook, Domestic Violence Cases in Criminal Court 23 (2000)” \c 3 ; Brown, 33 Cal. 4th at 899 TA \s “People v. Brown, 33 Cal. 4th 892, 907 (2004)” (“A fundamental difference between family violence and other forms of violence (such as street violence) is that family violence occurs within ongoing relationships.”) (citing Am. Psychological Assn., Violence and the Family 15 (1997) TA \l “Am. Psychological Assn., Violence and the Family 15 (1997)” \s “Am. Psychological Assn., Violence and the Family 15 (1997)” \c 3 ).
The Victim’s Prior Statements Of Abuse Are Necessary Evidence In Murder Cases Because They Are Often The Only Evidence Of Previous Domestic Violence Acts, Which Are Relevant And Necessary To Establish The Defendant’s Motive, Identity, And Propensity To Abuse
California courts and the California Legislature have recognized the need to admit previous domestic violence acts in murder cases on issues of the defendant’s motive, identity, and propensity to abuse. Previous acts are relevant to domestic violence murder cases because homicide typically occurs within the context of the cycle of violence. California courts have previously admitted evidence of prior domestic violence acts in the form of the defendant’s prior criminal record or eyewitness testimony. However, many batterers do not have prior criminal records and, due to the victim’s isolation by the batterer, there are often no other witnesses to domestic violence acts. Therefore, a victim’s statements are necessary to establish the defendant’s motive, identity, and propensity to abuse because they are often the only evidence of previous domestic violence acts.
{{My comment: Given THIS, then how is it when a case lands in the family law venue, the victim (now often called a partner in a high-conflict marriage, and equally held responsible for any violence or stress that comes from the situation)’s very accounts are dismissed or minimized based on attribution of her motives — she just wants to gain control, and is not telling the truth. This assessment then becomes the focus, rather than the facts. What I am pointing out (saying) is that, the family ideology, principles, methodology and framework is to DENY DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WHEN IT HAS OCCURRED and to DECRIMINALIZE that behavior, and Re-CRIMINALIZE the parent subject to it. Although DV is (see top paragraph above) indeed relevant to both parenting ability and (LEGALLY speaking) custody — I have sat and watched a judge expressed boredom when I summarized the DV history (as apparently records of it were considered irrelevant by mediator and judge alike), in the context, there were several MORE, RECENT incidents of it which had brought us before the court. It’s an entirely different mindset, and intentionally so. This cannot be and is no accident, and it is at this point a serious social problem for our country, and others.}}
A murder defendant’s abusive history is relevant to determine his motive, identity, and propensity to abuse because domestic violence homicide is often the result of an escalating series of battering incidents. See Assem. Comm. Rep. on Public Safety S.B. 1876, at 3-4 (June 25, 1996) TA \l “Assem. Comm. Rep. on Public Safety S.B. 1876 (June 25, 1996)” \s “Assem. Comm. Rep. on Public Safety S.B. 1876, atpp 3-4 (June 25, 1996)” \c 3 , available at HYPERLINK “http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/sen/sb_1851-1900/sb_1876_cfa_960624_094659_asm_comm.html” http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/95-96/bill/sen/sb_1851-1900/sb_1876_cfa_960624_094659_asm_comm.html [hereinafter Assem. Comm. Rep.] (“[B]attering episode[s]…usually escalate[] in frequency and severity.”).
This buildup of multiple violent acts stems from the very nature of domestic violence, which frequently manifests itself as a cycle of violence that escalates over time. The Ninth Circuit recognized the cycle as comprising “a tension building phase, followed by an acute battering of the victim, and finally by a contrite phase where the batterer’s use of promises and gifts increases the battered woman’s hope that the violence has occurred for the last time.” Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 836 TA \s “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003)” TA \l “Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 836” \s “Hernandez, v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d at 824, 836” \c 3 (quoting Dutton, supra, at 1208).
{{Comment: This phrase “increases the battered woman’s hope” is a “mind-reading” and likely came from someone who has not experience DV. DV is a survival situation from the moment it begins, and the ffocus of very much often on the PRESENT, with short-term future — the focus is not having the next incident. To state that we do indeed “hope” that it was the last incident is demeaning to women, and minimizes what we do to stay alive and keep our children alive in such situations, and hopefully injury-free. Given that separation and independence-seeking provokes increasing levels of restraint, to accuse us, living with this, of being in as much denial as the community often is – — well, NO. Perhaps sometimes, at a level, facing to fully face the situation does enter into emotional survival – – because, I believe that there are indeed maximum levels of fear which a person can have, and still function calmly and practically in situations. . . . . . The batterer’s use of promises and gifts is part of the routine, and is maybe INTENDED to increase our hope – – OR possibly to defray / deter reporting and possible consequences. Maybe it’s to allay his own conscience — who knows? So let’s cool it on the mind-reading.. and attributions!.}}
This Court also acknowledged, “Most abusive relationships begin with a struggle for power and control between the abuser and the victim that later escalates to physical abuse. … When the victim tries to leave or to assert control over the situation, the abuser may turn to violence as an attempt to maintain control.” Brown, 33 Cal. 4th at 907 TA \s “People v. Brown, 33 Cal. 4th 892, 907 (2004)” (citing expert witness testimony). Each violent incident is therefore part of a larger pattern of power, control, and physical abuse rather than a discrete act removed from the dynamics and history of the relationship. See Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 836-37 TA \s “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003)” (“‘[A]busive behavior does not occur as a series of discrete events,’ but rather pervades the entire relationship.”) (quoting Dutton, supra, at 1208); Assem. Comm. Rep. at 3-4 TA \s “Assem. Comm. Rep. on Public Safety S.B. 1876, atpp 3-4 (June 25, 1996)” (“[A]ny one battering episode is part of a larger scheme of dominance and control.”).
