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

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

Posts Tagged ‘Evan Bayh

Parent Coordination Promoters sure can be Pushy . . . . and the Practice is so Pervasive….

with one comment

Well this turned out to be an interesting post (see how it concludes).   Have a wonderful weekend and if it’s in your country, “Father’s Day.”

 

This Just Out from “GovTrack” on the House Ways and Means Committee (and predictably, Sponsored by Danny Davis, introduced 6/15/2011):

H.R. 2193:
To amend title IV of the Social Security Act to ensure funding for grants to promote responsible…

H.R. 2193 To amend title IV of the Social Security Act

to ensure funding for grants to promote responsible fatherhood

and strengthen low-income families,

and for other purposes.

“The text of this legislation is not yet available on GovTrack. It may not have been made available by the Government Printing Office yet….”

Democrat sponsors too, this time:

Rep. Danny Davis [D-IL7]hide cosponsors

I figure it will be similar to this one, from 2009):

06/17/2009 Davis, Bayh Introduce Legislation To Promote Healthy Families, Active Fatherhood

With one in three children in the United States living apart from their biological fathers, Representative Danny K. Davis and Senator Evan Bayh are renewing their efforts to promote healthy families and support American fathers who are trying to earn a livable wage and take a more active role in the lives of their children.

Rep. Davis along with Reps. André Carson and Artur Davis today introduced companion legislation in the House called the Julia Carson Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 Act, in honor of Representative Julia Carson, the late Indianapolis congresswoman who championed fatherhood reform throughout her long career.

Bayh today introduced his Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act of 2009 with Senators Blanche Lincoln and Roland Burris, a bill cosponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama in the last Congress. Bayh’s bill is co-sponsored with Senators Blanche Lincoln and Roland Burris.

“It is a sad and sobering fact that one out of every three kids in America will wake up this Father’s Day without their father present,” Bayh said. “Conceiving a child doesn’t make you a man, but raising one responsibly does. Unfortunately, absentee fathers have become a national epidemic. The result is that 24 million American children are more likely to struggle in school and have emotional and behavioral problems.”

 

Yeah, emotional and behavioral problems like sexting strange women while your pregnant wife is away at work  —  or (see recent posts — I can’t recall the name — of key Obama appointee starting a baby in May out of wedlock, and then marrying a newer, better woman the following December, while one’s job description includes the words “healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood” oversight.  I DNR exact details but you can see my 2011 posts, there are photos) —

If Obama’s own appointees can’t keep to the standard of responsible fatherhood, why should he inflict the programs on the rest of us, meanwhile constantly diminishing the work of very responsible mothers?

Bayh added, “Our government spends $100 billion a year to deal with the fallout of absent fathers.** The government can’t pass a law to make men good dads, but we can support local programs that specialize in job training, career counseling and financial literacy to help those men who embrace their parental responsibility and are trying to earn a livable wage to do right by their kids

What procedures are in place to distinguish the good guys from the bad guys? — To justify it, they say “men who embrace their parental responsibility and are trying to earn a livable wage to do right by their kids.”   However, even attorney General General Eric Holder has noted (finally, if only in QUICK passing) that in fact, custody is going to batterers.

Recently (6/22/2011) a rapper “Tone Loc” was arrested for felony (not misdemeanor) domestic violence with the mother of this child.  He posted $50,000 bail within 3 hours and was out. … (I hope she was able to relocate!).    The article sites, falsely, that violation of a restraining order in Calif. results in an arrest.  That is not true — if in theory, definitely not in practice:

d for Jennifer Morgan and Milena A. Abreu, Attorneys At Law,
Morgan Albite P.A., Miami & Coral Gables, Palm Beach & Vero Beach, Florida

Born Anthony Smith, rapper Tone Loc, arrested on suspicion of felony domestic violence in Burbank, California over the weekend, is reportedly out on bail, having posted a bond of $50,000 three hours after being hauled into jail.

Known mostly for his rise to fame in the 1980’s with hits like “Wild Thing” and “Funky Cold Medina,” there is little information about exactly what occurred prior to Tone Loc’s arrest.

Police have only indicated that there was a “physical altercation” with the mother of his child.

If true, this situation does not bode well for Tone Loc, because, via the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, California has some of the harshest domestic violence laws in the country.

Whatever those laws are, or aren’t, the father can still get custody and generally also will get visitation too.

Felony domestic violence in California occurs when a person physically strikes their spouse, former spouse, a cohabitant, former cohabitant, a person with which they have or had a dating relationship, a blood relative, or the parent of his or her child.

The difference between felony and misdemeanor, as I read the (California) code is whether or not it causes serious injury.  You can check yourself.  Simply striking doesn’t constitute felony.  For Tone Loc to get this type of arrest, there probably was some injury showing.

No ongoing relationship is necessary, and penalties range from 2 to 4 years in jail and a $6,000 fine.

Additionally, restraining order violations automatically end in arrest.

That’s a bunch of baloney.  They only result in arrest of the local police or law enforcement decide to arrest them.  Many times they don’t.

California domestic violence law also impacts child custody by requiring judges to make the presumption that granting custody to a batterer is not in the best interest of the child.

SOURCE:  Criminal Law News Now.com, sponsored by Morgan Albite, P.A. – in Florida?

 

As the 2009 public statement from Rep. Davis says:

I am glad President Obama is starting a national conversation to draw public attention to the critical role that fathers play in raising responsible, healthy adults.”

Of course then-President Clinton (a prime example of marital fidelity, & “keep it zipped” Democrat, both before and during the US Presidency) already started that conversation in 1995, responding to Republican “Contract with America.”  Why do I start to feel sometimes like a bystander when Democrats & Republicans jockey (as our Congress) for supremacy in the  “MY fatherhood programs are bigger than YOURS!” and “Who’s your Daddy!” posturing — and spending?

 

((Here is Rep. Davis on Tax Day 4/15/2011 introducing “The Children’s Budget Act” and citing to Brookings Institute and The Urban Institute) talking about we need to spend more money on children.  For Brookings Institute, read Ron Haskins and others who produce “Fragile Family” and other “Strengthening the Family” reports indicating that marriage reduces poverty and is a great thing for children, which Deomcrat Rep. Anthony Weiner — who according to news “just out” (yesterday) — might be thinking about, about now — and I guess if he steps down at once, he won’t get to vote yes on more fatherhood funding — although he’s about to become one:**

(Thu Jun 16, 9:48 am ET Rep. Anthony Weiner stepping down

By Rachel Rose Hartman

Rep. Anthony Weiner plans to announce at a 2 p.m. press conference in Brooklyn, N.Y. Thursday that he has made the decision to resign from Congress amid a growing scandal over his lewd online communications.

Last week, Weiner admitted he had lied about his dealings {{“I was hacked”}} with women he had met online–but insisted he wouldn’t resign. On Saturday, his office announced he had entered “treatment,” after top Democrats, including Nancy Pelosi, publicly called on him to leave Congress.

Weiner had previously indicated that he wished to speak with *** his wife Huma Abedin, who is pregnant with the couple’s first child, before deciding on his political future. Abedin returned to Washington yesterday following a trip to Africa with her boss Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

House Democrats today were scheduled to meet to discuss potential next steps to punish the New York congressman, including possibly stripping him of his committee assignments (he currently sits on the powerful House Energy and Commerce as well as the Judiciary committee), and expelling him from the Democratic caucus.

The scandal, which first broke three weeks ago, continued to deepen this week.

Just yesterday, porn star Ginger Lee held a press conference to announce that the congressman had asked her to lie about their online communications. “I think that Anthony Weiner should resign because he lied to the public and the press for more than a week,” Lee said.

Weiner was asked about his Twitter communications with Lee when the scandal broke; he told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer that Lee probably received “pro-forma”  messages from his account and that was all.

Lee claims Weiner sent her specific messages about his “package.” She had previously shared her communications with Weiner with the site TMZ.

Lee hired celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred to make her case to a national audience and multiple news outlets report that an Atlanta strip club was already using the scandal to promote her appearance at their venue Wednesday night.

Ah well….Just kidding.  I know what time of month it is (this JUNE) and simply looked up the House Ways and Means Committee’s doings.  Rep. Davis will always have a warm position in my heart anyhow, for carrying that crown in the US Senate Building and placing it on the top of the royalty-robed Rev. Sun Myung Moon of the Unification Church in front of plenty of spectators.   NOt that he hasn’t done plenty else, but would you buy a fatherhood program from someone who plays along with someone who wants — I mean REALLY wants — to rule the world and really seems to believe Jesus messed up, but He’s got a better idea?  (That’s exactly how this cult thinks and talks to, when not money-laundering etc.)

Just for the record, even Attorney General Eric Holder put in JUST a few words hinting there MIGHT be a problem with custody in the court:

Reported at NAFCJ.net:


From the “What Took Them So-Long” category, is this Department of Justice, June 2009 release of remarks by Attorney General Holder which include: “Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system? ” Remarks by Attorney General Eric Holder June 2009

From the horse’s mouth (i.e., DOJ source):

  »  Justice News
Justice News Banner
Attorney General Eric Holder via Video to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment
~ Tuesday, June 2, 2009

 Remarks as prepared for delivery. (I would love to hear a recorded transcript…..)

Good morning and welcome to the National Summit on the Intersection of Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment.

As you are gathered here in this beautiful location, I hope that you will forge new alliances and a collective leadership that will help identify solutions that will have a lasting impact on the lives of mothers and children traumatized by family violence. I ask that you consider ways the Department of Justice can renew and strengthen its efforts to address this problem. We want to draw upon lessons gleaned from your work in communities throughout the country. We also want to know what has been left undone.

(paragraph, paragraph, paragraph, and then):

Some of the topics that you will address may be more challenging than others. I hope you will especially discuss the most difficult issues I know many of you confront in your work:

  • Why are mothers who are the victims of domestic violence losing custody of their children to the courts and to the child protection system?
  • Why are children of color over-represented in the child protection system?
  • Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past? If so, what does that relationship look like?

I ask that you explore all of these things while always remembering that the needs of children who are exposed to violence are inextricably linked to the needs of mothers who are the victims of domestic violence.

Well, sorry to say, the fathers’ groups and promoters don’t see it that way…The sponsoring group (which I remember noticing at the time) was t he Office on Violence Against Women, in partnership with the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCFCJ) and the Family Violence Prevention Fund [basically a fatherhood-funded group at this point.  I have written them off.  They are not going to confront the custody issues, at all..] has planned this meeting to continue a conversation that began almost a decade ago, at the first National Summit held here in Jackson Hole, Wyoming  If Philip Stahl (one of the largest PAS promoters around, and trains judges) is on the the faculty of NCFCJ, I doubt he is going to be too interested in the “problem” custody of children going to batterers.  His work enables that!   It’s one of the primary things he appears to write on — parental alienation!

Here he is in 2010 speaking to an Alliance of Concerned Men on fatherhood.  It’s a good speech, but pulls out that phrasing:

I’m glad to be in the company of so many fellow dads and local leaders who want to focus on, and talk about, fatherhood. In the course of this discussion, I hope we will be open and honest enough to ask ourselves tough questions – father to father, parent to parent – about what our communities, as well as the federal government, can do to strengthen our families and support those fathers who are trying to do the right thing.

The plain truth is that youth violence is far-too common. There’s no single cause and no simple solution. But we know one important contributor is the absence of a responsible, loving father. Here in D.C., where half of African-American households don’t include even one grown man, the implications of this fact could not be clearer.

If we are going to call ourselves “men” then we must act like men. We must nurture and care for those we bring into this world. That’s what a “man”

Attorney General Eric Holderdoes. We can’t leave this awesome responsibility only to the women in our lives who, nevertheless, do a superb job. And we can’t ask our communities to shoulder our obligations. This must end. Any man who can create a child must also help, in a meaningful way, to help raise that child.

I don’t pretend that this will be easy, especially for fathers who have been incarcerated…

 

 

 

 

And, Dec. 18, 2009 from “mainjustice.com” (AndrewRamonas)

Holden’s Fatherhood Speeches Part of Faith-Based Initiative:

 

(this page is apparently particular about not quoting excerpts and is immune from a partial “cut and paste” (see Fair use Copyright, below).  So, to read it, just click on the link.  The info right below here is from a link on the article.  POINT BEING– one brief sentence that mothers are losing custody to batterers, people of color disproportionately represented in child protective services, and so forth.  If this was a SErIOUS concern of our attorney general, then he would put someone on the job to find out why — and not just ask the local experts who love to train judges, what’s happening.  Perhaps we should take a look at some of that judicial training!
 
 
Policy Goals – Key Priorities for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships
In addition to its daily work, President Obama has asked the Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships to focus on four special priorities.  These priorities are:
  1. Strengthening the Role of Community Organizations in the Economic Recovery
  2. Reducing Unintended Pregnancies, Supporting Maternal and Child Health, and Reducing the Need for Abortion
  3. Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Strong Communities
  4. Promoting Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation

Efforts associated with these key priorities will be carried out by working closely with the President’s Cabinet Secretaries and the 11 Agency Centers for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships, as well as the Strategic Advisor at the Corporation for National and Community Service.

Gee, here they are up in NH promoting Fathers in education; this time, if fathers are there, it means academics improve.  Pretty soon mothers will become obsolete — or simply wombs to bring out kids that fathers can be involved in, thus justifying more initiatives (and grants, and trips, and conferences, and speeches, and publications and media press releases, and  . . . . and . . . . . .. . )

Today, as part of the continuing National Conversation on Fatherhood, Obama Administration officials made the second stop of a national initiative with a visit to Manchester, New Hampshire to focus on the importance of fathers in the education of their children. The White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, in cooperation with The U.S. Department of Education, conducted the event.

Secretary of Education Arne Duncan participated in the day’s activities, which examined the ever growing importance of fathers in the education of their children. Increasing parent involvement, particularly the involvement of fathers, is key to improving struggling schools across the country. Research shows that children do better in school and are less likely to drop out when fathers are involved. More than 70 representatives of nonprofits, parent organizations, faith-based organizations, counseling agencies and university, business and government services from across New England participated in the discussion and provided feedback on engaging fathers in their children’s education

 

BACK TO PARENTAL COORDINATION.  Let’s keep the parenting “gender-neutral” and talk about the organizational aspects here:

How’d we get so many uncoordinated parents in the neighborhood, anyhow?  Why haven’t years upon years (like K-12) of being shown how to  sit down, stand up, wait in lines and go through lines on cue (bells), and stop whatever they were doing every XX minutes and to keep to their assigned places in the Bell Curves of Life gotten the place coordinated yet?

And yet we (meaning “y’all” from another perspective) need more and more coordinators to tell these people who have (most of them) already come through the US Public School system, somehow — to leave whoever they hooked up and then split up with (whether by marriage or “liaison” of some sort) — how to parent right…  How to be fair, UNbiased (see my last four posts) and above all trust authority.  And we need more social demonstration research to figure out where “we” (the experts?) failed.  Of course, as one generation grows up, it’s important to get to the next generation in time and engrave the latest dogma upon them — as expressed in the best “practices.”

Wikipedia for what it’s worth:

Parenting coordinator (PC) is a relatively new practice that is used to manage on-going issues in child custody and visitation cases by professional psychologist or a lawyer assigned by the Court.[1] There are 10 states as of May, 2011 that have passed legislation regarding parenting coordinators: Colorado (since 2005), Idaho (2002), Louisiana (2007), New Hampshire (2009), North Carolina (2005), Oklahoma (2001), Oregon (2002), Texas (2005), Massachusetts and Florida.[2]

I am not the only person opposed to “Parenting Coordination” and introducing yet another profession into the AFCC Palette:

The LIZ LIBRARY agrees with me, and gives a whole page of reasons, followed by a ***t (Boat)load of links to justify it.  However, the first one (I listed below) would be good enough:

Article on Parenting Coordination can be found at:
Parenting Coordination, a bad idea
http://www.thelizlibrary.org/therapeutic-jurisprudence/parenting-coordination.html
Also see: Parenting Coordinator Practical Considerations
And: A “child-centered divorce”?


    • Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function

Of course, I”m of the opinion (see my PCANH cites) that is precisely the point of it. . . . . .

Here’s what Florida Governor “Jeb” Bush wrote in 2004, explaining his VETO of a  certain bill promoting the Professionalization of Parental Coordination:

While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:

1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.

2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.

3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights

4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.

5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.

Actually, I believe it’s appropriate to reprint in full, here:

June 18, 2004

By the authority vested in me as Governor of Florida, under the provisions of Article III, Section 8, of the Constitution of Florida, I do hereby withhold my approval of and transmit to you with my objections, Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, enacted during the 36th session of the Legislature, convened under the Constitution of 1968, during the Regular Session of 2004, and entitled:

An act relating to Parenting Coordination. . .

Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640 authorizes courts to appoint a parenting coordinator when the court finds the parties have not implemented the court-ordered parenting plan, mediation has not been successful, and the court finds the appointment is in the best interest of the children involved.

I applaud the dedicated efforts of many whose mission is to identify alternatives to assist families in conflict. I also recognize that some circuit courts are currently utilizing parenting coordinators without statutory authority, and I commend them for seeking legislative direction.

While the intent of the bill is laudable, I am vetoing the bill for the following reasons:

1. I am concerned that the bill does not adequately protect families as they try to resolve their conflicts. By authorizing courts to require families to use parenting coordinators, this legislation allows the judicial branch to order parenting coordination without the consent of all parties involved.

2. I share the concerns expressed by domestic violence advocates that this bill fails to provide adequate safeguards for victims of domestic violence.

3. I cannot approve legislation that delegates judicial authority to a parenting coordinator and which allows these parenting coordinators to serve in the dual role of judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights.

Ms. Glenda E. Hood June 18, 2004 Page Two

4. I am concerned about funding these parenting coordinating programs in the future.

5. I believe that parenting coordinators should serve as volunteers and not be limited to an exclusive class of licensed professionals.

I will support a revised bill during the 2005 legislative session that makes the appointment and selection of a parenting coordinator subject to the consent of both parents. Also, I believe that we must limit the risk of “professionalization” of the parenting coordinator role by limiting it to volunteers. While I respect the Legislature’s policy choice to allow only licensed professionals, clergy or attorneys to qualify as parenting coordinators, I believe that any volunteer, especially any faith-based volunteer, who meets certain minimum criteria should be allowed to serve as a parenting coordinator.

Basic training and standards are important. I support language, some contained in the current bill, regarding domestic violence training, family-court procedures, and mediation.

I am committed to working with the sponsors of this legislation *** to create a program that can assist parents, preserve their rights, protect the best interests of the children involved, and address the concerns noted above.

Furthermore, by this letter, I respectfully request the Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court and all chief circuit judges to consider revising these programs to ensure that parents’ paramount rights are not compromised, regardless of the well-intentioned motives of the program.

For these reasons, and the reasons set forth herein, I am withholding my approval of Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2640, and do hereby veto the same.

Sincerely,

Jeb Bush

** He’d just about HAVE to work with the sponsors of that legislation:  they are helping run the states’ family law system, and if he didn’t, there’d probably be a riot.  Nevertheless, as we approach June 18, 2011 (seven years later), I’d have to agree with the points he made.

Of course, these people don’t (I just picked one state, but one can find similar “reasoning” and resolve in all states.  More later, this is a quick post…..):

This is from Illinois.  I learned today that Cook County  (i.e., Chicagoland) Clerk of the Court handles $74 million and over 2 million cases per year.  It’s larger than some Fortune 500 companies.   They opened a $64 million building in 2005 to centralize Domestic Violence Court — all under an AFCC Judge of course — you didn’t think THAT would be changed….

Anyhow, AFCC doesn’t want “Children” in the Middle — they typically want THEMSELVES (including parenting coordinators) in the middle, and in charge.

I found this elegant site — very impressive  It’ graphics are a cut above for sure, and its membership are decorated and competent, and judges:

RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INSTITUTE

...to encourage effective & efficient use of court-related alternative dispute resolution - the RSI Mission

Resolutions Systems Institute and

Center for Conflict Resolution are out of the same street address and suite#:

RESOLUTION SYSTEMS INSTITUTE
11 EAST ADAMS STREET, SUITE 500 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60603
312 922 6475 INFO@ABOUTRSI.ORG WWW.ABOUTRSI.ORG
 
and . . . . 
 
Center for Conflict Resolution
11 E. Adams, Suite 500
Chicago, Illinois 60603
Phone: 312-922-6464
Fax: 312-922-6463

“Mission:

The Center for Conflict Resolution (CCR) is one of the nation’s premiere not-for-profit providers of mediation services and conflict management training. Our services are flexible and cost-effective, based on a track record of over 31,000 mediated cases and backed by the expertise of knowledgeable, dedicated volunteers and employees.

Every year we provide free mediation services in over 2,000 cases, train hundreds of new mediators, facilitate meetings and work with dozens of businesses, government agencies and organizations to create custom-designed dispute resolution systems and training programs.

It was started by the Young Lawyers Section of the Chicago Bar:

History:

In 1979, the Young Lawyers Section of The Chicago Bar Association supported the creation of a not-for-profit corporation to aid the Chicago community in effectively handling disputes.

Originally known as the Neighborhood Justice of Chicago, the Center for Conflict Resolution opened in a storefront in Chicago’s Uptown Neighborhood to help people resolve their conflicts through mediation. In the early 1980’s, CCR began accepting a significant number of case referrals from the Circuit Court of Cook County. To reach the community more effectively and to enhance their new services, CCR moved its offices to Chicago’s downtown loop.

CCR continued its reach through programs developed in the Circuit Court of Cook County and in city and state institutions that continue today. From juvenile offenders and victims, landlord-tenant conflicts and small claims matters to employment discrimination and Chancery Court cases, CCR provides a successful option for the court and to the residents of the Chicago-land community.

In the 1990’s, having successfully trained hundreds of volunteers to mediate for the organization, CCR began offering mediation skills training to individuals along with custom-designed conflict management training programs for organizations.

Today the Center for Conflict Resolution is governed by a 20-member Board of Directors and relies on a full-time staff of eleven and approximately 120 active volunteer mediators who mediate 95% of CCR’s cases. In the past five years alone, CCR mediated over 10,000 cases and provided conflict management training to thousands of individuals.

Anyhow this is from its “NEWS AND UPDATES” (see sidebar to left, and scroll down):

ay 25, 2011 – AFCC Offers Chicago Trainings on Parenting Coordination and Working with Children in Separating/Divorcing Families

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts is offering two trainings in June for dispute resolution professionals in Chicago. “Keeping Parenting Coordinating Cases on Track: Advanced Concepts and Case Management Strategies” is a “practice-based, case-oriented” training for experienced parenting coordinators that will discuss ways to improve the parenting coordination process and work with high-conflict clients. It will be held June 20-21. “Children and Divorce: The Voice of the Child and Interventions When Children Resist Parental Contact” is a training for professionals who work with separating or divorcing families – including mediators, evaluators, lawyers, judges, etc. – and will focus on how to integrate children’s voices into the dispute resolution process and work with parent-child contact problems. It will be held June 22-23.

TRAINING #1: You may recognize the Trainer from a recent post of mine, East Coast outfit, although he’s West Coast (AFCC).  WHat better place to meet than in a large MidWestern city with the “largest unified family court system in the world”?

Keeping Parenting Coordinating Cases on Track: Advanced Concepts and Case Management Strategies 
Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D.
June 20-21, 2011
Chicago, Illinois

Training Brochure (PDF)

About the Presenter

Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. is a licensed psychologist in private practice in Palo Alto, California, specializing in forensic and clinical work in the family courts. His full-time private practice focuses almost exclusively on work with co-parents. He serves in a variety of court-related roles, including mediator, co-parent counselor, parenting coordinator and consultant. He has written numerous articles and book chapters, and presented at national and international venues on topics such as high-conflict divorce, parenting coordination, child alienation and mental health consultation in family law cases. He is currently serving on the editorial board of the Journal of Child Custody and serves on the

AFCC Board of Directors. He served on the AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force, which developed the first guidelines for PC practice and was co-chair of the AFCC Court-Involved Therapist Task Force, which developed the first guidelines for court- involved therapists. Please visit his website at http://www.californiaparentingcoordinator.com for more information.

Agenda

Yep, from the OVERCOMING BARRIERS CAMP.  As I spent several posts listing AFCC personnel, you may by now recognize a few names from this

Washington & Lee Law School Index of Periodicals, date, 2010:

(I searched on-line for Dr. Sullivan in company with Peggie Ward & Robin Deutch; this came up:)

Washington & Lee Law School
 Current Law Journal Content
an index to legal periodicals

  Family Court Review
Family and Conciliation Courts Review ( -v38(2000))
Volume 48, Number 1, January 2010
            other issues

  • Editorial Notes January 2010
    ANDREW SCHEPARD
    p.1                                                                                          +cite        
  • Special Guest Editors’ Editorial Notes
  • Guest Editors’ Introduction to Special Issue on Alienated Children in Divorce and Separation: Emerging Approaches for Families and Courts
    BARBARA JO FIDLER AND NICHOLAS BALA
    p.6                                                                                          +cite        
  • Articles
  • Children Resisting Postseparation Contact with a Parent: Concepts, Controversies, and Conundrums
    BARBARA JO FIDLER AND NICHOLAS BALA
    p.10                                                                                        +cite        
  • Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK
    p.48                                                                                        +cite        
  • Commentary on “Family Bridges: Using Insights from Social Science to Reconnect Parents and Alienated Children” (Warshak, 2010)
    JOAN B. KELLY
    p.81                                                                                        +cite        
  • Helping Alienated Children with Family Bridges: Practice, Research, and the Pursuit of “Humbition”
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK AND MARK R. OTIS
    p.91                                                                                        +cite        
  • When a Child Rejects a Parent: Tailoring the Intervention to Fit the Problem
    STEVEN FRIEDLANDER AND MARJORIE GANS WALTERS
    p.98                                                                                        +cite        
  • Outcomes of Family Counseling Interventions with Children Who Resist Visitation: An Addendum to Friedlander and Walters (2010)
    JANET R. JOHNSTON AND JUDITH ROTH GOLDMAN
    p.112                                                                                      +cite        
  • Overcoming Barriers Family Camp: A Program for High-Conflict Divorced Families Where a Child is Resisting Contact with a Parent
    MATTHEW J. SULLIVAN, PEGGIE A. WARD, AND ROBIN M. DEUTSCH
    p.116                                                                                      +cite        
  • Early Identification and Prevention of Parent—Child Alienation: A Framework for Balancing Risks and Benefits of Intervention
    PETER G. JAFFE, DAN ASHBOURNE, AND ALFRED A. MAMO
    p.136                                                                                      +cite        
  • Alienating Audiences from Innovation: The Perils of Polemics, Ideology, and Innuendo
    RICHARD A. WARSHAK
    p.153                                                                                      +cite        
  • Parental Alienation: Canadian Court Cases 1989-2008
    NICHOLAS BALA, SUZANNE HUNT, AND CAROLYN MCCARNEY
    p.164                                                                                      +cite        
  • One Case—One Specialized Judge: Why Courts Have an Obligation to Manage Alienation and Other High-Conflict Cases
    HON. DONNA J. MARTINSON
    p.180                                                                                      +cite        
  • Perspectives
  • A Response to Peter Salem’s Article “The Emergence of Triage in Family Court Services: Beginning of the End for Mandatory Mediation”
    HUGH MCISAAC
    p.190                                                                                      +cite        
  • A Reponse to Salem: Common Sense
    STEVE BARON
    p.195                                                                                      +cite        
  • A Distinction Without Much of a Difference: Response to Steve Baron and Hugh Mclsaac
    PETER SALEM
    p.201                                                                                      +cite        
  • Fine Tuning the Branding of Parenting Coordination: “…You May Get What You Need”
    ELAYNE E. GREENBERG
    p.206                                                                                      +cite        

Meanwhile, the RSI in Illinois and its Mediation-Pushing Center for Conflict Resolution

May 12, 2011 – RSI Accepting Applications for 2012-2014 Skadden Fellowship Candidates

RSI and the Center for Conflict Resolution, RSI’s affiliate organization, is now accepting applications from law students or law clerks who would like to be considered as candidates to be sponsored as RSI/CCR’s September 2012 Skadden Fellow. The Skadden Fellowship Foundation provides a two-year fellowship that offers the opportunity to develop and execute a legal project with a public interest host organization that serves underrepresented populations. RSI/CCR seeks to sponsor a Fellow to work on court ADR program development. Click here for more information about sponsorship criteria and how to apply.

...to encourage effective & efficient use of court-related alternative dispute resolution - the RSI Mission

JUSTICE IS A PROCESS.  Handing off authority to a single Mediator in a Family Law system when that mediator is on the County Payroll, and grants to the states called “Access and Visitation” (etc.) facilitate “increased noncustodial parenting time” (to the tune of $1 million/ year in California) and other Responsible Fatherhood ways to reduce poverty and violence and encourage child support enforcement ) — doesn’t strengthen Justice.  The AFCC is not interested in Justice, and has already spoken — it is into psychology and mental health / counseling services.

It has shown and it has told.  We have experienced, but how many  have really READ both the publications of AFCC (from conference materials), the Positioning its adherents have obtained, the Professions they have developed in self-interest in getting a counselor into everyone’s life, and the very profitable “Nonprofits” they have started (and believe me, i do check these out; if you don’t know what a “FRONT GROUP” is go read some EINs in this field,  look up who’s on them, and then listen to them crying about the violence in our communities when they apply for another Supervised Visitation grant, or mandate more parental educations, or Push Parental Coordination on us — because of “high-conflict” parents)

It takes TWO parents to have high conflict.  If they would, rather, allow (and just DEAL with it!) in principle (they already do, in practice…. because when you call in a Warshak, or a judge wanting to punish an “alienating” parent, that parent is going to be OUT of a kids’ life — unless there is some more money to be drained from the parent (or parent’s associates) into the courts.  If the parent has none, then there are federal grants which can also be utilized.  Either way .  . . . .).

It’s coming up on a very famous Sunday here.  So let me say:

Happy “Parent” Day!

In some of the next posts, I am going to address some of the Resource Centers taking major fatherhood funding from the HHS in order to stop violence against women.  IN other words, they have figured out how to consolidate two federal grant streams (fatherhood — which was anti-feminist to start with — and VAWA — which was to counter extreme patriarchal behavior which perpetuated hate crimes against women because they are women.  You’d think those two would have an adversarial relationship, right?  But fact is, they have worked out their differences QUITE well when it comes to the federal faucet.

There are some “resource centers” that seem to dominate the DV field — and ALL of them are on the take from fatherhood funding, but this is not obvious unless you look at their financing.  They have dominated the field, as have their expensive, NOT well-tracked, and ever-expanding practices, NONE of which have proven to reduce violence against women (on one part) OR make more responsible fathers (on the other).  These things are not only environmental in origin and cannot always be trained in or drummed out of a person by sitting through an institute — or having judges (etc.) sit through institutes.

It’s time the general public stopped learning to look the other way and keep pretending that this is in THEIR best interests, by supporting legislators who vote in more Kids Turns, and Family Justice Centers, and appropriate millions of $$ that really don’t know, what’s happening to them.  Is it “OK” to do this decade after decade, with a US debt in trillions, and the value of the US$$ rapidly losing face globally?

Well, I may have been a TEMPORARY burden for a while, but this is definitely my civic duty in blogging these things.

CORPORATION WIKI On “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE” (a.k.a. “Family Violence Prevention Fund”).  Just see how many personnel are involved:  This is the organization I found around $33 million of funding for (USASpending.gov) — from both HHS & DOJ (at least) but what they are doing primarily is “EDUC” — they get grants to set up systems to train the professionals.  They also got a $250K grant to move and change their name and web pages.  However, it’s basically the same business, form what I can tell — a monopoly in the field, shared witha  few other organizations of similar practices and clout — just different names.

The link gives a visual.

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2009 $26,157,567 990 16 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2008 $22,018,363 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2007 $17,917,034 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2006 $13,612,574 990 33 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2005 $9,114,506 990 31 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2004 $7,045,197 990 24 94-3110973
Family Violence Prevention Fund CA 2002 $6,261,569 990 22 94-3110973

Just a fragment (see 2009) includes this Program Service Component:

4c (Code. )(Expenses$ 1,879,434.includinggrantsof$ )(Revenue$       )  PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS – THE ORGANIZATION LAUNCHED THE FIRST-EVER NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – THERE’S NO EXCUSE FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – IN 1994. NOW THE ORGANIZATION IS REACHING YOUNG MEN AND BOYS THROUGH THE COACHING BOYS INTO MEN CAMPAIGN, ENCOURAGING MEN TO TALK TO THE YOUNG MEN AND BOYS IN THEIR LIVES THAT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS WRONG. THROUGH MEDIA AND THROUGH WORK WITH ALLIED ORGANIZATIONS, COACHES, AND OTHERS WHO REACH MEN AND BOYS, THE FVPF IS DELIVERING THE MESSAGE THAT MEN CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE ORGANIZATION’S RELATED FOUNDING FATHERS CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGES MEN TO STEP FORWARD ON FATHER’S DAY AND JOIN IN MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT ABOUT ENDING VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN.

WAIT A MINUTE — wasn’t the National Fatherhood Initiative, doing this already?