The California Legislature has determined that the reasons favoring the admission of uncharged criminal domestic violence incidents outweigh the reasons favoring the exclusion such evidence. See Johnson, 77 Cal. App. 4th at 420 (discussing the legislative history of Cal. Evid. Code § 1109 and Assem. Com. Rep. p 5). See also Assem. Com. Rep. p 5 (“Since criminal prosecution is one of the few factors that may interrupt the escalating pattern of domestic violence, we must be willing to look at that pattern during the criminal prosecution, or we will miss the opportunity to address this problem at all.”).
{{PROBLEM: This brief accepts, and Cal. Law also does, that criminal prosecution is one of the “few factors” that “may” interrupt the escalating pattern, then answer this question: And I believe that at a gut level, spouses/partners who have been battered DO “get” this, how come when pregnancy and birth has occurred — or common property — in family law arena, the whole dang court doesn’t “GET” it? Are those experts dumber than the average person, or the criminal sector? Or is there a reason family law as a speciality exists, with it separation from the civil & Evidence codes in general, and stricter standards? And could PART of that purpose include to reframe the conversation around criminal behavior within the family unit, or separated family unit?}}
Prior domestic violence incidents show the defendant’s propensity to commit domestic violence crimes. The legislative history of California Evidence Code Section 1109 recognizes, “The propensity inference is particularly appropriate in the area of domestic violence because on-going violence and abuse is the norm in domestic violence cases.” Assem. Comm. Rep. at 3-4 TA \s “Assem. Comm. Rep. on Public Safety S.B. 1876, atpp 3-4 (June 25, 1996)” ; See also People v. Hoover, 77 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 1024 (2000) TA \l “People v. Hoover, 77 Cal. App. 4th 1020 (2000)” \s “People v. Hoover, 77 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 1024 (2000)” \c 1 (upholding the constitutionality of Cal. Evid. Code § 1109). Further, the Legislature has recognized, “Without the propensity inference, the escalating nature of domestic violence is …masked. If we fail to address the very essence of domestic violence, we will continue to see cases where perpetrators of this violence will beat their intimate partners, even kill them, and go on to beat or kill the next intimate partner.” Assem. Comm. Rep at 3-4 TA \s “Assem. Comm. Rep. on Public Safety S.B. 1876, atpp 3-4 (June 25, 1996)” . In a recent murder prosecution, a California court admitted the testimony of several witnesses as evidence of prior, uncharged domestic violence offenses and concluded “with substantial assurance that defendant’s propensity to commit crimes of domestic violence [and to murder his wife was] more likely than not to flow from the proved prior acts of domestic violence.” People v. Pescador, 119 Cal. App. 4th 252, 260 (2004) TA \l “People v. Pescador, 119 Cal. App. 4th 252 (2004)” \s “People v. Pescador, 119 Cal. App. 4th 252, 260 (2004)” \c 1 (internal citations omitted).
{{HIGHLIGHT, READ, COMMENT AS APPROPRIATE — I gave a few samples above}}
Additionally, this Court has held that trial courts may admit eyewitness testimony of domestic violence to establish the defendant’s motive and identity in a murder trial. “[E]vidence tending to establish prior quarrels between a defendant and decedent and the making of threats by the former is properly admitted and is competent to show the motive and state of mind of the defendant.” People v. Cartier, 54 Cal. 2d 300, 311 (1960) TA \l “People v. Cartier, 54 Cal. 2d 300 (1960” \s “People v. Cartier, 54 Cal. 2d 300, 311 (Cal. 1960))” \c 1 . Likewise, on the issue of identity the court held, “Evidence of motive may . . . solve a doubt . . . as to the identity of the slayer . . .[and] is admissible against a defendant, however discreditably it may reflect on him, and even where it may show him guilty of other crimes.” People v. Weston, 169 Cal. 393, 396 (1915) TA \l “People v. Weston, 169 Cal. 393 (1915)” \s “People v. Weston, 169 Cal. 393, 396 (Cal. 1915)” \c 1 . More recently, lower courts have followed this Court’s holdings. Linkenauger, 32 Cal. App. 4th at 1611 TA \s “People v. Linkenauger, 32 Cal. App. 4th 1603,at 1606 (1995)” (citing Weston, 169 Cal. at 396 TA \s “People v. Weston, 169 Cal. 393, 396 (Cal. 1915)” , the court held that evidence of eyewitness testimony of prior abuse and threats was properly admitted in order to establish the defendant’s motive and identity HYPERLINK “http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=9b5fdc8e6cf0f444d98b1cf7f925c742&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b32%20Cal.%20App.%204th%201603%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=24&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b169%20Cal.%20393%2cat%20396%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVlb-zSkAA&_md5=4f5ee7cbf41130c250e7943c5ff18f6b” \t “_parent” ); see also Hoover, 77 Cal. App. 4th at 1026 TA \s “People v. Hoover, 77 Cal. App. 4th 1020, 1024 (2000)” (“Where a defendant is charged with a violent crime and has or had a previous relationship with a victim, prior assaults upon the same victim, when offered on disputed issues, e.g., identity, intent, motive, etcetera, are admissible …”) (citing People v. Zack, 184 Cal. App. 3d 409, 415 (1986) TA \l “People v. Zack, 184 Cal. App. 3d 409 (1986)” \s “People v. Zack, 184 Cal. App. 3d 409, 415 (1986)” \c 1 ).
These rulings are consistent with California Evidence Code Section 1109, permitting “evidence of a defendant’s other acts of domestic violence,” and Section 1101 TA \l “Cal. Evid. Code § 1101 (West 2005)” \s “§ 1101” \c 2 , emphasizing that “nothing…prohibits the admission of evidence that a person committed a crime, civil wrong, or other act when relevant to prove some fact (such as motive, . . . intent, . . . identity, . . .)”. See Cal. Evid. Code §§ 1109, 1101 (West 2005) TA \l “Cal. Evid. Code § (West 2005)” \s “Cal. Evid. Code § 1109, § 1109, 1101 (West 2005)” \c 2 .
However, despite California’s judicial and legislative stance that previous domestic violence acts are relevant and necessary in domestic violence murder cases, prosecutors often will be unable to prove prior acts if courts restrict this evidence to the defendant’s prior criminal record or eyewitness testimony from someone other than the victim. Instead, a victim’s statements are often the only available evidence to establish prior domestic violence acts and are therefore essential to domestic violence murder cases.
Most deceased victims file domestic violence reports before their batterers kill them, providing numerous statements to police regarding the batterer’s abusive behavior. See Buzawa & Buzawa TA \s “Eve S. Buzawa & Carl G. Buzawa, Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response 183 (3d ed. 2003)” , supra, at 88 (citing study in which eighty-five percent of domestic violence homicide victims had reported a separate domestic violence incident to police at least once before the incident leading to their deaths, and fifty percent of domestic violence homicide victims had called police five or more times). However, as discussed supra, many victims later recant or fail to even appear at court due to fear of reprisals.
Additionally, unlike many other crimes, there are often no eyewitnesses to the abuse because the batterer socially and physically isolates the victim from contact outside the home. This Court has noted, “[M]any battered women remain in the relationship because of . . . social isolation.” People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal. 4th 1073, 1078 (1996) TA \l “People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal. 4th 1073, 1078 (1996)” \s “People v. People v. Humphrey, 13 Cal. 4th 1073, 1073, 1078 (1996)” \c 1 . The Ninth Circuit recently reviewed a case involving physical isolation, where a victim’s spouse locked her in the home and refused to allow medical treatment. Hernandez, 345 F.3d at 830 TA \s “Hernandez v. Ashcroft, 345 F.3d 824, 837 (9th Cir. 2003)” . Furthermore, domestic violence incidents usually take place in the privacy of the home. People v. Gutierrez, 171 Cal. App. 3d 944, 949 (1985) TA \l “People v. Gutierrez, 171 Cal. App. 3d 44 (1985)” \s “People v. Gutierrez, 171 Cal. App. 3d at 944, 949 (1985)” \c 1 (citing HYPERLINK “http://www.lexis.com/research/buttonTFLink?_m=614717a118cadce688a9ecf2401cc1d7&_xfercite=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b171%20Cal.%20App.%203d%20944%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_butType=3&_butStat=2&_butNum=28&_butInline=1&_butinfo=%3ccite%20cc%3d%22USA%22%3e%3c%21%5bCDATA%5b53%20Cal.%20App.%203d%20786%5d%5d%3e%3c%2fcite%3e&_fmtstr=FULL&docnum=1&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLbVzz-zSkAB&_md5=4f5d57fe8d06a0095ed3dc11f0ad5a70” \t “_parent” People v. Cameron, 53 Cal.App.3d 786, 792 (1975) TA \l “People v. Cameron, 53 Cal.App.3d 786 (1975)” \s “People v. Cameron, 53 Cal.App.3d 786, 792 (1975)” \c 1 ). Batterers often isolate their victims by controlling when they leave the house, where they go upon leaving, to whom they speak, and their daily activities. Mary Ann Dutton & Catherine L. Waltz, Domestic Violence: Understanding Why It Happens and How to Recognize It, Domestic Violence Law 66, 68 (Nancy K.D. Lemon ed., 2001) TA \l “Mary Ann Dutton & Catherine L. Waltz, Domestic Violence: Understanding Why It Happens and How to Recognize It, in Domestic Violence Law 66,(Nancy K.D. Lemon ed., 2001)” \s “Mary Ann Dutton & Catherine L. Waltz, Domestic Violence: Understanding Why It Happens and How to Recognize It, in Domestic Violence Law 66, 68 (Nancy K.D. Lemon ed., 2001)” \c 3 .
This isolation impacts virtually every form of evidence a prosecutor would typically seek to introduce at trial. Lisa Marie De Sanctis, Bridging the Gap Between the Rules of Evidence and Justice for Victims of Domestic Violence, 8 Yale J.L. & Feminism 359, 370-72 (1996) TA \l “Lisa Marie De Sanctis, Bridging the Gap Between the Rules of Evidence and Justice for Victims of Domestic Violence, 8 Yale J.L. & Feminism 359, 370(1996)” \s “Lisa Marie De Sanctis, Bridging the Gap Between the Rules of Evidence and Justice for Victims of Domestic Violence, 8 Yale J.L. & Feminism 359, 370-72 (1996)” \c 3 . For example, because there are often no eyewitnesses to an incident of domestic violence, there will likely be no 911 calls from parties other than the victim. Additionally, because many batterers isolate their victims from friends and family members, these individuals may be unaware of any domestic violence until the batterer is formally charged. See Janice A. Drye, The Silent Victims of Domestic Violence: Children Forgotten by the Judicial System, 34 Gonz. L. Rev. 229, 239 (1998/1999) TA \l “Janice A. Drye, The Silent Victims of Domestic Violence: Children Forgotten by the Judicial System, 34 Gonz. L. Rev. 229 (1998/1999)” \s “Janice A. Drye, The Silent Victims of Domestic Violence: Children Forgotten by the Judicial System, 34 Gonz. L. Rev. 229, 239 (1998/1999)” \c 3 ; Cris M. Sullivan, The Provision of Advocacy Services to Women Leaving Abusive Partners: An Exploratory Study, 6 J. Interpersonal Violence 41, 43 (1991) TA \l “Cris M. Sullivan, The Provision of Advocacy Services to Women Leaving Abusive Partners: An Exploratory Study, 6 J. Interpersonal Violence 41, (1991)” \s “Cris M. Sullivan, The Provision of Advocacy Services to Women Leaving Abusive Partners: An Exploratory Study, 6 J. Interpersonal Violence 41, 43 (1991)” \c 3 . As a result, friends and family members are often unable to testify to any history of domestic violence, leaving no evidence of the past abuse other than an unavailable victim’s statements.
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) 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 (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 ). See generally California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, California Laws Relating to Domestic Violence (2005) TA \l “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, California Laws Relating to Domestic Violence (2005)” \s “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence, California Laws Relating to Domestic Violence (January 2005)” \c 3 , HYPERLINK “http://www.caadv.org/docs/dvlawsfinal.pdf” http://www.caadv.org/docs/dvlawsfinal.pdf (providing a comprehensive overview of hundreds of California code sections related to domestic violence).