Corporation Wiki brings up a pagefull of references, I”ll take one of them;  Here are a few”

Name Type City State
National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc Company Pittsburgh PA
National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc Company Austin TX
National Forum On Fatherhood Initiatives, Inc. (TRULY interesting when you look upan individual from these Corporation wiki’s:  in this case the flamboyant and religiousBishop King Louis H. Narcisse & successor Dr. Eddie C. Welbon**.Some also have a very active court record (as Plaintiff or defendant).

 

Company San Francisco CA
California Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. Company Sacramento CA
Central Texas Fatherhood Initiative Company Waco TX
Florida Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. Company Highland Beach FL
Global Fatherhood Initiative Company Dallas TX
Lonestar Fatherhood Initiative Company Austin TX
North Texas Fatherhood Initiative Company Dallas TX
Putting An End to Abuse Through Community Efforts Initiative (P.E.A.C.E. Initiative) Company San Antonio TX

** Corporations and CHurches — a note from the Bishop King tradition:

In about 1948, King Narcisse began to incorporate an ancient legally recognized ecclesial creature into the church kingdom and diocese structure to insure that the kingdom and its charitable properties were preserved in perpetuity. The ecclesial creature was the Sole Corporation. Likewise in other states, in California, Corporation Sole may be formed only by the bishop, chief priest of any religious denomination or Church for the purpose of administrating and managing the affairs, and properties of the Church. [17]  The management and control of Corporation Sole and it assets pass to the bishop or chief priest’s Church successor. [18]

In California, King Narcisse formed the Corporation of the President of Mt. Zion Spiritual Temple, A Sole Corporation, to administer and maintain ownership of the church’s charitable property and its vast real estate holdings,[19] which would turn out to be a truly prophetic and brilliant movement to preserve the church kingdom in perpetuity.

In California, King Narcisse had his sights on building a self sufficient farm based community with a 15 million dollar hospital, cemetery and old folk’s home in the Sacramento area

Hmmm…. browsing search “finds” on this flamboyant situation, I found another blog, which also deals with fathers, early trauma, and dissociation.  The adult man (2007) is recalling and piecing together information about his father who worked at the Oakland shipyards during times of Pearl Harbor.  He speculates as to whether some of his own early trauma relates to his father’s involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.

I am going to finish reading this, if you would like to see the PRINCE RAY CHRONICLES (Dec. 2007), click HERE:  As you do, recall that one purpose of the $10million/year access visitation grants is promising projects as the Secretary of Health (HHS) shall assign; states must help. …   Including what “trainings” work better than others, and keeping the network open to subject parents and children to them, forcibly, targeting IV-D (welfare) families . . . . ???

AS WE CAN SEE< THERE ARE (&/OR WERE) QUITE A FEW “FATHERHOOD” ORGANIZATIONS IN THE GOLDEN STATE (CALIFORNIA):

Coalition for The Advancement and Protection of Fatherhood Company Riverside CA
Fatherhood 101 of Orange County, Inc. Company Santa Ana CA
Fatherhood Assistance, Lifestyle & Legal Service Company Tampa FL
Fatherhood Coalition Company Santa Barbara CA
Fatherhood Foundation of The Pikes Peak Region Company Colorado Springs CO
Fatherhood Institute Company Dublin CA
Fatherhood Ministries, Inc. Company Midland TX
Fatherhood Project – Next Generation (Fp-Ng) Company West Sacramento CA
Lancaster Fatherhood Project Company Lancaster SC
Marine City Fatherhood Program Company Sausalito CA
Project Fatherhood Development, Inc. Company Los Angeles CA
The DO-Right Fatherhood Program Company Sausalito CA
The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family RevitalizationLet’s look at this one, which links only to “Charles Ballard Company San Diego CA
The Urban Fatherhood Project Company Sacramento CA
The Urban Fatherhood Project Company Sacramento CA
Urban Fatherhood Network Foundation, Inc. Company Sacramento CA

“The Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization”  website goes first to a web page in Washington, DC:

INTERCHANGE.org/romros/resource-12.html

Notice it’s targeted to welfare (TANF Recipient) Custodial and noncustodial fathers:

INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 
& FAMILY REVITALIZATION

3594 Hayes St. NE Ste. 102
Washington, DC 20019-7522
(202) 396-8320 Fax (202) 396-8326
EMAIL: bcjenkins@responsiblefatherhood.org
WEBSITE: http://www.responsiblefatherhood.org
Contact Person: Bruce & Cesalie Jenkins


Hours of Operation: 9:00a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Population Served: Custodial and non-custodial fathers, TANF Recipients
Area Served: Primary target area is Ward 7 in DC; also serve those who are referred by our collaborative partners


Volunteers Needed for:
Doing surveys | Support for community services


No. needed: 

“Turning the hearts of  fathers unto their children”
We are a 20 year old grass roots organization working with  fathers and mothers to enhance self-worth and communication skills to empower them a parent to take charge of their homes and familiesServices Offered:

  • Paternity establishment
  • Domestic violence Intervention
  • Father & mother parenting support sessions
  • Family Support Services
  • Job Readiness & Job Search Skills
  • Child Support Assistance

This web site is sponsored and maintained by vernard r gray of InterChange.org , a non-profit virtual corporation
dedicated to social change through the effective use of networked intelligence.

The Reach Our Men Reach Our Sons Coalition (ROMROS) is a community-based collective of concerned individuals and organizations whose purpose is to improve our community by developing recruitment strategies to get more African American men involved in those organizations that service our youth in the community.  Real Men Bond: significantly increase active community involvement, commitment, and participation of male members. Will strengthen family ties, improve conditions in the community and facilitate personal growth and development. Men with a Mission: By reviving and building on the success of the Million Man March the spirit of unity and atonement guides and empowers fathers, sons and brothers.

Of course Charles Ballard is very well known in the fatherhood movement, and one of the originals:

Responsible Fatherhood, Faith, Marriage and Family

by Dr. Charles A. Ballard, Founder and Chief Executive Officer of The Institute of Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization

ON THAT BLESSED DAY, THAT VERY FIRST “PARENT’S DAY,” GOD SPOKE AND SAID: “LET US MAKE MAN IN OUR OWN IMAGE, AFTER OUR LIKENESS AND LET THEM HAVE RULERSHIP OVER EVERYTHING THAT WILL BE AND GOD MADE MAN AND WOMAN.”

Wow! What a beautiful sight that must have been – two human beings, a new order of creatures, the beginning of a new planet, a new world. Then God blessed them and spoke to them saying, “Be fruitful and multiply and replenish the earth, have many children, fill the earth and master it.” God loves family. When he spoke and said, “Let Us,” He was speaking to other members of His God Family.

Adam and Eve were to fill the earth with other human beings who would look and act like them, for they were to be made in His image, after His likeness. Adam was to cleave to his wife, Eve, and Eve was to cling to her husband, Adam. They were one. He was assigned to her as secret service agents are assigned to protect the President of the United States. God designed Adam to be a covering for his wife, and a protector for his children. More than this, Adam was to be the SERVANT leader. The SERVANT head, and SERVANT priest. Adam was to keep Eve at all times by his side. God gave them five wonderful gifts: a home, food, employment, a day of rest, and family. How much better could it get? Then it happened: first to Eve, then to Adam. An outsider usurped the power of dominion entrusted to them. This outsider, Satan, decided to put asunder what God had joined together. This outsider was allowed to come between the man and his wife. Sin entered the world. Then a tide of woe fell upon God’s wonderful creation.

And “Home” to this site links to 7th Day Adventists….I’m hoping these are not the ones promoting the “Marriage” book “Adam was From Dirt, Eve was from Adam.”

No, this was a DIFFERENT “REsponsible fatherhood” grantee receipient, Leo Godzich out of Arizona?  The organization that was over in Uganda promoting the kill-the-gay legislation (til it was out’ed).  Here’s the book:

Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men

Dr. Leo Godzich of “nameonline.net

Men Are From Dirt, Women Are From Men - Dr. Leo Godzich

of course, the other website is not so up-front that the CEO writes books like this; it’s got a little softer approach:

NAME - National Association of Marriage Enhancement

(When you get some time, search “Godzich” on my blog — I did report some of the federal funding (and political connections – can you say “Bush”? of this particular nonprofit, the “NAME”).

The official bio of Godzich:

  • Leo Godzich

  • Leo Godzich is the founder and president of NAME, the National Association Marriage Enhancement and the host of the International Marriage Conference as well as being a leading force behind the Covenant Marriage Movement. NAME is a network of churches and couples committed to biblical marriage ministry. Currently, NAME is developing counseling centers in the U.S., Canada, Africa and Australia. Mr. Godzich is Pastor of Special Projects at Phoenix First Assembly of God in Phoenix, Arizona, the sixth largest church in the country, according to Time Magazine. He and his wife oversee a local marriage ministry to hundreds of couples with amazing results in restoring broken marriages and building stronger marriages. The Godzichs conduct Together Forever Marriage Seminars at churches and hotels around the country. He is the author of Is God In Your Marriage? and Public Relations and the Church. He has appeared as a guest and host on the Trinity Broadcasting Network programs and has been featured on the 700 Club. He also preaches the gospel around the world from Europe and Israel to Africa. Prior to entering the ministry, Mr. Godzich was an award-winning journalist, with more than 300 articles published in variety of publications. Pastor Leo Godzich, his wife, Molly, and daughters, Emily, Bethany and Christy, live in Phoenix, Arizona.

(this temporarily disrupted my peace, here, considering 7th Day Adventists and megachurch Assemblies of God in light of the OFCBI and federal funding to further “help” Men made from Dirt  become GOOD Daddies who help women understand that they came from Men…. and of course were the worlds first sinner and brought forth the world’s first murderer, etc.. — …  Those two groups in particular are so controlling.  )

Back To Ballard:

  1. Women In Fatherhood Inc. » Frances Ballard

    She is married to Dr. Charles A. Ballard, “pioneer” of the Fatherhood 
    womeninfatherhood.org/main/frances-ballard/ – Cached – Similar
  2. Princeton – News – Head of Fatherhood Institute to Address How to 

    Sep 11, 1997  Princeton, N.J. — Charles A. Ballard, founder, president, and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, 
    http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/97/q3/0911-ballard.html – Cached
  3. IAV | Book: The Fatherhood Movement: A Call to Action

    This book brings together many of the leading voices of the fatherhood movement.  such asCharles Ballard of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood in 
    http://www.americanvalues.org/…/bk-the_fatherhood_movement.html – Cached – Similar

This is the 1997 release of his speech at Princeton (Dr. Ballard’s, I mean):

News from
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
Communications and Publications, Stanhope Hall
Princeton, New Jersey 08544
Tel 609/258-3601; Fax 609/258-1301
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Patricia Coen 609/258-5764
Date: September 11, 1997

Head of Fatherhood Institute to Address
How to Return Fathers to Families

Princeton, N.J. — Charles A. Ballard, founder, president, and CEO of the Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Family Revitalization, will speak on “The Status of Fatherhood in America: How Do We Return Fathers to Families?”** at Princeton University’s Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs on Tuesday, September 23, at 4:30 p.m. in Robertson Hall, Bowl 5.

**I neglected to provide the link to the photo of Dr. Ballard above:  here it is:  You’ll note the washington DC website I copied the contents to contains the phrase ““Turning the hearts of  fathers unto their children”   THis is taken from the Bible.  The original is an active tense verb, and the subject of that verb is God, not man:  For the areligious among us, take it from me (or this quote) that these people are both misquoting and taking out of context the original — which is talking about John the Baptist preparing the world for the coming of Jesus Christ.  Well, actually, that was how John the Baptist was interpreted, so lets’ start with the original (at least in the current canon compromising this KJV) — which is the last book of the Old Testament, and I heard 400 years before before the birth of Christ.  It’s been, by contrast, about two thousand years SINCE the birth of Christ, and while I”m at it, exactly 400 years (1611) since this King James Version.

MALACHI 4:

5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse..

(funny how the beginning AND the end of the quote is simply left out, and the middle is turned into a process that some religious person can market.

In fact, here’s that very short chapter:

1For, behold, the day cometh, that shall burn as an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch. 2But unto you that fear my name shall the Sun of righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall. 3And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in the day that I shall do this, saith the LORD of hosts.

4Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel,with the statutes and judgments. 5Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD: 6And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse

AND in the New Testament, “Luke” it is given as a prophecy (referring to Malachi no doubt) given over the miracle birth (by conception, but miraculous because Elizabeth, cousin to Mary, mother of Jesus, had been barren) about her baby who would be filled with the holy ghost from birth, making him great:

LUKE  1

15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord

and in its proper context:

There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. 6And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. 7And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were nowwell stricken in years.

8And it came to pass, that while he executed the priest’s office before God in the order of his course, 9According to the custom of the priest’s office, his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord. 10And the whole multitude of the people were praying without at the time of incense. 11And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense12And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. 13But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. 14And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. 15For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb. 16And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. 17And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.

Now, I’m sticking this out here for the atheists and agnostics, and those who haven’t been exposed to a certain type of religious thinking.  This phrase is not addressed to everyone, it was specifically addressed to people that considered themselves God’s chosen.  And it was never something that individuals were supposed to do by governmental mandate or religious program — it was the EXACT opposite, and required holy spirit to communicate, and to do, i.e., prophecy.

GO FIGURE, someone smelled money and influence, and figured they might as well run with the phrase.  Now I have this question:  HOW MUCH influence (and cash) would you trust a group with that FORGOT the beginning, the end, and the context — and twisted and extended the middle of (changing a divine mission prophecied to come to ONE man (only) of the stature of Elijah (well known in OT for his miracles and many other things) — to apply it to ALL men, as coached by SOME men?     Does the original sound like a social program or spiritual renewal?

Also, this is sold as taking people off welfare and for the public good — as a FINANCIAL benefit to the entire United States (which has no official religion, we say).   And yet in context, it is prophesying a coming day of wrath — or (Malachi) that this had better happen or the earth will be smitten with a curse.  How much further off target — from their own scriptures! — could this possibly be.  And these are not obscure Scripture either — the book of Luke is read, religiously (at least chapter 2) every single “Christmas” season and has been for centuries, by Protestants and Catholics (Can’t say about these two sects, I’m not in them.  But they call themselves Christians, so go figure.)

Malachi read:  “Remember ye the law of Moses my servant” — yet this very set of faith-based social interventions and the fatherhood-based grants systems causes a real “forgetting” of the US law (supposedly based on those 10 commandments, they like to say, right?) — that talk about due process, and fair judgments.  These operate when it comes to “family court” as a literal set of bribes — which pervert the cause of justice based on facts & evidence, not therapy and influence!

That doesn’t mean Dr. Ballard is a bad guy — I just believe this whole system is completely out of whack, and unbelievably hypocritical.  If someone is going to do social reform — do social reform.  But don’t blame it on God, and don’t inflict your private visions of him on the rest of us, we do not all subscribe!  I would take Dr. Ballard over megachurch leader Dr. Godzich any day, but I object to paying for either of them through federal tax system collected by the IRS!  I have lived (as a woman) in urban areas, and my father had no father.  I did not come in with “both guns blazing” and try to force “motherhood programs” on poor people promising them this would reverse poverty and fix the community!  

By the way, nor did I tell other people how to raise their children, and try to get national laws passed to make sure it’s one size fits all, with a few cultural differences to make it sound more legitimate!

(BACK to that 1997 Princeton anouncement, then)

Founded by Ballard in 1982 in Cleveland as a local grassroots program, the institute is considered a model fathering program, “dedicated to encouraging fathers to become involved in the lives of their children in a loving, compassionate, and nurturing way.” With its home-based outreach program, the institute has restored more than 3,000 fathers to their families. Fathers who might otherwise join the ranks of “deadbeat dads” find role models among the institute’s outreach workers, from whom they learn the skills of modern-day fatherhood. “Most men are capable of responsible fatherhood,” Ballard has said. “All we need to do is lead them to it.” Now based in Washington, D.C., the nonprofit organization has opened centers in Milwaukee, San Diego, Nashville, Tenn., and Yonkers, N.Y.

Ballard’s own young adult life could have served as a case study for the institute. At age 17, he fathered a child but abandoned the boy and his mother, joining the armed forces to avoid his responsibilities. Drugs and alcohol followed, as well as prison time for a crime Ballard says he did not commit. While in prison, Ballard had plenty of time to think about his son and decided to care for the boy when he was released. Ballard eventually adopted his son, earned a high school diploma, an undergraduate degree, and then a master’s degree in social welfare. In 1976, while working at a hospital, he observed that numerous women were having babies out of wedlock, with the fathers nowhere to be found. He gathered the names of nearly 600 fathers who had abandoned their children, then visited and counseled the men. From that simple beginning, Ballard’s institute grew into a national organization.

Ballard’s talk is being sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School.

HEre are some more links (I searched “Family Justice Center Alliance” and obviously got more than are on the Casey Gwinn Circuit, but including some of these as well.  It’s a great little tool, as is your local Secretary of State’s listing of corporations and fictitious business names, combined withe any decent “990 lookup” or nonprofit finder (including the IRS’s own).

Type City State
National Family Justice Center Alliance Company San Diego CA
Alameda County Family Justice Center, Incorporated Company Oakland CA
Anaheim Family Justice Center Foundation Company Anaheim CA
Bexar County Family Justice Center Foundation Company San Antonio TX
Family Justice Center of Erie County Inc Company Buffalo NY
Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County Company Tampa FL
Family Justice Center of Hillsborough County, In Company Tampa FL
Friends of The Family Justice Center, Inc. Company San Marcos TX
Friends of The Riverside County Family Justice Center Foundation Company Riverside CA

Here’s Corporation Wiki for “MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT” (note:  doesn’t seem to be current, I understand the listed CEO is no longer).

Here’s one “Kids’ Turn” (SF — and not current, I know the President Steve Kinney just moved over for, I believe, a Greg Abel) .  “Kids Turn, Inc.” shows only Claire Barnes.    (These are obviously generated by computer searches, probably of Sec of States or IRS records… and simply pull up who’s on the Board, or was…)

Here’s Kids Turn San Diego (one person, listed)

Kid's Turn logo

Kids’ Turn San Diego recently received a $10,000 grant from Rancho Santa Fe resident Linda Brandes through the Linda Brandes Foundation. The grant will be used to support psycho-educational workshops for families going through high-conflict divorce, separation or custody disputes.

Linda Brandes

Kids’ Turn is a unique program of prevention and intervention dedicated to helping children whose parents have become opponents. A psycho-educational approach, focused on the whole family, helps children understand and cope with the harsh realities of divorce or separation and custody disputes. Kids’ Turn is a non-profit workshop for children and their parents with a proven record.

Kids’ Turn’s psycho-educational approach is the only one of its kind in Southern California.

“Serving the entire San Diego County, and reaching all who need Kids’ Turn are our top priorities, for we have a proven, effective and life-changing curriculum that makes a significant difference in the lives of these children and families,” said Jim Davis, executive director, Kids’ Turn San Diego.

For more information, visit www.kidsturnsd.org.

Remember the Brandes “$6 million isn’t enough” divorce?  This article says Linda’s gambling debt  is $30,000 — a month.  Their six homes were worth more than $40 million, and he has 10 Ferarri’s etc.  They don’t have children, I think.   They are themselves engaged in a lockdown fight over wealth — a lot of it.  But, of course it’s important to teach OTHER parents to keep their kids out of the high-conflict situation, and charge ’em to be (forcibly — court-ordered) taught, too.

Children in the Middle CoParenting Services and Kids in the Middle (same owner:  Bradley (S.) Craig):   It may seem small, but it’s web-based and government-laced, and court-ordered sometimes.   Believe I posted this, but here it is anyhow: – great logo, right?

Children in the Middle  (notice “PARENTING COORDINATION” links to the left….)

BRADLEY CRAIG, received his Master’s Degree in Social Work at UTA and is a Licensed Social Worker and Certified Family Life Educator. He is a noted co-parent educator in the North Texas area, and has developed a number of parent education programs for families raising children in two homes. He began specializing in working with families raising children between two homes in 1992 when he was hired by Tarrant County to conduct social study investigations and provide mediation sessions. He helped them design an orientation for litigating families offered by the county.

In 1997, he developed the Children in the Middle Co-parenting Education class. Brad left the County in 1997 to open up a program called Children in the Middle Co-parenting Services, Inc., a comprehensive agency designed to help adults raise children between two homes.In addition, he began offering consultation sessions where he would meet with couples and their significant others to develop a shared parenting plan. Children in the Middle Co-parenting Services, Inc. was closed in December of 2003 when Brad was hired to develop and maintain a co-parenting program with a social service organization. He is currently in private practice and contracts with organizations to provide services to families.

As a social worker and family life educator, Brad is a trained family law mediator and provides family law mediation training currently with other organizations. In addition, he offers training for other professionals to structure approaches to help these children being raised between two homes. He works with divorcing families and those with continuing custody/parenting time issue as a Family Mediator, Collaborative Law Allied Professional, Co-parenting Case Manager, Co-parenting Coach, Educator, Parenting Facilitator, and Parenting Coordinator.

Brad has written curriculum for co-parent education programs and has developed educational videos. He has been a guest speaker on many television and radio programs and is often asked to speak at local, state and national conferences on co-parenting issues. He hosted an ongoing cable television series “The Children in the Middle Show,” aimed at educating viewers about both the effects of parental conflict after a separation on children and the services available to help families through co-parenting issues.

Brad continues his education through the following organizations:

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC)
Texas AFCC 
National Association of Social Workers
National Council on Family Relations

International Academy of Collaborative Professionals
Collaborative Lawyers of Arlington and Mansfield

Phi Kappa Phi
Tarrant and Dallas County Family Law Bar Associations

They (he?) also does parenting coordination, once the $450 (each) deposit from parents is on file, aloing with the court order.  Check it out…

  (top recommended reading for “Adults” is Warshak’s “Divorce Poison.”

Fathers are so under-represented and mistreated throughout the land, as a gender — and because of their gender.  What can we do about that?

Hire Warren Farrell to Coach some Boys into Men, or should we go with the Family Violence Prevention Fund/Futures without Violence version of Coaching boys into men?  Or should we go with the Pentecostal megachurch versions of Dr. Godzich, or the Dr. Ballard versions?  Do we have a choice, or is a  fatherhood program choice coordinator going to become necessary?

(just Kidding…..)

The CFDA Summary Report form will create a report of all grant dollars allocated by CFDA number by one or all Fiscal Years since 2005.

(note:  the program I’m talking about came into being 10 years before 2005):

CFDA Prog. No. OPDIV Popular Title Number of Awards Number of Award Actions CAN Award Amount
93.086 ACF Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants 237 1,277 $577,721,113
Page Total 237 1,277 $577,721,113
Report Total 237 1,277 $577,721,113

(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose?

with 2 comments

This post is: “(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose? (Published 6-5-2011, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-J1”)

Seriously, now …..

 

What did a District Attorney, a City Attorney, and a Republican Faith-Family-Marriage-Fatherhood-pushing President have in common? In 2003, or since?

(Besides an urge to jumpstart an alliance of

One-Stop Family Justice Shops Centers)

 

BUSH:  Family of Secrets (by Russ Baker)

Russ Baker shows that Decision Points is no candid memoir.

Investigative journalist Russ Baker updates what he uncovered in Family of Secrets about the Bushes with his responses to the former President’s best-selling book. In sum, Bush started a war under false pretenses, allegedly left the cockpit because of substance abuse, got fabricated religion in order to keep power, desired to invade Iraq even before his presidency, and works to set up his brother Jeb for the Presidency. Baker finds the Bush Family political system to be a brilliant con job, benefiting large wealthy interests, and being continued by Obama.

Russ Baker’s website       ”

Family of Secrets: The Bush Dynasty, America’s Invisible Government, and the Hidden History of the Last Fifty Years  [Interview]

(note:  I don’t have this book.  But my work here, continues to run across the Bush brand of religion influence and its infiltration of the legal, judicial, etc. systems).

Or,

The Family:  The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power” by Jeff Sharlett:

(from Harpers article 2003 by author.  Note:  The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative (below) began in 2003)

Ivanwald, which sits at the end of Twenty-fourth Street North in Arlington, Virginia, is known only to its residents and to the members and friends of the organization that sponsors it, a group of believers who refer to themselves as “the Family.” The Family is, in its own words, an “invisible” association, though its membership has always consisted mostly of public men. Senators Don Nickles (R., Okla.), Charles Grassley (R., Iowa), Pete Domenici (R., N.Mex.), John Ensign (R., Nev.), James Inhofe (R., Okla.), Bill Nelson (D., Fla.), and Conrad Burns (R., Mont.) are referred to as “members,” as are Representatives Jim DeMint (R., S.C.), Frank Wolf (R., Va.), Joseph Pitts (R., Pa.), Zach Wamp (R., Tenn.), and Bart Stupak (D., Mich.). Regular prayer groups have met in the Pentagon and at the Department of Defense, and the Family has traditionally fostered strong ties with businessmen in the oil and aerospace industries. The Family maintains a closely guarded database of its associates, but it issues no cards, collects no official dues. Members are asked not to speak about the group or its activities.

The organization has operated under many guises, some active, some defunct: National Committee for Christian Leadership, International Christian Leadership, the National Leadership Council, Fellowship House, the Fellowship Foundation, the National Fellowship Council, the International Foundation. These groups are intended to draw attention away from the Family, and to prevent it from becoming, in the words of one of the Family’s leaders, “a target for misunderstanding.”

Suharto reputedly involved, that he engaged in anti-Communist massacres didn’t seem to matter…Search “Suharto” and “Somalia” here (interview):

“The Family’s devoted membership includes Congress members, corporate leaders, generals, foreign heads of state, dictators. The longtime leader, Doug Coe, was included in Time Magazine’s 2004 list of the twenty-five most influential evangelicals in America. “

The connected, the powerful, the very wealthy, the dishonest, the means-justifies-the-ends crowd.  I am not being facetious at all by placing these two books here in preface to protesting the expansion of a “National” (and planned INTERnational) Family Justice Center Alliance.  I am alerting us to question exactly which “families” are referred to her, and not to be fooled about the underlying intents.  Look at who is sponsoring the movement!

 

OK, let’s look back to the West Coast Connections and Family of Inter-connected politicians, including some who are indeed Family to each other.  

 

DA = Alameda County Family Justice Center — headed up originally by someone with real “family” connections, til she began running for County Supervisor,

a post she got, though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponent.  Her husband just happens to be (presently) California State Treasurer, previously State Attorney General.  Later in the post, more on this process is discussed.  Mr. Gwinn & startup of the San Diego Family Justice Center has been addressed (in part) in earlier posts towards the end of May, 2011, and the topic itself is not exactly a new one to my blog.

 

ex-CA  = San Diego County Family Justice Center

President = well, he was always into promoting Family.

 

Let’s Get Honest (that’s me) generally looks behind the scenes at funding and organizational histories of new Initiatives, Institutes, Centers, Movements, and other Projects proposed by those with political connections to better serve those without them, whose lives will be used to justify whichever project is next.

Right now, it seems that the Family Justice Center Alliance is proudly endorsed by the OVW (White House) starting back in 2003, and up and running.  How the first two got up and running is a bit debatable.  Used to these, I ignored it for a while, until I ran across CA SB 557.

 

California’s SB 557 has been passed by Senate and is awaiting in Assembly

Here is some of the voting and excerpts — plus my comments

The California Bill SB 557 is to streamline and authorize the Family Justice Center Model.  It’s whizzing by committees, and as we speak, was read in the Assembly June 2, and being held at the Assembly Desk. Right now, per “aroundthecapitol.com,”

Votes
and
Last Action last week.  This bill is indeed moving.  Remember that one of the Centers (Alameda County) boasted originally as its first director, the then-state Attorney General, and this person is now State Treasurer – Bill Lockyer.  He also was previously Sen. Pro-Tem. fighting with the Governor for collective bargaining rights for the courts.  His name is on the 1997 Lockyer-Isenburg Trial Court Funding Act, described as:

I am pleased to send you the enclosed Resource Manual for the Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (Assembly Bill 233). Passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor last fall, this landmark legislation will take effect on January 1, 1998. Under the new law, funding of the trial courts will be consolidated at the state level to ensure equal access to justice throughout California.

Over the last several months, the Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), along with the California State Association of Counties and the Department of Finance, have worked together to familiarize the state’s judges, court administrators, and county executives with this historic new funding law. As part of that process, we are presenting this Resource Manual to assist you in understanding and implementing the new law.

There aren’t too many places in California politics, or its recent history, [SF performing Gay Marriage v Schwarzenegger] that one can go without finding the imprint of Mr. Lockyer.[Pension issues]

So I’m just wondering whether the relatively fast passage of this SB 577 was affected by the legislature’s knowledge (it’s obvious) that his wife was the former CEO of this grants-grabbing initative.  And that the local D.A., who helped get this wife installed, was recently in Washington, D.C., lobbying with the OVW director for it . . . ..

The former CEO of the Alameda COunty Justice Center just so happens (yeah….) to be his third wife. Now she is County Supervisor, even though the retiring supervisor endorsed her opponents, characterized as “having more experience than [Ms. Davis-Lockyer] was alive.”  The race was also locally characterized as having funding more equivalent for a race for Senator (around $2 million, though don’t quote me on that).  Perhaps that’s next . . . .
I wonder what might happen if they all opposed this center on the basis of, has it produced results — would the legislature have the courage?
  • 06/02/11: In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
As introduced February, 2011 (not current version, excerpts:)
This bill would authorize a city, county, or city and county to 
establish a multiagency, multidisciplinary family justice center to
assist victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, and
human trafficking, to ensure that victims of abuse are able to
access all needed services in one location and to enhance victim
safety, increase offender accountability, and improve access to
services for victims of crime, as provided. The bill would permit the 
family justice centers to be staffed by law enforcement, medical, 
social service, and child welfare personnel, among others.

About privacy of information:

The bill would authorize a family justice center to share
information [WITH WHOM — each other?] pursuant to an informed consent process, as provided. The bill would authorize the National Family Justice Center Alliancesubject to certain limitations, to maintain nonidentifying, aggregate  data on victims receiving services from a family justice center and 
the outcomes of those services.

The bill would provide immunity from  civil liability to staff members of the center for information shared with others based on an established client consent procedure, provided that the center has a formal training program with mandatory
training for all members, as specified.

There are so many issues with this (again, original version) its hard to know where to start.  But those familiar with the history of the founder of this system can see why (he/they) might have addressed specific issues, including civil liability for sharing info.

(c) For purposes of this title, family justice centers shall be
defined as multiagency, multidisciplinary service centers where 
public and private agencies assign staff members on a full-time or 
part-time basis in order to provide services to victims of** domestic
violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, or human trafficking from one
location in order to reduce the number of times victims must tell
their story, reduce the number of places victims must go for help,
and increase access to services and support for victims and their
children. Staff members at a family justice center may be comprised 
of, but are not limited to, the following: 

**First of all, public agencies are on the public payroll.

Child victims and parents coming for help are quite likely to have business before some arm of the courts where any member of those public agencies may have a built-in conflict of interest in the case.  Consider, if it has to do with guardianship of a child, child support, or other issues.  When it comes to private agencies— (private organizations, individuals, or “agencies” — what is a private “agency”?)  there are issues of where does the law protect the victims seeking help by accountability to any of these private members.  The “consent process” has to be taken with a grain of salt — a person in desperate circumstances such as these crimes, may not comprehend what it is they are signing away at the time, their emphasis is survival.  Anyhow, potential staff might include:

(1) Law enforcement personnel.
(2) Medical personnel.
(3) District attorneys and city attorneys.  {{note:  = who created the 1st & 2nd justice centers in CA….1 of each. 

(Tell me — for what purpose might a CITY attorney have any business in a family justice center?  )

(4) Victim-witness program personnel.
(5) Domestic violence shelter service staff.
(6) Community-based rape crisis, domestic violence, and human
trafficking advocates.
(7) Social service agency staff members. 
(8) Child welfare agency social workers. 

(hey — are there still readers (active in this field as advocate, or survivor parent) who don’t understand, yet, that there are FEDERAL incentives to the states for

any number of actions which might quite well involve a social service agency staff member, or a child welfare agency social worker — such as adopting out, fostering out, or

declaring a child in need of services that may not, really, be in need of services.  There are program funds for these activities.  What about program administrators of such funds?

and so forth…..)

(9) County health department staff.
(10) City or county welfare and public assistance workers. 

(Translation:  People administering TANF funds.  We already have become aware that the fatherhood movement has a significant interest in portions of Title IV-D (welfare) finances going towards facilitating increased “noncustodial parent” (i.e., possibly perpetrator) access.  No.   Uh-uh, No.  )

(11) Nonprofit agency counseling professionals.
(12) Civil legal service providers.
(13) Supervised volunteers from partner agencies.
(14) Other professionals providing services.

Huh….

Excerpts from “Analysis” of this bill again specifies already-existing justice centers by name and requests they expand who gets served:

This bill authorizes the City of San Diego, the City of Anaheim, the County of Alameda, and the County of Sonoma to create a two-year pilot project for the establishment of a  family justice center, as specified. This bill defines the Family Justice Center model in the  law and expands the reach for whom services will be provided to include, not only victims of domestic violence, but also victims of officer-involved domestic violence, sexual assault, elder abuse, stalking, cyber-stalking, cyber-bullying, and human trafficking.