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 ).
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 prosecutions. Id., at 772, 820.
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).
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.
CONCLUSION
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
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
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 for purposes of this post)
(This segment quoted by LetsGetHonest above — before entire Giles text)
Defendant concedes the second issue on review. The Rule applies even where the wrongdoing is the same as the offense for which the defendant is on trial. A defendant will profit from his wrongdoing regardless of whether he procured the victim’s unavailability during trial or before the prosecutor filed charges against him. As the Kansas Supreme Court observed, “[B]ootstrapping does not pose a genuine problem.” State v. Meeks, 88 P.3d 789, 794 (Kan. 2004). TA \l “State v. Meeks, 88 P.3d 789 (Kan. 2004).” \s “State v. Meeks, 88 P.3d 789, 794 (Kan. 2004).” \c 1
Arguably, some victims may refuse to assist in their batterers’ prosecutions due to factors that the batterer does not cause, including love and the hope that the batterer will change. Linda Kelly, Domestic Violence Survivors: Surviving the Beatings Of 1996, 11 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 303, 308-309 (1997) TA \l “Linda Kelly, Domestic Violence Survivors: Surviving the Beatings Of 1996, 11 Geo. Immigr. L.J. 303, 308-309 (1997)” \s “Linda Kelly, Domestic Violence Survivors: Surviving tThe Beatings Of 1996, 11 Geo. EOImmigr. L.J. 303, 308-309 (1997)” \c 3 . However, even in these circumstances, trial courts may determine that the batterer caused the victim’s unavailability by preying on the victim’s emotions and promising to change.
Tom Lininger, an assistant professor at the University of Oregon School of Law, conducted a survey of more than sixty prosecutors’ offices in California, Washington, and Oregon regarding Crawford’s impact on domestic violence prosecutions. The survey included responses from 23 counties in California (which collectively included eighty-eight percent of California’s population). Several courts have recently cited Lininger’s domestic violence research findings, including the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See United States v. Hall, 419 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2005) TA \s “United States v. Hall, No. 04-50193, 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 17148, at *21 n.6419 F.3d 980, 988 n.6 (9th Cir. Aug. 15, 2005)” .
PAGE
PAGE 25
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
1996-2010: How “Ending welfare as we know it” morphed to [so far…] Statewide Marriage and Relationship Education –for Everyone
with one comment
Some of my friends scold me for showing too much and not just telling. They’re right. But as I like to SHOW (and then TELL, too) — posts run to triple-length size, then I split them up with new — and long — titles.
(Those of you who know me — this is a “Conversational Public Data Dump.” You are forewarned!)
(see also my comment — it has a major double-pasted section in it, too. I will printout & purge the duplicates…. The value of this post is in the narrative, plus the links).
This post began as a TANF introduction to another one on a specific Healthy Marriage Grantee.
You may not think this information relevant — but, it has already landed in your back yard; it is restructuring the United States; it is a financial issue with global ramifications. The story of HOW this happened (and through whom) will help us pay better attention in the future, and should rule out certain distractions — such as choosing which battle to fight, and which diversionary propaganda to ignore.
However, someone has to protest the incremental removal of civil liberties going along with incremental spending down of public dollars, diverted to . . .. for lack of a better word . .. Bush appointees, and Obama cronies. And when it comes to THIS category, I don’t hear a lot of specific protests.
Want to Occupy Something? Occupy This — your senators and representatives voted welfare infinite expansion, for private profit actually, into being through public laws. How could that be?
Well, we have public school systems that still (apparently) teach U.S. Mythology, not Accounting, that are places for Values & INdoctrination Wars. Somehow, the importance of the House Ways and Means Appropriations Committee — let alone about how corporations and government actually interact, were not considered pre-requisites for graduation. Meanwhile, people LIVE in neighborhoods where they can observe this discrepancy, know that the common explanations do not hold water, but may not have a coherent explanation of what does, of what happened (historically).
Moreover, there is a digital divide and closed-doors deliberations. We are not [certainly anyone ever on welfare is typically not] given or pointed to the best tools to finding out how things work. The cult is of the experts — who teach the uninstructed and presumably not smart enough to “get it.”
The tools available to the unfunded public (like TAGGS) have been also tinkered with, obfuscated and otherwise screwed with, to beyond credibility (accuracy) – although they do reveal traits and patterns to a degree. TAGGS cannot be reconciled with USASPENDING.gov (and isn’t) even when just looking up HHS grants only on the latter. I have not made up my mind yet which is more in error, but USASPENDING.gov already has its accuracy critics –and so few people seem to ever USE TAGGS, that leaves me.
Name me ONE other blog or public website that began posting those HHS grantee & project charts before this blog did (earliest, 2009) and recommending their use. Yet its data goes back to 1995.
Now a point has been made, by the structure AND content of this resource — well read, clearly understood — that this information is NOT reliable; moreover that it’s not reliable — or in really useable form — is no accident.
For example — a big stink since 2001 has been made about laying down the red carpet for (and building capacity for) the faith-based organizations to go help the poor hungry, under-educated slobs get some jobs and visit their sons and daughters, and be taught how to “relate” better to the other parent.
YET — TAGGS has no designation (or classification) for Faith-based organization. It’s been 10 years since Bush Executive Order, and the word “faith-based” is all over government (federal state, and nonprofit groups, such as CNCS), other sites — and yet no field has been added to the database to designate “Faith-based” or NOT Faith-based. The same goes for the fine distinction between “Marriage” grantees and “Fatherhood Grantees.” yet there is one CFDA (93086) for both — and, moreover, marriage and fatherhood activities could be in, literally, almost any category of federal domestic assistance, such as social welfare research and demonstration, which are NOT under “93086.” Or in Head Start. So what’s that about, eh?
Is this really about promoting responsible “Fatherhood”? I don’t think so. Responsible Fathers (note: this does not include Glenn Sacks or Nicholas Soppa!) like some accountability here and there, and deserve resources to get it, just like others do, and can come to a debate that is not predetermined, and occasionally lose a point or two (i.e. humility). I don’t know any decent father who’d advocate stealing from the public under false pretenses, and attempting to cover one’s tracks, yet this IS what’s happening. Or a responsible father helping set up any systems which, after about 53 failures, are still going full force, in the same manner – which many faith-based groups are. Or which INTENTIONALLY undermines separation of church & state, OR the separation of powers in the federal government — and does so for personal sense of power, fame (or for profit). Responsible fathers are willing to sacrifice, not specialists in sacrificing others, or what’s right.
this entire responsible fatherhood movement is, essentially (to quote Liz Richards/National Alliance for Family Court Justice, in testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, Appropriations — in June 2010) – An Expensive Solution looking for a Legitimate Problem:
{Heck, HHS/OIG/OAS can’t even keep track of millions of undistributed child support already collected at the state level, and eschews responsibility for doing so — after all, isn’t it TANF blocks to the states, for flexible use? so long as federal incentives are met for their $2 of ours for $1 of yours, and they get some back, who’s going to rock that boat? Yet in part it’s from child support enforcement funds that Fatherhood Promotion is done!}
(actually, some of these DO know about this movement and viciously attack it in print and on on-line forums — see Peter Jamison, SFWeekly earlier in 2011)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
LGH Note: Since last June 2010, I have seem more influences than just the fathers’ rights upon these grant series, but still believe it a valid factor nevertheless at the “street” and HHS etc. level)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I note that this 2010 testimony (filed on-line) also refers to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:
If I get the rest of the follow-up post out — there is a demonstration of this “heat shield” phenomena — at the “Domestic Violence Coalition” level, typically.
and she also wrote:
Then there are (I learned through the Kentucky example: “Turning It Around”) the times fathers in arrears were, literally, extorted into participating in programs such as fatherhood classes, parenting skills, self-esteem, ABSTINENCE education (for a father?), and more — which have their promoters throughout the system, usually with a for-profit organization selling the materials behind any nonprofit group. These are not so many or varied that they are hard to locate and recognize the presence of, any more…
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _OK, enough of that particular angle . . . . . . .
Personal:
My interests and activism took another “sea change” after documenting (some, at least) of the Sea Changes at for example California Healthy Marriage Coalition, which boasted on outset of its programs of THE largest HHS marriage promotion grant yet ($11 million over 5 years).
Again, at the corporate level (California Secretary of State) a search of the words ‘Healthy Marriage” (singular) produces this chart:
and “Healthy Relationship,” this one:
Meanwhile — as far as the 990 finder (which uses IRS filings) is concerned, the Sacramento Group has indeed changed its name by 2010, and there IS no “California Healthy Marriage” nonprofit around.
Now, on TAGGS, this ONE EIN (13480316) pulls up a slightly smaller set of grants, but two different DUNS# — why? (I put these here for readers to click on)
Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recipients
Searching by Principal Investigator “Curtis” (within California) we see some — not all — of the grants:
and of course the last one, a new award, goes to — “CAROLYN CAROLYN” (i.e., FN FN)
SO, this $3 million plus is going to an organization in Sacramento (California State Capitol) that is not maintaining is nonprofit status with the state of California — is this affecting our budget? Please also note that of these 5 awards, two are “Recovery” (ARRA) awards — totaling $1,647,768. In another OMB or GAO report, we found that ARRA awards specifically have been tagged as notoriously NOT paying their still-due payroll and other taxes (even were the nonprofit legitimate):
The GAO accounts. It has no teeth. Congress has to act…. More from the GAO site indicates that groups such as these may be included, i.e., if they don’t includ amounts from groups that have not filed federal tax returns
(Back to TAGGS and our HM grantees)
And the $15 million went to an organization incorporated by Dennis Stoica (in Leucadia) that had its corporate status suspended, as well as the OTHER two organizations he formed, around the same time. Patty Howell’s nonprofit, who carried on the name — is still associated with the bad behavior (by association) with CHMC’s originals.
Yet the only one of the BUNCH that I can see actually filed (with California, where they are) with the OAG — as required to — was the Sacramento Healthy Marriage (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.)
The California Healthy Marriage (Stoica, Suspended) became, somehow “Healthy Relationships California” (Howell) — think Leucadia, San Diego Area.
Meanwhile, the SACRAMENTO HM group (Curtis) — not that its ‘charitable status is, er, current — at least created one with the OAG, which looks like this
(on the actual site, the headings background color would be BLUE). I am coding it GREEN, to match the PATTY HOWELL group – and indeed, the letter on this site (From the OAG) saying’ hey whassup, is addressed to “Sacramento Healthy Marriage”
TAGGS grant for This one, EIN# 6806790 (which I believe I’ve gone over before, at some length) shows:
Or, in the latest ACF announcement (just to make life a little harder for the novice in all this) as:
Healthy Relationships California
Leucadia
CA
$2,500,000
Which is it not called, any more — on the TAGGS – – – OR, on the website itself, because Patty Howell’s actual organization “healthy Relationships” apparently subsequently bought (or, at least claimed) the registered name “California Healthy Marrriage Coalition.”
Website — not that this group is current as a charity in California any more, but at least Ms. Howell’s nonprofit founded JUST a bit earlier than Mr. Stoica’s, saved the day and kept the name — it’s still showing up as: California Healthy Marriages Coalition and (I see) features a “Dads & Kids” relationship education initiative, …
There are 7 award actions (4 of which read “$0”) and the other three (discretionary) $2.3 million & $2.4 + $2.4 million from 2006, 2009 & 2010= $7,142,080. The grant is labeled “healthy marriage” and “FE” and the use was for Dads & Kids relationship building — which just so happens to be another business Ms. Howell is in.
Quite honestly, I don’t remember now (or feel like checking) whether it was Howell, or Curtis — on both nonprofits, receiving $32K for work on the one, and $7K for work on the other.