(The cyber-stalking (stand-alone) and cyber-bullying provisions would just about make the average high school student eligible for services…)

This bill also allows for the FJCs to be staffed by, among others, law enforcement, medical, social service, and child welfare personnel.

This bill provides that victims of crime will not be denied services based solely on the grounds of criminal history. 

(don’t quite know where to file that last statement. )

 

Votes so far, if you live in California and in any of these are your legislators:

03/29/11  Sen. Committee on Public Safety: 6-0 (1 not voting) — PASS
Motion: Do pass as amended, and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.

Ayes – 6 Anderson, Hancock, Harman, Liu, Price, Steinberg / Noes – 0 / Absent, Abstention or Not Voting – 1 Calderon
  • 05/10/11 – Sen Judiciary: 5-0 pass as amended (see site)

Ayes – 5 Blakeslee, Corbett, Evans, Harman, Leno

  • 05/26/11 Sen Appropriations 9-0 — PASS as amended

Alquist, Emmerson, Kehoe, Lieu, Pavley, Price, Runner, Steinberg, Walters

  • 06.01/11 – Senate Floor 39-0 (1 absent abstain or not voting – Emmerson)

Alquist, Anderson, Berryhill, Blakeslee, Calderon, Cannella, Corbett, Correa, De León, DeSaulnier, Dutton, Evans, Fuller, Gaines, Hancock, Harman, Hernandez, Huff, Kehoe, La Malfa, Leno, Lieu, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Pavley, Price, Rubio, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Vargas, Walters, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Some of the Senate Amendments (strikeouts, replacement):

The bill would prohibit victims of crime from
being denied services at a family justice center solely on the
grounds of criminal history and would prohibit a criminal history 
search from being conducted during the client intake process.

prior sections a, b, & c, were struck through.

Sections e, f:

(f) Each family justice center shall develop policies and  procedures, in collaboration with local community-based crime victim
service providers and local survivors of violence or abuse, to ensure coordinated services are provided to victims and to enhance the 
safety of victims and professionals at a family justice center who participate in affiliated survivor-centered support or advocacy 
groups. All family justice centers shall maintain a formal client feedback, complaint, and input process to address client concerns
about services provided or the conduct of any family justice center professionals, agency partners, or volunteers providing services in a
family justice center. 

 

No criminal background checks to be run, but protection for victims & professionals in the center who participate in affiliated survivor centered support or advocacy groups (off-grounds?  How would this be done).  This seems to address in part the situation Casey Gwinn’s employee Josie Clark sued him over (see recent posts).

Formal feedback good:  (don’t recall that this even entered the original version — feedback fro participants…)

WELL, THERE WE HAVE IT.  IT”S PASSED WITH FLYING COLORS, SO FAR, AND IS SITTING ON THE ASSEMBLY FLOOR.   MAYBE IT WILL PASS IN TIME FOR FATHER’S DAY, BUT I HOPE NOT.   See “District Attorney Dubious Doings.”   and re:  nepotism, cronyism, racism:

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.   . . . 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.

And one of the articles I drew off in reporting this:

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 givena 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.

The Alameda county Family Justice Center is one of meny local agencies funded by the Federal Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women, (OVW). 

{{more on this, below — LGH…}}

The center is relatively new, and there was a recent search for the Execuitve 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)

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. 

and, more, after he contacted the OVW for grant applicant guidelines:

[he]  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.

MORE (9/2007) INFO FROM Steve White “Boatbrain” on the ACFJC fudging (lying) on its statistics, in addition to improper appointment of CEO.  Please read entire article we find further conflicts of interest and very disturbing dishonesty, reminiscent of the San Diego outfit:

The Alameda County Family Justice Center is an agency set up two years back as “one-stop shopping” for victims of domestic violence.

It was started by a Federal program to centralize several different types of services, (prosecutors, counselors, emergency housing) to DV victims. There are about 15 around the US, the Alameda center has been open two years as of August 2007.

I have already published, on Indymedia, an account of how the ACFJC hiring of Nadia Lockyer, the wife of then Attorney General Bill Lockyer, a Executive Director of ACFJC was rigged by Nancy O’Malley, the Chief Assistant DA in the County.

Now, it appears the ACFJC is involved in other nefarious activities.

Recently, the ACFJC received another US Dept. of Justice grant, and the award was announced on their website. 

The announcement gave several detailed claims for the achievements of the ACFJC, two of which seemed unlikely to me to be true:   Since I knew the ACFJC was only open a bit over four months in 2005, I knew there was no logical basis for attributing all the 2005 decline to their actions.

But more than that, the reduction from 26 to 6 in one year struck me as extreme and improbable. That is an almost 80% reduction, too good to be true.

So, I called the Alameda County Public Health Department to try to get DV death rates, and called the office of the County Supervisor quoted in the article, Alice Lai-Bitker, to ask about the number.

My conversations with Public Health and Supervisor Lai-Bitker’s staff confirmed my suspicions. Too good to be true was exactly right. To get a death toll of 26 in the County, you have to go back to 1996, nine years before the ACFJC existed. There has been a steady long term decline in DV deaths since then.

The number for 2004, the year right before the ACFJC opened, was 11. Obviously, 6 in 2005 is a lot better than 11 in 2004, but there is a problem in the stats, in that Nancy O’Malley, the effective head of the ACFJC, is also the head of the DV death reporting team for the County, so she can fudge the figures.

I realize, one would not think deaths can be fudged. You are either dead or you or not. But, by using varying protocols for what the death was caused by, there is some maneuvering room for this. I am contacting the DV death reporting trainer for the state to try to nail this down.

All that aside, the point is, as far as attibuting the reduction in DV deaths to ACFJC, that was an extremely misleading claim, and I would argue deliberately misleading

He goes on . . . . after challenging the “20,000 victims and their families served…”

It seems much more likely they deliberately lied, to justify more funding in the future.

The County Administrator, Susan Muranishi, who was the highest paid employee of the County, a few years back, at $231,000 per year, is also quoted in the press release, expressing approval of the ACFJC and the grant.

I called her office to try to get documents to indicate what numbers ACFJC has been giving the County to justify the County’s funding. The receptionist there claimed they did not have any figures, and I had to contact ACFJC. If this was true, it seems to indicate a severe lack of oversight. No reports to the County Admin from the Center? How does Ms. Muranishi know how the County’s money is being spent? I doubt there are no reports, and intend to push them to release them, to see if there are any false numbers in the official accountings. Ditto for the Feds, who I have also requested info from.


((i))

That kind of reporting is why we most definitely need INDEPEPENDENT media centers, and pesky bloggers like myself and Mr. White (wonder what happened to is FOIA and Public Records requests on the ACFJC…

In 2010, here’s an article (and comments) on Ms. Davis-Lockyer running for county supervisor, replacing one of the retiring supervisors who, improperly, voted in Nancy O’Malley (per indymedia Steve’s writing).  WHat goes around comes around.  Again, for non-Californians, this is about how policies get institutionalized in practice, regardless of what results they produce — including initiatives, collaborations, institutes, coalitions, and so forth.  This Family Justice Center seems symptomatic of what’s wrong, from both this end and (below) the White House end.

WHITE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE ON FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS  – AND GWB DECLARES OCTOBER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MONTH (in 2003).

I have a general rule of thumb.  If it has the word “families” on it — it has a fatherhood (and possibly governmentally endorsed) / faith influence.  This appears to be the case with the FAMILY justice centers, as it did with the FAMILY violence prevention fund of SF (see recent posts).  After all, US is just one big “family” and everyone in power is there to serve and protect the little vulnerable ones among us, right?

The “Family Justice Center” model is absolutely federally funded, and here is the October (DV awareness month, or as I put it, DV Industry Awareness month) October 8, 2003 White House Press Release:

This offers $20 million of funding to establish 12 centers.  The emphasis is Under One Roof (after all, the service providers are just one big happy family, right?) and with a particular emphasis on including Faith Based Initiatives, says our former Prez:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Contact: Angela Harless
202-307-070

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO SPEARHEAD PRESIDENT’S
FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INITIATIVE TO BETTER SERVE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS

     WASHINGTON, D.C. — Attorney General John Ashcroft today announced the Justice Department will lead a $20 million-dollar program to develop comprehensive domestic violence victim service and support centers in 12 communities across the country. The unprecedented pilot program, the President’s Family Justice Center Initiative, will make a victim’s search for help and justice easier by bringing professionals who provide an array of necessary services together under one roof. President Bush unveiled the initiative earlier today at a White House event formally declaring the month of October as “Domestic Violence Awareness Month.”

“Domestic violence is unacceptable, and this Administration is determined to end the vicious cycle of violence,” said Attorney General John Ashcroft. “Our efforts across the federal government have made it possible for tens of thousands of women and their families to renew their hope, reclaim their dignity, change their lives and protect their children.”

{{HYPOCRITES!!}}

     The President’s Family Justice Center Initiative will provide comprehensive services for domestic violence victims at one location, including medical care, counseling, law enforcement assistance, social services, employment assistance, and housing assistance. The Department of Justice will award grants to 12 communities nationwide to develop Family Justice Centers. Communities will be encouraged to look to the family justice centers in pioneered in San Diego, California and Indianapolis, Indiana for the development and creation of their own centers.

{{Sounds like Casey Gwinn (note:  Republican) had a White House connection here…  Indianpolis, home of Sen. Evan Bayh, is prime “fatherhood” country.  Unbelievable…..  The Indiana “Child Services” (a.k.a. Child Support Services) government website directly solicits “Fathers and Families” to pursue grants, as well as notices CRC (Children’s Rights Council)…..  I doubt that the choice of these two cities was anything approaching accidental.  Who else (grassroots up) was starting Family Justice Centers, around the United States, at this time?}}

Justice Department efforts will be further supported by its partners from the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Agriculture, Department of Defense, Department of Education, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Department of Labor.

{{So much for treating domestic violence as the criminal/legal issue it really is, with consequences, of course, across the spectrum of life, as crime does….}}

     “The President’s Initiative will provide communities with the resources designed to co-locate coordinated services to domestic violence victims into one facility,” said Office on Violence Against Women Director Diane M. Stuart. “The services provided by the Family Justice Centers will help victims pursue safe and healthy lives.”

     Family Justice Centers are designed to bring together advocates from non-profit, non-governmental domestic violence victim services organizations, law enforcement officers, prosecutors, probation officers, governmental victim assistants, forensic medical professionals, civil legal attorneys,chaplains and representatives from community-based organizations into one centralized location.

Involvement of the faith community is integral to the Family Justice Center Initiative, as well as to the President’s overall strategy to end domestic violence. The Justice Department, Department of Health and Human Services, and the Defense Department are coordinating their efforts to ensure that faith communities nationwide get the training and tools necessary to help domestic violence victims in their communities.

{{Chaplains, imams, and rabbis don’t lack the “tools” to stop wife-beating — or the ability to network — but the problem has been historically the desire to do so.  They are mandated reporters, too, and of child abuse.  GO ask “SNAP” about how well that goes….

{{Reading this now, and as a survivor of domestic violence which was rationalized through religion, though I never accepted that basis, — I understand, and believe I’m right about this — that this has a more sinister purpose than “helping” victims from the faith-based perspective.  Many of those victims that end up using the legal system went first to their spiritual perceived authority (translation, pastor, priest, etc.) and were ignored and the danger trivialized.  SOme of the perpertrators were those people at times.   Welcoming this group into these “centers” with open arms is simply wrong….but, how very “Bush”!!}}

     “The faith-based component of the Family Justice Center Initiative is critical to its overall success,” said Office of Justice Programs Assistant Attorney General Deborah J. Daniels. “Faith-based institutions are often the first place a domestic violence victim turns to for support and guidance.”

(and the last place they are about to find it — which has been documented repeatedly . . . .   )  Next steps, integrating the faith community into the system (2004 release)…

 

I got on the SB 557 kick, here, because I heard about it accidentally.  Accidentally, I happened to browse the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office Annual Report of 2010 (yeah, this is my “casual reading material” at times)… only to find that this San Francisco Bay Area [“East Bay”] county leadership was running up to the OVW and trying to sell legitimizing the  Family Justice Center” model  (see “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch” post)….

District Attorney Nancy O’Malley and the Alameda County DA’s Office are proud to announce the publication of the 2010 Annual Report.

We invite you to view this comprehensive report.

Alameda County District Attorney’s Office 2010 Annual Report (7MB PDF).

 

Because I’m familiar with the Justice Center idea already, I picked up on the graphics and mottos that also supported further promotion of it:  the 2nd page of the report is a full page photo of a child and parent(?):  “Justice isn’t served – – – til Crime Victims are.”  On the palms of their hands is written:  “I have the right to protection”   “I have the right to be heard.”

Compare: (graphic on banner of the Alameda County Family Justice Center reads, next to an icon showing scales carring heart & dove, plus two figures reaching for them)  “Justice isn’t served until victims are.”

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center

Welcome to the Alameda County Family Justice Center (ACFJC), a one-stop center for families experiencing domestic violence.

{{Domestic violence is a crime, and is committed by an agent.  Note the grammar change:  “families experience” it — no one actually DOES it.  The District Attorney’s Office is the office deciding which crimes to prosecute, and which NOT to prosecute, and doing so ethically and honestly.   District Attorneys offices in East Bay (and SF) counties have been experiencing multiple scandals recently, along with police departments… such as tampering with drug evidence and causing cases to be dropped, infighting during an election that resulted in an office fist-fight (Contra Costa County — nearby) and other serious problems, as well as having various members of their forces from time to time being prosecuted by employees or fellow colleagues on rape or other sexual harassment issues.  In this context, I don’t recall hearing a major grassroots call for centralized, one-stop services.}}

The ACFJC provides, under one roof, the services required by domestic violence victims and their families:

  • Crisis intervention, survivor support, and victim advocacy, incl “MISSSEY”motivating, inspiring, supporting and serving sexually exploited youth.
  • Legal assistance services
  • Medical care and mental health counseling for victims and children impacted by family violence
  • Employment assistance, and information and referral to other community services
  • Law enforcement investigation and prosecution of offenders

In the past, domestic violence victims often had to seek help from a fragmented, disjointed system of separate agencies offering related by frequently uncoordinated services.

 

I’m thinking diversity, rather than inbred centrality might be the better order of the day overall.  After all — was our country designed for efficiency or liberty?(But I’m talking, pre-Bush Dynasty there…..)

 

From the DA’s report, a segment:

5. Putting Victims First Page

Alameda County Family Justice Center 22

Domestic Violence Unit 23
Restitution Unit 24

Victims’ Rights & Services 25

Marsy’s Law 25

Victim -Witness Assistance 26

AND . . . .

Legislative Initiatives . . . p. 33

Under the leadership of District Attorney Nancy O’Malley, members of our staff frequently consult on, testify about and assist in drafting new legislation at a state- wide and national level. Working with lawmakers, we propose and support legislation that fits with our mission to champion the rights of victims and to keep our community safe.

…. such as (one of several — the others sound legitimate, although if parents are involved, it’ll bounce to family law and become “moot” point sooner or later) . . . .. . . .

 

SB 557: to define family justice centers in California law, thereby acknowledging the trend towards multi-disciplinary, multi-agency service delivery models for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and human trafficking. This legislation is currently pending.

 

The TREND towards, meaning, the PUSH, enabled by BUSH towards . . . . . for these models.  (other than, since the 1980s, the Duluth Model has been pushing this also, called “Coordinated Community Response.”  So, how’d we say it’s going?

 

2 from 2002 and the Kitchen Sink: Why Sociologists (are hired) to Rule America

leave a comment »

Bifurcating Parenthood (Georgetown), 2-Pronged Fatherhood (Progressive Policythink), Ridiculous Rulings (in Kansas) and Who Rules America (UC sociologist)

Today’s post (extended and updated from yesterdays, which I published in short form) has 4 (FOUR) parts:

1,

2,

3,

4.

As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle.  So we have:

1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)

2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)

3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)

4.  Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).

As is usual for me, the “juice” that inspired the post is in the middle, [2-3] the Intro, and the kicker [4] at the end, and the Intro [1] sometimes gets so extended, I never actually publish the middle.

4 was simply me mentioning the theme of “income v. wealth” that I know by now is critical in the social engine called these courts. It’s basically workforce development, and US/Them paradigm. There are several links and quotes. I could’ve chosen any. But it will hold together, I trust. At the top, I’m going to post a QUOTE from a Professor Dumoff, a sociologist at UC Santa Cruz. It’s from his site “WHO RULES AMERICA?” which is a good question. More below, at the banner.

In my last year of research and reflection (including on my own experience) of who’s doing WHAT in the courts an WHY those dang nonprofits have been useless, basically, I had to get to foundations, who support the nonprofits doing nothing. Then I began to understand the forces that are driving America into materialistic chaos, to sustain a global economy based on permanent debt. I feel this ain’t too bad work, considering what have also been through in the “decade of the courts” in my adult life.

Who Rules America?  By G. William Domhoff, University of California at Santa Cruz

I suggest we read this site THROUGH.

I am burnt out on reporting on outrageous family law cases, also beseeching noncustodial parents I know to take a little more critical look at organizations — not just good/cop  bad/cop individuals.  I have . . . . .   I also have repeatedly encouraged people to take a very illuminating glance at some of the IRS 990s on some of the “helkping” organizations who continue to pay CEOs over $100,000 year to report on the carnage or insults to personhood.

Losers in the family law situation who don’t end up physically and emotionally dysfunctional might definitely end up homeless may definitely end up homeless, male or female.  Yet there’s a real reluctance among litigants to not just look at the role of the child support system (federal) as a planned move to socialism for most of us based on policies set by the foundations hiring the nonprofits selecting what will (and will not) get talked about in the arena.   They may blog or acknowledge it briefly, then go back to collaborating with the closest nonprofit that makes a big noise.

Battered women who’ve gone into the family law court after leaving the relationship are in a UNIQUE position to understand and speak to the power structure from underneath, analytically and as to attitude.

Once I began looking at organizational structures (it helps to have a model  of a virtual “gang” in one’s own family for reference) I never stopped looking.  Here’s a diagram for the more visually organized:

This is how such an inane policy as “fatherhood” could actually go through Congress, and get enacted.  It’s a form of psychological warfare, basically, to frame the conversation nationally, yet fail to inform have the litigants in court that the conversation is taking place.

ANYHOW, this represents my post for today, and welcome to it.  Do your own homework!

Here’s from Part 4, to think about in 1, 2, and 3:

  • “The rich” coalesce into a social upper class that has developed institutions by which the children of its members are socialized into an upper-class worldview, and newly wealthy people are assimilated.
  • Members of this upper class control corporations, which have been the primary mechanisms for generating and holding wealth in the United States for upwards of 150 years now.
  • There exists a network of nonprofit organizations through which members of the upper class and hired corporate leaders not yet in the upper class shape policy debates in the United States.

This I can attest to. See (for a starter) “shady shaky foundations of family law” and some of the organizational geneaology. IN good part, that’s what this blog is for — to show the connections. This tells me also why the “Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” simply “cannot” hear our truths.

  • Members of the upper class, with the help of their high-level employees in profit and nonprofit institutions, are able to dominate the federal government in Washington.
  • The rich, and corporate leaders, nonetheless claim to be relatively powerless.
  • Working people have less power than in many other democratic countries.

1, Symbolizing Judicial Tyranny (dombrowski)

If I don’t post something more “detached” today, I’m going to post the entire docket for Hal Richardson v. Claudine Dombrowski in the “Third Judicial Court of Public Access,” Kansas. Claudine has been in this system for 14 + years, and isn’t broken yet, though it’s making a good effort to do so to her. Her case also illustrates the cognitive dissonance between criminal and family law, and between family law as stated and as practiced. Not to mention what the U.S. is doing to the half of parenthood in the United States who are female. We are still fighting for recognition as human beings and thus covered under civil rights, due process, etc.

Even though I know so much about this case, it’s still possible to be entirely shocked at the behavior of the court and court personnel in it.

As summarized in a blog, August 1, this year

Judge James P. Buchele, who refused to permit adequate testimony at trial, shortening it to benefit his docket, and also ordered Claudine to move back to Topeka to live near Richardson, for the sake of their “co-parenting.” WHAT?! Richardson is a man with multiple criminal convictions for violent behavior (Battery, Attempted Battery, Battery of a Law Enforcement Officer, Obstruction of Legal Process, Possession of Marijuana and violation of Open Container law), a man who has beaten and raped Claudine multiple times before and after her divorce from him, a man who has threatened to kill her and her child.
Worse, Judge Buchele also ordered Claudine not to call the police any more without the permission of her case manager. When Judge James Buchele retired, Judge Richard D. Anderson
affirmed Buchele’s previous orders, including the illegal prohibition on Claudine’s being able to call the police.

As reported in Manhattan (KS) Free press, July 9 years ago (also see blog):

The divorce proceedings were extended for eighteen months. Throughout the proceedings Claudine’s attorneys filed numerous reports claiming violations of the restraining order and requesting an order to sever contact between Hal, Claudine and daughter Rikki.

The first involved an incident that both parties agreed in court happened, they just could not agree what happened. Claudine said she was hit in the head with a crow bar and Hal said it was a piece of wood. What ever he hit her with it took 24 stitches to close the head wounds.

At a hearing on June 17, 1996 Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan W. Leuenberger signed order giving custody of Rikki to Claudine and authorizing her to move to the Great Bend area so that “Ms. Dombrowski could avoid the history of physical and verbal abuse she had suffered from Mr. Richardson.”

In other words, were she not a mother, she would have the right to flee to protect her unalienable right to LIFE. However, unknown to her, other things had already been cooking in Congress around this time, which are mentioned below. In 1994 a little National Fatherhood Initiative had been formed. In 1995, then-President Clinton had issued his (in)famous Executive Order about Fathers. In 1996, we have Welfare Reform, some of the Congressional Testimony of which I posted recently and which is summarized below on a site calling itself “Progressive Policy.” I call it Regressive, because it results in cases like this. You can track the REgression in individual cases, and how it happened, through adding personnel besides the judge.


Hal was given supervised visitation

Why this Supervision shouldn’t have been done with him inside a jail cell, I just don’t “get.” Rikki must’ve seen her mother’s stitches — what message does that send to a young girl? It’s OK for fathers to beat up mothers, right? A family court judge will sweep up the evidence . Whistleblowers will be punished.

Reading on in the case, he WILL get even for even that restriction. A GAL will help, Scott MacKenzie (if I can keep the narrative straight who did what when….) In time — that’s how these things go — Supervised visitation will be switched to the mother. Then, her fight will be to get that UNsupervised. She will win that “privilege,” but apparently wasn’t docile enough, because she then loses all contact entirely for a while. It’s all in the record. Meanwhile, the various parties are REAL serious about getting the money she owes absolutely everyone for these types of “services.”

In Judge Buchele’s Orders after the trial he made it clear that he wanted more from this couple than what was possible. Here is what he wrote: “Mutual parental involvement with this child has been made worse by Ms. Dombrowski’s unilateral decision to move to Larned, Kansas in May of 1996. The distance between Topeka and Larned makes it virtually impossible for an individual treater to work with the family; for Mr. Richardson to have regular and frequent contact with this child; to establish any reasonable dialogue between the parents toward resolving their conflicts. The move from Topeka to Larned, due to the proximity of the parties, has lessened the physical violence. It has, however, done violence to the relationship of Rikki and her father. If long distance visitation is continued, in the Court’s view, will take its toll not only on Rikki but each of the parties. The Court specifically finds that separation of the child from either parent for long periods of time is harmful for a child of about three years of age.”

And THERE, “in a nutshell,” you have how a family law judge skillfully Re-frames the conversation and Re-Prioritizes it from safety to reconciliation. Better Claudine maybe die the next time than a father’s rights be conditioned upon not abusing them — or her. Sounds “squirrelly” to me. A woman gets temporary reprieve and safety, then this is reversed, and made worse. The decisions become more and more authoritative.

He then went on to require Claudine to move back to the Topeka area.

And then Judge Buchele made a judgment that some Manhattan attorneys say is not legal. Judge Buchele ordered: “Further, respondent (Claudine) is directed to not call law enforcement authorities to investigate the petitioner (Hal) without first consulting with the case manager.”

On December 14, 2000 after returning her daughter to her fathers home Claudine alleges that she was battered and raped by Hal. Under order not to call law enforcement authorities and with bleeding that would not stop, she drove to St. Marys, Kansas to get treatment. Claudine knew that if she had gone to a Topeka Hospital they would have called the police.

In St. Marys hospital officials did contact the Pottawatomie Sheriff and a report was made. She was advised that because the alleged event occurred in Shawnee County she would have to file there.

RIGHT THERE — is a typical “between a rock and a hard place” situation. I have experienced a modified situation, where I was so frightened, I drove, fast, to a police station in another city. They told me to go back to practically the scene of a stalking incident that had terrified me. There, I was treated abominably by officers, who refused to report, though dispatched to do so by the intake person who heard my voice; the incident was also witnessed by others, and signed letters are in the file.

Claudine had a choice of, NOT REPORTING, saving her own skin (to hell with her daughter) and just dealing with it. Supposed the injuries had been different and the bleeding faster, and she didn’t TRY to appease an outright vicious court order, but reported right in Topeka at first, and going straight from having wounds tended to, to jail (or soon thereafter) in contempt. She did what any mother would in a crisis — stop the bleeding, let the mandatory reporters (probably ) report, and go save her daughter.

Claudine said that because of the battery and rape she picked up Rikki the next day and did not return her.

Now, does that “revise” your opinion of what Sherriff’s Departments are in the business of?

The Shawnee County Sheriff’s Department was called and took Rikki back to Topeka. The court gave Hal custody and orders for her to attend Topeka schools.

As it stands now, [2001] Rikki is with her father in Topeka. Claudine gets two one-hour visits per week

Here is a link to that ex parte, JUDGE-initiated order (Neither party initiated it. The judge in this matter totally redefined his own role in the courtroom. This judge ain’t the only one around doing this.). Can you read it? The link is “scribd” and take a while to load. My computer is too slow today to load its 11 pp. Also, I’m curtailing my own commentary because even keystrokes are coming out one at a time, slowly. I can only fill up a short “buffer” zone, about 4 words, and then have to just wait for it to catch up.

Shawnee County District Court– Topeka, Kansas, 200 SE 7th Street 66603 Div 2 – Hon. Richard D. Anderson (785) 233-8200 Ext. 4350

Order without motion from either party WITHOUT Hearing on his OWN—I REPEAT on his own

Took my daughter and gave her to a KNOWN AND convicted Batterer and drug abuser AND CHILD RAPIST

Fast-forward 9 years or so. ..

By way of a 2007 Petition before the “Inter American Commission on HUMAN Rights” On Item 17 Courageous Kids personal stories, please read “Letter to IACHR by siblings” (#3 )here. These are 4 siblings now aged out of the system, detailing what happened when they called the cops, or ran away, what happened to their mother; how one girl was thrown out by her father and forced to live in a car for a while in retaliation. It’s only 3 pages. These are the types of fathers getting custody in this system.

THIS site has links to more details:

https://i1.wp.com/rightsformothers.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/POTUS.png

Claudine Dombrowski:  An abused mom victimized again by the Kansas Courts

People are outraged everywhere. The last time 15 year old Rikki called to cancel her two hour Sunday visit she is allowed each week with her mother, she was crying on the phone and said she couldn’t come. Abuser WOS (waste of skin) Hal Richardson was yelling in the background, and Rikki cried more. Dear Claudine told her daughter it was okay, that everything would be okay. That was it. After that, not even a phone call to cancel, Hal Richardson failed to produce Rikki at the Topeka Police Station as he was ordered to do. Nothing. And the court let him get away with all 67 violations of this court order on August 20th when they went to court.

(the woman who writes this, above, herself lost contact with her own mother, a generation earlier).

(Compare, above, when Claudine “messed up” by going to a hospital, even though she attempted to go to the politically correct one, in 2000. I believe this was when she was punished for bleeding and trying to regain her child, by losing custody of her child then about-5-year-old daughter.)

Contrast this case history and pattern of bad ethics and decision-making with the more detached narratives, below.

2, Parental Bifurcation (2002 Georgetown article)

I decided to post two pieces (first — long / second – short) that talk openly about the social agenda in the family court/ family law arena. That SOCIAL AGENDA is what most offends me about the Family Law Process. Not its equally destructive consequences. What’s most offensive is how the process eradicates precious civil rights, that are encased in the documents foundational to our country. An elitist attitude and practice, that disdains these, needs to be dismantled. Instead, they have become increasingly blatant and oppressive (similar case, CA 2000/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).

[Criminal jury exonerates mother, after she was jailed, fleeing to protect her children. Ignoring this family law judge STILL leaves custody with the abusers, and mother has to pay to see her own children. This is how “supervised visitation” — marketed and sold to the public as protecting children from violent FATHERS, is being used to punish protective MOTHERS),]

even after people are dying as a consequence of bad custody calls (2 women and a man dead, Maricopa Co., AZ, 2009/StopFamilyViolence.org site reporting).

I hope the people I network with as well as visitors will download and read these. The first one may explain why so many of us are being treated dismissively and as silly putty to be stretched, bounced, and reformed in amusing or comical distortions that please the manipulators rather than acknowledging that they are of the same substance as us, as human beings, just occupying different seats in the room.

(1) BIFURCATION

in the Legal Regulation of Parenthood

This is 44+ screens long and from GeorgetownLaw; popped up under a search for “The Origin of Family Law.”

I look forward to reading the rest of it. The “bifurcation” around gender. You will see…

There are some misspellings on the website. Font changes are (most likely) mine. I am not indenting for the quote, and will put any comments in bullet form

Parenthood divided: A legal history of the bifurcated law of parental relations

INTRODUCTION

The American law of parent and child is conventionally understood to be extremely deferential to parental prerogatives and highly reluctant to intervene.1 But this picture, endorsed by legal authorities and popular commentators from the nineteenth century to the present day, reflects only one tradition in the law’s regulation of parenthood. Since the last quarter of the nineteenth century, {{1875-1900}}there has also been massive legal intervention into the parental relation. This second legal tradition, moreover, has been guided by norms wholly different from those conventionally associated with family law, often evincing a radical suspicion of parental autonomy and an eager willingness to reshape family relations.

.

A STARK DIVIDE IN THE LEGAL REGUALTION OF PARENTHOOD EMERGES IN LATE NINETEENTH-CENTURY AMERICA

The founding of the first Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children marks a pivotal moment in the bifurcation of the law’s treatment of parental relations. The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children was established in New York City in 1874 by two elite reformers, Henry Bergh and Elbridge Gerry, who used the occasion of a celebrated case of physical violence against a child to create the first organization designed to combat “child cruelty” in the United States.7 Common law courts of the period staunchly protected the rights that parents in general and fathers in particular exercised over the custody and control of their children.

  • SPCC formed by two elite reformers
  • “the rights that parents in general and fathers in particular exercised. . . .”

8 But the New York society accorded almost no weight to the prerogatives of the parents it was concerned about, characterizing their connection to their children as little stronger than the ties of happenstance. Gerry explained at an organizational meeting in December 1874, for instance, that the society would “seek out and rescue from the dens and slums of the City the little unfortunates whose lives were rendered miserable by the system of cruelty and abuse which was constantly practiced upon them by the human brutes [their parents] who happened to possess the custody or control of them.”9 Describing the homes of cruel parents as “dens and slums” offered a key clue, of course, to the limits the New York society placed on its jurisdiction. From the start, it focused on families that had not been successful in the wage labor economy, operating on the principle that this economic failure had been caused by some crucial moral or character flaw.10

3, The 2nd prong of Fatherhood (2002 Progressive Policy-think)

(2) COMPLETION

of the Critical Job of Welfare Reform

And — what else — “promoting responsible fatherhood

AND THIS from Progressive Policy Institute. BOTH of them let us know clearly that family law is a social engineering project. Too bad it says “law” on the outside which has other connotations to the unwary.

PPI | Policy Report | March 19, 2002
Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
Some Promising Strategies
By Megan Burns
One of the key successes of welfare reform has been in the increase of low-income single mothers in the labor force. Due in part to a strong economy and the 1996 welfare reform law, 16 percent more poor moms entered the labor force over the past six years. However, evidence suggests poor men did not fare as well. Because the first round of welfare reform required mothers to work, this next round should issue a similar challenge to fathers in order to help them become current and continue to pay child support.

According to the Urban Institute, about two-thirds of the nearly 11 million American fathers who do not live with their children fail to pay child support.1 Therefore it is no surprise that children who grow up fatherless are five times more likely to be poor.2

This reasoning assumes that women who have left an abuser (which are among those numbers) cannot do better financially afterwards, or that women in general cannot do well alone — in short, it assumes a stable working wage. In 2002, I had tripled my working wage, and was doing better. But I had to use a nontraditional model of employment. This was not the model that welfare funnels women onto.