HM/FR GRANTEE BEHAVIORS
I am now learning that their behavior is typical — not atypical– for the healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grantees. As such, I am starting to comprehend that the entire system wasn’t even nominally set up to promote marriage, but to deconstruct the lines of authority between federal and state, to divert welfare funding SPECIFICALLY from single mothers (who, even when under attack are still a force to be reckoned with) towards fathers, and change language acknowledging us as both mothers and citizens (individuals) with equal rights under the law — which, by the way, we DO have. But not safely enforceable.
The Child Support monster is just that — and as it feeds gas in to county & state agencies, and (diversionary programs) — it has been spilling, and some of these spills turn into conflagrations where people get hurt. Men, women and children. Other than that, it often drains an economy — but DRIVES the bureaucratic economy. Whatever it may have been, it is now a monster. It recruits, it solicits — but it does not produce and does not contain viable checks and balances.
WHO VOTED THIS AGENDA IN? AND WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE?
I am gradually understanding that it was THE United States Congressmen, and some (not many) women that voted for these laws, from TANF (1996/Clinton), through DRA (2005/Bush) through ARRA (2009/Obama) and through 2010 Claims Resolution Act (also Obama). It took me a while to realize that these years paralleled the hell extended nightmare of a marriage, followed by what at this point, I’d call worse — because it destroys hope of an off-ramp, EVER, and has definitely altered my family line’s wellbeing — in EVERY measurable category — for the far worse, since we first met the courts. And people who go through this marginalization tend to listen to others who have; mine is no isolated instance; it’s a systemic situation.
This is relevant history to current history, on its course. Don’t we want to know who helped set what in motion, and how? Particularly when history tends to run over the very families (and economy) it is pretending — or purporting — to help?
Normally, this subject matter wouldn’t be on my radar. It only got there when I demanded a reasonable explanation for a clear double-standard based on gender in what I assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) to be courts of law, i.e., “family courts.” Of course my opposite gender’s proponents have been saying for decades that these courts are biased against THEIR gender, and must be adjusted to compensate. They have now (far’s I can tell) been saying this with impunity for FAR too long.
SO — in some detail, and FYI —
PRWORA 1996, DRA 2005, ARRA 2009 and 2010 Claims Resolution Act. Slippery slope to evolving definitions of welfare and child support enforcement – incremental tipping of the purposes of TANF from Purpose #1
towards Purpose #4 — and then expanding the application of Purpose #4 beyond anyone who might have actually needed the resources from Purpose #1.
(4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. . . .
We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President. Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest. Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.
The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload. If you are not “up” on this then research it some. Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap. These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States. Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside. The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform. These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see. So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up. This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!
From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund). This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things. I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:
They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act
Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement). Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!) in the households where they live, in America.
. . .
(Notice the #1 goal. However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies. I have blogged on the “OMI” before.
Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk):
THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc. Court-referrals..
**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model. The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:
Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso. Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!
As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.
(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..
(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”
Good grief. the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,
since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough? That’s “ripe.”
BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:
Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously. From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”) This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):
. . .
There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:
BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2: Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).
(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)
BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3: Self-description on website:
Is sponsoring a meeting/conference with the Governor which then results in him intentionally bypassing the Legislator to get this Marriage Promotion Process going — “Christian”??
From OMI site:
At the legislative level, they might have faced a fight, and been forced to justify — TO OKLAHOMA RESIDENTS — the diversion of TANF emergency funds to marriage promotion!
I looked up Jerry Regier, and Voice of Freedom (albeit a gay rights publication?) says “Gov. Bush’s Appointment Of Jerry Regier For The Dept Of Children & Families Is More Than A Right-Wing Extremist; He Leaves A Record Of Increased Child Abuse & Neglect” (apparently from OK he was going — courtesy of the brother of then-President George Bush — to FL). Look at the commentary: (color: TEAL)
(this seems to be a hallmark of certain faith-based groups; I’m thinking of the Governor’s Office of Faith-Based (whatnots) in Ohio, re: Krista Sisterhen. It’s all over the web; she was there 2003-2006; eliminated otherwise qualified groups to get a contract to a group (formed only in 2000 and not in-state) called “WeCare” which then screwed up. And — had ties to Bush Administration. )
Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Fact Book 2001:
Reveals that 2 key benchmarks tracked worsened when compared to data from a dozen years ago:
TANF was at this time FOR low-income populations. FOR helping children be cared for in their own households, as much as possible. For leaders to say “well TRY to offer them to low-income populations” while targeting the entire state of Oklahoma — NOT the needy populations (not all of who is poor, but obviously many of who have been divorcing) is OFF-purpose. $10 million is a LOT of money to set aside, to some families. How many mouths would’ve been fed, for sacrifice of rhetoric?
More on REGIER — guess where he was in December 2006? Sitting as “US Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC 20201
Jerry Regier, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation” {{ASPE == a Program Office or OpDiv of HHS }}and writing a glowing recommendation of the OMI. In this brochure (which has his name on it), it says that Jerry Regier — as Cabinet Head of HHS — prodeed the Governotr to get this started, citing specifically 1996 TANF reform. The economic studies were secondary….
So the REAL question is — where was Regier before this, and how did he get to be in the Cabinet Position in Oklahoma?
This Brief is a good (short read) showing that when the TANF-Reformers come to town (carrying NFI-ideas), they are going to force system change. For example, the system change in Oklahoma was definitely focused on pushing MARRIAGE to people from ALL sectors of life — not alleviating poverty and helping poor or needy families. Moreover, there was a connection somehow, to the Denver Crowd (who produced PREP).
The brief comes right from ACF.HHS.GOV/healthy marriage site. In the flow chart, a central square reads ” PRIORITY 2:” BUILD DEMAND FOR SERVICES”
and from that, arrows to 3 boxes, the top one of which reads: “TRAIN AGENCIES (like child support!) TO MAKE REFERRALS”
OK (I think I have it). First, Jerry Regier was formerly president of the ultraconservative “Family Research Council” prior to Oklahoma
But this report (2004) from Florida — where it seems he went next — is scathing, and — in short — read it. I can’t say it more emphatically.
hack in Oklahoma with an undistinguished track record in the family
services bureaucracy. An ultraconservative Christian, his byline had
turned up on two published papers that espoused spanking kids, even if
it caused “welts and bruises.”
revealed that high-ranking DCF officials handed out fat and dubious
contracts to pals and political cronies, and accepted gifts, favors
and lodging from outside contractors.