This 2002 report was also six years into welfare reform, and fails to account for cases like Dombrowski/Richardson, above, where (thanks go fathers’ rights movements and encouragements) cases STAY in the family law venue for years, impoverishing the family through ongoing litigation, and removing protection for the protective parents.

Social researchers also note that while women flooded the labor market, poor men did not. For example, during the 1990s, the labor force participation of young black women rose 18 percent, whereas the participation rate among low-income, non-college-educated black men actually fell by almost 10 percent.3

Well, now we have it clearly who welfare policies affecting all populations are aimed at. Supposedly.

In recent months, policymakers have increasingly begun to recognize that bringing fathers into the work-based system created by the 1996 law will be the next critical step in finishing the job of welfare reform. While “responsible fatherhood” programs have sprouted across the country, fatherhood and family formation promise to be central issues in the reauthorization of welfare reform legislation this year.

This type of discussion defines where income comes from — labor. However, that’s not at all where it comes from all the time. People who set policies KNOW this and they are not the chief laborers in question.

4.  Jobs ain’t Wealth & Who Rules America (since we just saw how).

MOST people can find out the difference between wealth and income, or understand it (I believe) if someone engages in a discussion of it. The policymakers and the child support enforcement system are here to make sure that discussion never happens in any significant way. Here are a few links:

2003

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

May 2003 – VOLUME 24 – NUMBER 5


The Wealth Divide
The Growing Gap in the United States
Between the Rich and the Rest


An Interview with Edward Wolff

Edward Wolff is a professor of economics at New York University. He is the author of Top Heavy: The Increasing Inequality of Wealth in America and What Can Be Done About It, as well as many other books and articles on economic and tax policy. He is managing editor of the Review of Income and Wealth.

In the United States, the richest 1 percent of households owns 38 percent of all wealth. Multinational Monitor: What is wealth?
Edward Wolff:
Wealth is the stuff that people own. The main items are your home, other real estate, any small business you own, liquid assets like savings accounts, CDs and money market funds, bonds, other securities, stocks, and the cash surrender value of any life insurance you have. Those are the total assets someone owns. From that, you subtract debts. The main debt is mortgage debt on your home. Other kinds of debt include consumer loans, auto debt and the like. That difference is referred to as net worth, or just wealth.

MM: Why is it important to think about wealth, as opposed just to income?
Wolff:
Wealth provides another dimension of well-being. Two people who have the same income may not be as well off if one person has more wealth. If one person owns his home, for example, and the other person doesn’t, then he is better off.

Who Rules America?  By G. William Domhoff, University of California at Santa Cruz

2005

Power in America

http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/class_domination.html

Wealth, Income, and Power

by G. William Domhoff

September 2005 (updated July 2010)

This document presents details on the wealth and income distributions in the United States, and explains how we use these two distributions as power indicators.

This sociologist actually quotes Wolff, above.


The Wealth Distribution

In the United States, wealth is highly concentrated in a relatively few hands. As of 2007, the top 1% of households (the upper class) owned 34.6% of all privately held wealth, and the next 19% (the managerial, professional, and small business stratum) had 50.5%, which means that just 20% of the people owned a remarkable 85%, leaving only 15% of the wealth for the bottom 80% (wage and salary workers). In terms of financial wealth (total net worth minus the value of one’s home), the top 1% of households had an even greater share: 42.7%. Table 1 and Figure 1 present further details drawn from the careful work of economist Edward N. Wolff at New York University (2010).

http://www.halfsigma.com/2005/05/class_vs_income.html

May 17, 2005

Class vs. income vs. wealth

Wealth is how much money you have, income is how much you earn, and class is how much other people think you have based on how you behave.

People often don’t realize class exists because most people only associate with people of their own class. They don’t comprehend that people from other classes behave and think in ways totally alien to them.

If people are aware of class, it’s only of the class directly below them whom they feel superior to. Yes, class has a lot to do with looking down at people, which is why it’s a topic that’s seldom talked about. It’s not politically correct to admit that you look down at people.

2008

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9611

Confusing Wealth and Income

by Richard W. Rahn

This article appeared in the Washington Times on August 27, 2008.

Which of the following families is “richer”? The first family consists of a wife who has recently become a medical doctor, and she makes $160,000 per year. Her husband is a small business entrepreneur who makes $110,000 per year, giving them a total family income of $270,000 per year. However, they are still paying off the loans the wife took out for medical school and the loans the husband took out to start his business, amounting to debts of $300,000. Their total assets are valued at $450,000; hence, their real net worth or wealth (the difference between gross assets and liabilities) is only $150,000.

The second family consists of a trial lawyer who took early retirement and his non-working wife. They have an annual income of $230,000, all of it derived from interest on tax-free municipal bonds they own. However, their net worth is $7 million, consisting of $5 million in bonds, a million-dollar home with no mortgage, and a million dollars in art work, home furnishings, automobiles and personal items

How many foundations, acronyms (CPR, MDRC, PSI), Federal $$ and Ivy League hotshots does it take to “screw” . . the Poor?

leave a comment »

INTRO (added 07/17)

For international visitors, or others who may not get the pun in the title:

There’s a common joke used to degrade people of certain ethnic — or professional — profiles, usually to insult the intelligence of the target group. It refers to screwing in a a lightbulb, something a child can do, and goes “How many ______s does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” and the answer is a clever twist on why it takes so many. ”

The word “Screw” has another off-color connotation, pun intended here.

In this case, it’s NOT a joke; the more I look, the more I feel the USA is screwed. By whom — read on. I experienced total devastation through this system, so far, and without committing a single crime. My “social” crime was not taking the low road, but the high road, out of a marriage that probably shouldn’t have happened, but did, and then my misplaced value on marriage (exactly what these people are promoting) resulted in my staying in just short of us becoming a statistic. There weren’t real other options, that I saw — welfare, and a battered women’s shelter with one toddler, and pregnant with another child? That wasn’t in my vocabulary or background – we were a WORKING family.

We didn’t fit — at all (nor do many women affected by religious-based violence) the target profile of these programs — AT ALL. I was full-time employed while pregnant, and gave birth to very healthy children, fully covered by insurance provided by my work, not his. By the second child, almost every infrastructure was shut down — for me — and came only through him, and he wasn’t very forthcoming.

Women are NOT going to be safe in their marriages, if the marriage goes sour or violent, or OUTSIDE them unless we can be safely independent without excommunication from our communities.

Society has to handle its love/hate relationship with the PAID wages of employed mothers (meaning, child care, school system, after care, a certain scenario. Because the public school system in this country discriminates against the poor, that also impacts their future) AND the UNPAID benefits nonworking mothers provide to their familis and children.

CORPORATIONS historically have cared about their profits first, and their employees second, until forced to do differently. This splits up families, obviously. SCHOOLS in the US are also a jobs basis and designed on the corporate model, the “employer” being the government (although that government gets its wages from the very parents and non-parents it claims to be serving and educating).

CHURCHES, MOSQUES and SYNAGOGUES also must deal with money matters, and typically exist (from what I understand) in the US as “nonprofit” tax-exempt corporations. They have mortgages and typically pay their leaders (although not always). Therefore when a financial conflict of interest arises because a prominent — or even just attending — father begins assaulting a daughter or a wife, the temptation will be to cover it up for the “greater good,” i.e., continuing the community, but sacrificing the individual’s rights or safety. Some readers will remember, this was attributed to why Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed – – because if he “rocked the boat,” the Romans might come in and make it worse for the Jews. Which, later, obviously happened.

=======

As a woman who has seen the best and worst of a religion I adopted as a young woman because my own family was destitute of one, of a personal family identity outside one father’s professional profile (for the most part), I am quite willing to reject “religion” when it fails to practice what it preaches as I see my government, and its institutions have also utterly failed the people they preach about “serving.”

These foundations have utterly forgotten what the Declaration of Indepencence declares, and are mostly concerned about their own positions in life, and structuring a society to preserve their right to run others’ lives without their informed consent, and at their expense, too.

When a president cannot say the word “mother” along with the word “father” when describing “Families and Children,” and this president is held up as a role model and leader, women, and mothers of children, and the children ARE “screwed.” Linguistically, they are just sperm incubators, a delivery system for kids. We also get to now be scapegoats for society by either declining to marry, or leaving a marriage, yet the actual scapegoats are the society’s engineers, not the people who have become simply the gas in its (think) tanks or the blood in its veins.

It takes time to gestate and raise a child, and I think we are approaching the time when women are going to start saying NO! We will NOT produce babies for you to abuse, waste, or box up and become half-human order-takers and low-wage laborers, or young men and women to go fight your wars over land, oil, and the global economic system. If I participate in this happening, perhaps I will have in part helped compensate for having been unable to stop domestic violence they witnessed growing up, or divert and protect them from the INSANITY that took place the moment some professional, probably on the take either literally ($$) or by business referrals, knew how to “let the games begin” by getting our case into a custody battle.

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MARRIAGE/FATHERHOOD COIN – –

SUSPENDING CIVIL RIGHTS MAKES NO $$SENSE$

This dates back 5 years.

2005

(DOLLARS and SENSE logo here)

29 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 USA
T:(617)447-2177

F:(617)447-217

Copyright © 2010 Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.

Dollars and Sense logo

Marriage Promotion, Reproductive Injustice, and the War Against Poor Women of Color

BY SARAH OLSON

(1/05/2005)

On December 22, at the stroke of midnight, Renita Pitts became a single woman. Renita is 44 years old, a mother of five with 14 grandchildren. She has been on and off of welfare for most of her life. After she had her fifth child, her husband brought crack cocaine into their house, telling her that it would help her lose weight. She became addicted and struggled for 13 years with that addiction. Throughout her marriage, Renita says, she was afraid to leave her house. “I couldn’t trust my husband with our children long enough to go to school. If I left for even an hour, he would have a full-fledged party going on when I came back,” she says. In addition to being a drug addict, Renita’s husband was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive. She says they fought frequently, and she had to call the police again and again.

Renita and her husband separated shortly after she stopped using drugs and returned to college. She had also begun attending church. According to Renita, her husband “was insecure because of my security.” He gave her an ultimatum, saying she must leave school and stop going to church. When she refused, he left.

Despite the abuse and the drugs, Renita says, she felt many social pressures to stay married. Regardless, she says, “it was important not to have him in my life, constantly pumping me full of drugs.” She says the relationship had become so abusive that if she had stayed in it any longer, “someone would have ended up dead.”

With the help of California’s welfare program, Renita is currently enrolled in the African American Studies and Social Welfare departments at the University of California at Berkeley and works on social justice issues at the Women of Color Resource Center. She was happy to see her divorce finalized in December.

The life stories of Renita and many other women like her are not on the radar screen in Washington, however. Legislation that would promote marriage among low-income people is currently wending its way through Congress. The so-called “Healthy Marriage Initiative” includes a range of provisions designed to encourage women on welfare to get and stay married: providing extra cash bonuses to recipients who get married, deducting money from welfare checks when mothers are living with men who are not the fathers of their children, increasing monthly welfare checks for married couples, offering marriage and relationship education classes, and putting up billboards in low-income communities promoting the value of marriage. Several provisions specifically target Latino and African-American communities. So-called marriage promotion policies, such as those in the Healthy Marriage Initiative, have been touted by the Bush administration and enjoy wide bipartisan support in Washington. Many advocates, however, are concerned that, if the bill passes, it would become more difficult for Renita and domestic violence survivors like her to get a divorce and to survive without a husband.

Married Good, Single Bad

The administration’s point man for marriage promotion is Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services {HHS}, whose Administration for Children and Families {ACF} would run the initiative. In July 2002 Horn wrote, “On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy and stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor. They’re more successful in school, have lower dropout rates, and fewer teenage pregnancies. Adults, too, benefit from healthy and stable marriages.” Critics say Horn sees the wedded state as a cure-all for society’s ills, while ignoring the difficulties of promoting something as intensely personal as marriage. Horn and others in the ACF refused repeated requests for comment.

Marriage promotion legislation has its roots in the 1996 welfare reform act. This legislation ended welfare as an entitlement–it allowed states to deny assistance to fully qualified applicants, and resulted in the abrogation of some applicants’ constitutional rights. It also created a five-year lifetime limit for welfare recipients, denied aid to many immigrant communities, created cumbersome financial reporting requirements for welfare recipients, and set up work rules that, according to many recipients, emphasize work hours over meaningful employment opportunities and skill development. The legislation explicitly claimed promoting marriage as one of its aims.

When welfare reform was passed, Congress required that it be revisited in five years. The Healthy Marriage Initiative that Congress is considering today was introduced in 2002 as part of the welfare reform reauthorization package. Welfare–now known as Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)–was set to be reauthorized that year, but that reauthorization is now two years overdue.

In September, Senators Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) introduced a bill to reauthorize welfare for six months without overall changes, but with $800 million for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs over a two-year period. Sen. Santorum has been a strong proponent of marriage promotion. In an October 2003 speech to the Heritage Foundation, he promised to aggressively press for legislation that supported marriage between one man and one woman. “The government must promote marriage as a fundamental societal benefit. … Both for its intrinsic good and for its benefits for society, we need marriage.

{{Did these men, Senators, not take an oath of office similar to the President’s, to uphold and defend the constitution? If these Senators are so concerned about marriage, why don’t they socially shun, and hold conferences about, some of their cheating-on-their-wives colleagues, let alone former Presidents (let’s hope Obama has better sense than Clinton in that category)..?? ONE nation under God, and ONE set of Federal laws, and ONE set of the Bill of Rights for all. Government designing family life is the same as Government deciding religion, and as such is prohibited…}}

And just as important, we need public leaders to communicate to the American public why it is necessary.” The reauthorization bill has died in the Senate, but because of its strong bipartisan support, it is likely to be re-introduced. Sen. Santorum refused repeated requests for comment for this story.

Diverting Dollars

Although the debate about marriage promotion has focused on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, this is just one piece of the Bush administration’s pro-marriage agenda. The Department of Health and Human Services has already diverted over $100 million within existing programs into marriage promotion. These are programs that have no specific legislative authority to promote marriage. Some examples: $6.1 million has been diverted from the Child Support Enforcement Program, $9 million from the Refugee Resettlement Program, $14 million from the Child Welfare Program, and $40 million from the Social and Economic Development Strategies Program focusing on Native Americans, among others. Plus, another nearly $80 million has been awarded to research groups studying marriage.

One beneficiary is in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Healthy Marriages Grand Rapids received $990,000 from the federal government in 2003 to “facilitate the understanding that healthy marriages between parents is [sic] critical to the financial well-being of children, increase effective co-parenting skills of married and non-married parents to improve relationships between low-income adults who parent children, increase active, healthy participation of non-custodial fathers in the lives of their children, increase the number of prepared marriages among low-income adults, and decrease the divorce rate among low-income adults.” The program coordinates local public media campaigns plugging marriage as well as relationship counseling classes, many offered by faith-based providers.

It is precisely this emphasis on marriage as a cure for economic woes that worries many welfare recipients and advocates. According to Liz Accles at the Welfare Made a Difference National Campaign, “Marriage promotion is problematic for many reasons. It is discriminatory. It values certain families over others. It intrudes on privacy rights. The coercive nature of this is lost on a lot of people because they don’t realize how deeply in poverty people are living.” Accles says that adequate educational opportunities, subsidized child care, and real job skills and opportunities are the answer to the financial concerns of women on welfare. She joins many domestic violence counselors in saying that marriage education funded by government coffers and administered via faith-based providers and welfare case workers is at best a waste of taxpayer money, and at worst pushes women deeper into abusive relationships that may end in injury or death

{{including sometimes to the kids. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to us how THAT helps the welfare of children And now that’s it’s known this happening, why hasn’t the policy changed??!}}

In Allentown, Pa., a program called the Family Formation and Development Project offers a 12-week marriage education course for low-income, unmarried couples with children. Employment services are offered as part of the program, but only to fathers. In its application for federal funding, the program set a goal of 90% of the participating fathers finding employment. No such goal was set for the mothers. According to Jennifer Brown, legal director at the women’s legal rights organization Legal Momentum, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services, “What we fear is that this kind of sex stereotyped programming–jobs for fathers, not for mothers–will be part of marriage promotion programs funded by the government.”

Experts at Legal Momentum are concerned that the administration is diverting scarce funds from proven and effective anti-poverty programs and funneling the money into untested marriage-promotion programs. They say there is little information about what is happening on the ground, making it difficult to determine what activities have been implemented.

Feminist economists point out that the mid-1990s welfare reform law served larger economic interests by moving women out of the home and into the work force at a time when the economy was booming and there was a need for low-paid service workers. Now that the economy is in a recession, the government has adopted a more aggressive policy of marriage promotion, to pull women out of the work force and back into the home. According to Avis Jones-DeWeever, Poverty and Welfare Study director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, “We are talking about putting $1.5 billion into telling women to find their knight in shining armor and then everything will be okay.”