As a result, three of Regier’s top administrators have quit, and
Regier himself has been reduced to defending his own outrageous
socializing with a DCF contractor.
It’s much more than the mere “appearance of impropriety.” It is the
greedy, rotten essence of impropriety — profiteering at the expense of
Florida’s neediest and most vulnerable children.
Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have been spent hiring
more caseworkers and investigators were instead doled out to
well-connected firms as part of Regier’s rush to “privatize”
child-welfare services.
In recent weeks, the Miami Herald’s Carol Marbin Miller has documented
the DCF gravy train in infuriating detail. A few of the lowlights:
—DCF Deputy Secretary Ben Harris gave out a $500,000 no-bid contract,
split between two of his friends, for computer ‘‘kiosks’’ that
dispense food stamps.
ACTUALLY — WIKIPEDIA pretty much lays it out. Jerry Regier worked for the elder Bush administration. Best read in sequence: (and I now have a 20,000 word post, too….)
Includes this section:
(SIGH — I looked up “Family Research Council” and found among its board members, the mother of the man tied to Blackwater, and a board member of
The Council on National Policy among other things — here it goes, a 2008 “Muckety Site” (visual diagram of relationships). This relates to tracking down a single person influential in starting
the “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” (Jerry Regier), learning of his former Bush & FRC connections, and looking up FRC. WHich just goes to show, when is it time to stop!?)
I’m less concerned about that than the Blackwater connection, who else this woman is funding. See Diagram:
Focus on the Family (one of the followers) figured in my life personally, exacerbating already virulent abuse, to the point that I ended up quitting a FT night job, that had been supporting our family. I’m talking WHILE I was married. My husband loved James Dobson, and listened to his stuff also
Speaking as a heterosexual Christian — I don’t know WHO these guys are — they do not do a resemblance of what I see in the Bible; and in person, and in influence are virtually terroristic to women. If I’d NOT been a Christian, I’d probably have bailed out of the marriage much faster — and this might (not sure, but MIGHT) have been better for our kids. When I hear WHO is behind some of these groups (years later) it somewhat validates the personal experiences (not mine only) that they are essentially domestic terrorists — unless one submits willingly.
Two Voices from a while back warn us on this movement: Patricia Ireland, (NOW) and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Both are responding to the Promise Keepers’ “Stand in the Gap” rally on the Washington Mall. Listen to them! ”
We are talking, 1997!….(I don’t have the date of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s speech).
(and he goes to accurately characterize the group):
QUITE FRANKLY — this is where a lot of “Christian Domestic Violence” (contradiction in terms – the false term there is “Christian”) comes from — it is an outraged insistence on previously inherent male dominance. Enforced physically and all other kinds of ways, and acknowledged by the male bonding in surrounding institutions, and well-tamed females in them also. This is why I no longer frequent — or even darken the door of — churches, if I can help it. Maybe for a music event — not for worship, not for socializing, and not for any form of support. Life is too short.
SO NOW HERE COMES THIS REVELATION — OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (Types) and BLACKWATER. I can’t say I’m really surprised.
And I do believe — especially seeing the Bush/Regier/OMI/FRC (etc.) connections that when we are looking at any Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood grant, program, or initiative — even though there may be innocent and sincere participants — this is the essence of what we are seeing — which is the intent to dominate, control, force to submit, and (this being a necessary means to dominate in a country with a Bill of Rights — to force institutions to line up, removing the due process and civil rights, permanently.
(to be continued)
BURBRIDGE FOUNDATION — A CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION — helped this happen, then. Make a note of it, because this was wrong!
And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:
STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):
The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…
Choice quote:
It’s Oklahoma! Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race. … Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:
Question: What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this? (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood: 1998, 1999). By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).” This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:
GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES? Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!
The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted. Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS). “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:
UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also. This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all. However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:
AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:
**personal. True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence. I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before. Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming. But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it. And it DOES cut down on productivity. It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare. Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.
In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse. If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”
This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above). They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities! This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:
I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF! None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with. They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.
It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching. I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.” What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild. However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!
Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand. The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.
Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”
The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one. Wonder what there input was here.
More — this is not a half-bad summary:
Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline
However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached. The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.
The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders. By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.
We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President. Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest. Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.
The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload. If you are not “up” on this then research it some. Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap. These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States. Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside. The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform. These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see. So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up. This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!
From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund). This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things. I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:
They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act
Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement). Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!) in the households where they live, in America.
. . .
(Notice the #1 goal. However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies. I have blogged on the “OMI” before.
Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS [Congressional Research Service — you see their bill summaries also at Thomas.loc.gov) report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk, Social Policy Specialist):
THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc. Court-referrals..
**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model. The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:
Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso. Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!
As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.
(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..
(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”
Good grief. the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,
since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough? That’s “ripe.”
BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:
Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously. From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”) This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):
. . .
There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:
BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2: Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).
(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)
(and apparently lost).
BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3: Self-description on website:
And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:
STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):
The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…
Choice quote:
It’s Oklahoma! Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race. … Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:
Question: What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this? (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood: 1998, 1999). By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).” This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:
GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES? Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!
The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted. Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS). “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:
UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also. This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all. However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:
AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:
**personal. True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence. I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before. Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming. But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it. And it DOES cut down on productivity. It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare. Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.
In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse. If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”
This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above). They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities! This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:
I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF! None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with. They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.
It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching. I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.” What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild. However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!
Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand. The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.
Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”
The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one. Wonder what there input was here.
More — this is not a half-bad summary:
Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline
However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached. The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.
The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders. By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.
Here’s a 2010 (June 24, 2010, to be specific) Heritage Foundation article complaining about increasing entitlements Obama’s escalation of welfare roles (true) and how the “success” of TANF should be applied to other federal programs.
They proclaimed:
They also said of TANF that it was a success. Yet — in reality — it is the means by which expansion of the welfare state — particularly after faith-based organizations were invited in — was assured. The track record is that MANY of these are not just incompetent — but chronically dishonest, and when caught (as I tend to stay) in one state, simply hop over to another. I can name names and organizations and dates, sometimes States, of the “hops.” They obtain web resources through HHS “compassion capital” or other grants, and this last season, our government just gave over $1 million GRANT to ICF International, LLC (or whatever it’s proper current name is) a group currently doing $1 BILLION business with the Feds, and with an agenda to transform communities through (basically, media domination).
Listen to this:
**Never mind that this has been done now — for years — and at statewide level. Can we reasonably assume that no one at the Heritage Foundation knows this?
##FN2 — how about requiring recipients of diversionary programs from child support and TANF to document that THEY worked at least 30 hours a week? And have incorporated, and that their incorporations have actually been proper, are current, and if required to, filed a 990? I’ve seen dropped loose ends of $50K a pop (SolidSource in Van Wert, OH comes to mind) or others have found dropped loose ends of $227,000. MOreover, we have child support privatized to outside organizations, such as MAXIMUS — themselves caught in fraud and overbilling — and THEY continue to receive government benefits from the US in the form of renewed contracts, even after paying, for example $30 million in settlement fees over these matters.
So I say, let’s put the focus on the MACRO-ECONOMIC trends — namely allowing corporations and HHS / DOJ /DOE to get in bed with them to determine whether future employees of these corporations eat, have safe drinking water, and have access to decent educations (not just skills training for globally noncompetitive jobs in the same corporations!)
POINT 4, above:
No it’s not. That’s a single-source, single-interpretation of the causes of poverty.
Now, I could debate that at least logically, following the words “Sez who?” and “Who Sez those are the only experts?” and then poke some holes in the rhetoric.
Could You? Should You? Or don’t you care about the use of taxes and public policy any more?
Go to the actual laws:
THE LAWS IN QUESTION:
PRWORA link:
PUBLIC LAW 104 – 193 – PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996
H. REPT. 109-276 – DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005
P.L. 109–171, Approved February 8, 2006 (120 Stat. 4)
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005
* * * * * * *
SECTION 1. [42 U.S.C. 1305 note] SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005”.
SEC. 7101. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES AND RELATED PROGRAMS FUNDING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010.
(a) [None Assigned] In General.—Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act (adjusted, as applicable, by or under this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005[275]) shall continue through September 30, 2010, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority on a quarterly basis through fiscal year 2010 at the level provided for such activities for the corresponding quarter of fiscal year 2004 (or, as applicable, at such greater level as may result from the application of this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005), except that in the case of section 403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority only through fiscal year 2010[276] and in the case of section 403(a)(4) of the Social Security Act, no grants shall be made for any fiscal year occurring after fiscal year 2005.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 7301. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – (Sec. 5) Designates each amount in this Act as: (1) an emergency requirement, necessary to meet certain emergency needs in accordance with the FY2008-FY2009 congressional budget resolutions; and (2) an emergency for Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles.
Makes supplemental appropriations for FY2009 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for: (1) the Office of Inspector General; (2) state and local law enforcement activities; (2) the Office on Violence Against Women; (3) the Office of Justice Programs; (4) state and local law enforcement assistance; and (5) community oriented policing services (COPS).
Subtitle B: Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals – (Sec. 2101) Amends part A of title IV (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) (TANF) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to establish in the Treasury an Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Programs (Emergency Fund). Makes appropriations to such Fund.
Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make a grant from the Emergency Fund to each requesting state for any quarter of FY2009-FY2010 if the state’s average monthly assistance caseload for the quarter exceeds its average monthly assistance caseload for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year. Requires the amount of any such grant to be 80% of the excess of total state expenditures for basic assistance over total state expenditures for such assistance for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year.
(Sec. 2102) Extends TANF supplemental grants through FY2010.
(Sec. 2103) Makes technical amendments to the authority of a state or Indian tribe to use a block grant for TANF for any fiscal year to provide, without fiscal year limitation, (carry over) any benefit or service that may be provided under the program funded under the block grant, including future contingencies.
(Sec. 2104) Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to suspend for FY2008-FY2010 the prohibition against payments to states with respect to their plans for child and spousal support collection on account of amounts expended by a state from support collection performance incentive payments received from the Secretary of HHS (thus allowing such additional payments during such period).
(WONDER WHERE WE’RE AT ON THIS NOW …..)
WHAT ARE THE CHANCES, DO YOU THINK, THAT (2) WILL BE MONITORED?
THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND FATHERHOOD ACTIVITIES DOES NOT REALLY EXIST. FOR EXAMPLE, HEALTHY MARRIAGE GRANTEE (I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.) was characterized in a recent AZFFC.org publication as the “Sacramento affiliate” of this fathers and families coalition — although the title then said “Healthy Marriage” and recently reads something like (last I heard) “Relationship Education Institute” or such.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
November 9, 2011 at 5:15 PM
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Child Support, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), OCSE - Child Support, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion
Tagged with Access-Visitation, Annie E Casey, Blackwater, Broekhuizen Prince Focus on the Family Promise Keepers & Ultra-Conservatives in Govt, Burbridge Foundation, California "RRF deadbeats" among HHS grantees, California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Child Support, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, domestic violence, Due process, Education, Expanding the Welfare State from TANF forward, Family Impact Seminars (distributions), family law, Family Research Council, fatherhood, Feminists, Forcing System Change through Faith-based Initiatives, Heritage Foundation (DeVos funded), HHS-TAGGS grants database, Jerry Regier, Motherhood, Oklahoma Marriage Initiative & Public Strategies Inc., PREP(r) Peddling through Public/Private Partnerships, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Theodora Ooms, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., Wade Horn, What happens in California when your aren't paying attention to your legislature..., women's rights