Jones-DeWeever says the view that marriage creates more economically stable individuals is not grounded in reality. She notes that individuals are likely to marry within their own socioeconomic group, so low-income women are likely to marry low-income men. According to author Barbara Ehrenreich’s estimates, low-income women would need to have roughly 2.3 husbands apiece in order to lift them out of poverty. Jones-DeWeever points out that in African-American communities, there are simply not enough men to marry: there are approximately two and a half women for every African-American man who is employed and not in jail. In addition, many social policy analysts are quick to point out that in general, poor people are not poor because they’re unmarried. Rather, they may be unmarried because they’re poor: the socioeconomic conditions in low-income communities contribute to a climate in which healthy marriages are difficult to sustain.

Another criticism of marriage promotion comes from survivors of domestic violence and their advocates. Studies consistently show that between 50% and 60%–in some studies up to 80%–of women on welfare have suffered some form of domestic violence, compared to 22% of the general population. In addition, between 3.3 and 10 million children witness domestic violence each year. Domestic violence survivors say their abuse was often a barrier to work, and many have reported being harassed or abused while at work. Most survivors needed welfare to escape the relationship and the violence. Any policy that provides incentives for women to become and stay married is in effect coercing poor women into marriage. Many women on welfare, like Renita Pitts, say that their marriages, rather than helping them out of poverty, set up overwhelming barriers to building their own autonomous and productive lives.

According to Kaaryn Gustafson, associate professor of law at the University of Connecticut, policies that attempt to look out for women’s safety by restricting or coercing their activities are paternalistic and misguided. “The patriarchal model is really troubling. The gist is that if there isn’t a man in the house there isn’t a family. The studies of family well-being are all very problematic because you cannot parse out the issues of education, socioeconomic status, and other emotional and psychological issues that are tied up in who gets married and who doesn’t.”

Domestic violence ITSELF often is a reflection of a paternalistic attitude, and this DOES stem at least from faith communities. Moreover, we have to look at this United States which used to legalize slavery. Slavery is abusive and a paternalistic attitude justified it. I’ve “just” had enough of this! So, in effect, promoting marriage — both undermines individual civil rights, and duplicates the same attitude which justifies such violence towards a woman because she is a woman!

Reproductive Straitjacket

While marriage promotion as a federal policy began in 1996, many say it is only one part of a much larger system of control over, and sanction of, the sexual and reproductive freedoms of poor women and women of color. Another part of this system is child exclusion legislation, which has been adopted by 21 states. Child exclusion laws permit states to pay benefits for only one child born to a woman on welfare. Social policy experts say it is a response to the myth that African-American welfare recipients were having more children in order to get larger benefit checks. Such laws push women either deeper into poverty, or into abortions. In some states, a woman who chooses to have another child instead of an abortion may end up trying to raise two or more children on less than $300 a month.

Christie, who would like to use only her first name, is a single mother of two. She has been working, supporting her children and herself, and going to college. Since her first child was born, she has also been receiving welfare. While on welfare, she fought to get a college degree in general education; now she hopes to get a job as a Spanish language translator. During her time in college, her welfare caseworker told Christie to quit going to school and instead report to a welfare-to-work program. She says, “I felt that it was a punishment. Just because I was on welfare, they could make me quit school and come and sit in a room and listen to people talking about the jobs I should get. Most of the jobs that they wanted you to have were geared towards the lower poverty level where you stay in poverty and you can never climb the socioeconomic ladder. It’s like that’s your position and that’s where you have to stay.”

When Christie became pregnant with her second child, her caseworker told her she could not receive an increase in her benefit. This forced Christie into some tough choices. “My religion kept me from having an abortion. I worked after I had my daughter, because I felt like it was a mistake that I made, and so I tried to do what I could for my daughter.” Christie says this legislation penalizes women for having children, and creates an overwhelming sense of guilt that permeates low-income families. Rather than celebrating the birth of her daughter, Christie felt that she needed to work twice as hard to make up for her “mistake.”

When states began adopting child exclusion policies in the early 1990s, they were implemented under federal scrutiny. States were required to keep data about the financial status of affected families. These data showed that child exclusion policies resulted in women and children being thrust further into poverty. One of the more sinister effects of the 1996 welfare reform law is that it did away with the requirement that states monitor the outcome of child exclusion policies. Since 1996, states have been able to impose sanctions on families without paying any attention to the results.

According to a July 2002 report by the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C-SNAP), a research and advocacy collaborative, child exclusion policies are directly correlated to a number of risks to the health and well-being of children. Infants and toddlers in families that have been sanctioned under the child exclusion provisions are 30% more likely to have been hospitalized than children from families who have not been sanctioned, and these children are 90% more likely to require hospitalization at the time of an emergency room visit. In addition, child exclusion sanctions lead to food insecurity rates that are at least 50% higher than those of families who have not faced sanction. The negative health and welfare impacts reported in the C-SNAP study increase dramatically with each year that a family experiences sanctions.

Proponents of child exclusion legislation, including many members of the Bush administration and a bipartisan array of senators and representatives, claim that women on welfare have no business bringing a new child into the world whom they cannot support financially.

The United Sates has a long history of regulation of poor women’s reproductive activities. From the forced sterilizations performed in low-income communities of color in the 1940s, 1950s, and even later, to state child services departments appropriating poor Native American children and giving them to upper-class white foster parents, many U.S. historians say that sexuality among lower-income communities of color has traditionally been viewed as something that should be controlled. The University of Connecticut’s Gustafson responds, “There is this idea that if you pay taxes you have the right to control those who don’t, and it smacks of slavery. There should be some scope of liberty that should be unconditional, and that especially includes sexuality and family formation.”

There’s no such respect for freedom and privacy under TANF. The program requires women to submit to a barrage of invasive questions and policies; TANF applicants must provide private details about every aspect of their lives. In California, for example, the application asks for the names of up to 12 men with whom a woman has had sexual relations on or around the time of her pregnancy. In San Diego county, before a woman can receive a welfare check, she must submit to a “surprise” visit by welfare case workers to verify that there isn’t an unreported man in the household, among other things.

One of the problems with all of these sexual and reproductive-based policy initiatives is that, according to Gustafson, they distract people from the actual issues of poverty. While TANF accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget, the hysteria surrounding whether and how to assist poor families with children has created an uproar about whether low-income women should even be allowed to have children.

Because the 1996 welfare reform law eliminated the concept of welfare as an entitlement, welfare recipients lack certain protections other U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. In effect, when you apply for welfare you are signing away many of your constitutional rights

Similarly, when a woman receives cash aid and food stamps after leaving a violent relationship, she signs over her right to collect child support to the local county. She is NOT, however, openly told that the U.S. Government is promoting marriage and some of the monies used to collect her child support are diverted into programs that may eventually help the man she just left get back into her life, or even get her children. In other words, we aren’t given full information to make a good decision at the time. This is VERy manipulative and in essence treat as her like less than adult.

For this reason, many advocates today are critiquing welfare through the lens of human rights rather than constitutional rights. International human-rights agreements, including the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, afford women many universal human rights. “Those include access to education, access to reproductive choice, rights when it comes to marrying or not marrying,” says Gustafson. “When you look at the international statements of human rights, it provides this context, this lens that magnifies how unjust the welfare laws are in the United States. The welfare system is undermining women’s political, economic, and social participation in society at large.”

On September 30, Congress passed another extension of the 1996 welfare legislation. This extension contained no policy changes–for now. When Congress does finally reauthorize welfare, child exclusion policies and marriage promotion are likely to be hot-button issues that galvanize the debate. According to Liz Accles at the National Welfare Made a Difference Campaign, there are three steps to a successful welfare strategy. “Access. Adequacy. Opportunity. All three of these hold equal weight. You cannot have benefits so low that people live deeply in poverty. You can’t have good benefits that only a few people get access to. You also need to have opportunity for economic mobility built in.”

Although the marriage promotion bill was defeated this time, it continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support–including support from the White House now that George W. Bush has a second term. Welfare recipients and social policy experts are worried that whenever welfare reform is debated, politicians will deem regulating the reproductive activities of poor women to be more important than funding proven anti-poverty measures like education and meaningful job opportunities.

Sarah Olson is a contributing reporter for Free Speech Radio News and the National Radio Project’s “Making Contact.” She is also a mentor and journalist at the Welfare Radio Collaborative.

RESOURCES Joan Meisel, Daniel Chandler, and Beth Menees Rienzi, “Domestic Violence Prevalence and Effects on Employment in Two California TANF Populations,” (California Institute of Mental Health, 2003); Richard Tolman and Jody Raphael, “A Review of the Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence,” Journal of Social Issues, 2000; Sharmila Lawrence, “Domestic Violence and Welfare Policy: Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on Marriage and Child Well-Being: Issue Brief,” (Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New Federalism, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2002); E. Lyon, “Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New Research and Its Implications,” Policy and Practice Paper #10, Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, (National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, 2000)

I looked up “Children Families and the New Federalism,” and on its database googled “domestic violence mediation” and found this:

Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt in Maryland (unreviewed)
Strategies for Addressing the Needs of Domestic Violence Victims within the TANF Program: The Experience of Seven Counties (unreviewed)
Assessing Effective Welfare-to-Work Strategies for Domestic Violence Victims and Survivors in the Options/Opciones Project (unreviewed)
Psychiatric Disorders Among Low Income Single Mothers: Mothers’ Well-Being Study (unreviewed)
CalWORKs Project (unreviewed)
Study of Screening and Assessment in TANF/WtW (unreviewed)
Women’s Employment Study (reviewed)
San Bernardino County (CA) TANF Recipients Study (unreviewed)
Multiple Impacts of Welfare Reform in Utah: Experiences of Former Long-term Welfare Recipients (unreviewed)
Tracking Closed Cases Under The TANF Program in Massachusetts (unreviewed)
Supporting Healthy Marriage (unreviewed)
Welfare-to-Work, the Private Sector and Americorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) (unreviewed)
Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration (reviewed)
Welfare-to-Work Grants Program Evaluation (reviewed)
Connecticut’s Jobs First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project (reviewed)

Let’s look at who’s behind Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration, which project took place over a 10-ear period, it says:

MDRC
Investigator(s) Fred Doolittle (MDRC)
Virginia Knox (MDRC)
Earl Johnson (MDRC)
Cynthia Miller (MDRC)
Sponsor(s) US Department of Health and Human Services
MDRC
Funder(s) PEW Charitable Trusts
Ford Foundation
AT&T Foundation
US Department of Health and Human Services
US Department of Labor
McKnight Foundation
Northwest Area Foundation
US Department of Agriculture
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Subcontractor(s) Abt Associates, Inc.
Domain Income Security/TANF
Status Completed (final report released)
Duration Jun 1991 – Jun 2001
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To implement and evaluate the Parent’s Fair Share Demonstration (PFS).
Program/Policy Description PFS centers on four core activities: employment and training services, peer support through group discussions focused on the rights and responsibilities of non-custodial parents, stronger and more flexible child support enforcement, and voluntary mediation services to help resolve conflict between the custodial and non-custodial parents. PFS is required for non-custodial parents (usually fathers) who are unable to meet child support obligations and have been referred to PFS by the courts.
Notes No notes reported.

And the findings, in brief:

Recent Findings in Brief

12/01/01: Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration: The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons From Parents’ Fair Share

Final Descriptive/Analytical Findings

As a group, the fathers were very disadvantaged, although some were able to find low-wage work fairly easily. PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities. PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children. Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

Because I happen to be familiar with the contractor “MDRC” through prior research (i.e., looking around on the web….), I went to CPR (Centerforpolicyresearch.org) and simply typed in “Parent’s Fair Share.”

This is how many links came up:

Search Results

1 Projects – Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ProjectRelevance: 3006
Assist MDRC in design and implementation of a mediation component in the Parents’ Fair Share Demon…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/284/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:09:47 PM
2 PovertyRelevance: 2008
Many of CPR’s projects involve identification and assessment of programs to reduce poverty and…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/Poverty/tabid/262/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:33:25 PM
3 Incarceration and ReentryRelevance: 1004
CPR has done seminal work on child support and incarceration. As a result of CPR’s studies of …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/IncarcerationandReentry/tabid/263/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:20:48 PM
4 Projects – Child Support Strategies for Incarcerated and Released ParentsRelevance: 1003
Publicize information on the child support situation that incarcerated and paroled parents face an…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/378/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:51:44 AM
5 Court ServicesRelevance: 1003
CPR’s Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes have pioneered the development, implementation and ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/CourtServices/tabid/256/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:15:59 PM
6 Projects – Evaluation of Parents to Work!Relevance: 1002
Evaluation of a program to utilize TANF funds to deliver services to noncustodial parents involved…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/375/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:46:52 AM
7 Child SupportRelevance: 1002
CPR personnel have been leading researchers and technical assistance contractors for nearly ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/ChildSupport/tabid/255/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:09:46 PM
8 Projects – Task Order 38: An Assessment of Research Concerning Effective Methods of Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents with Child Support ObligationsRelevance: 1002
An analysis of child support issues concerning offender and ex-offender noncustodial parents. The …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/382/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:54:07 AM
9 Projects – Texas Access and Visitation Hotline IIRelevance: 1001
Evaluation to assess the effectiveness of a telephone hotline offering parents in the child suppor…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/294/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:21:13 PM
10 Publications – When Parents Complain About Visitation.Relevance: 1001

http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Publications/tabid/233/id/427/Default.aspx12/18/2008 3:46:12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

They do things like this:

Multi-Site Responsible Fatherhood Programs

Subcontract with Policy Studies Inc.

Contract with Office of Child Support Enforcement

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

1999 – 2001

Close Abstract

Multi-site evaluation of eight responsible fatherhood projects to assess various methods of outreach, client intake and service delivery to noncustodial parents in an effort to promote their financial and emotional participation in the lives of their children, and to assess the effectiveness of a management information system developed to for use at the sites.

or “MEDIATION INTERVENTIONS” (based at the Child Support Location) to get them more ACCESS to their children. . .. A whole other set of funding (HHS) is the “access visitation grants system.”

(CFDA 930597, I believe on TAGGS.hhs.gov) another thing I wasn’t told about in my custody issues.

MDRC, like PSI, like CPR, and others, are many of the organizations contracting out these programs. LESS highly publicized (but it’s out) is the court-based organization, AFCC giving awards to Ms. Pierson (of CPR), this organization also pushes mediation.

We are all in all moving quite towards a “planned economy,” whether or not we personally approve of it, or comprehend in just how many ways. LOOKING UP ONLY “Parent’s Fair Share” on the web, these came up:

Promising Practices Home

Operated by the RAND Corporation

http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=43

For this amazing summary, with so many government agencies, quite an assemblage of persona (and backed by several foundations), done in 8 different areas, the bottom line is, it didn’t affect anyone’s bottom line! No significantly increased child support payments, and not much more involved fathers. Says so right here!:

  • Overall, from the perspective of the custodial parents, the net result of PFS did not produce a detectable change in their total income as a result of child support payments.
  • With respect to child contact, PFS did not lead to increases in the frequency or length of contact that noncustodial parents had with their children.

In fact, kind of the contrary:

  • For more-employable men, the program had little effect on average earnings and somewhat reduced employment among those who would have worked in part-time, lower-wage jobs.

Back to topTop

Hrere’s the MDRC site report on the Parent’s Fair Share:

The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration, run from 1994 to 1996, was aimed at increasing the ability of these fathers to attain well-paying jobs, increase their child support payments — to increase their involvement in parenting in other ways. These reports — one examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ financial and nonfinancial involvement with their children and the other examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ employment and earnings — provide important insights into policies aimed at this key group.

What it doesn’t say — we failed at both goals…

By the way, MDRC stands for Manpower Development Research Corporation. These Corps are sprouting up to work with the government (and foundations behind the government policies) to manage society.

From April 2010, Still coming up with “astounding” revelations (for how much$$?) about how life works:

Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships

What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

{{that depends on who “WE” is. One thing seems evident — that the four authors to this paper, below, are employed, or at least have some nice sub- sub-contracting work… Another thing “We” (women in my position) would have LIKED to know is that organizations like MRDC and CPR and PSI and others are (through HHS) making our lives harder, “for our own good” because we dared to collect child support at one point in time. In retaliation for this, our “exes” will be helped by the United States Government to stay on our tails for the rest of time, possibly.}}

No, SERIOUSLY now, as of April 2010, after a decade plus of family/fatherhood programs, what bright conclusions can be drawn?

As described in earlier articles, children whose parents have higher income and education levels are more likely to grow up in stable two-parent households than their economically disadvantaged counterparts.

WHO IS THIS MDRC? Now that some poor folk actually have internet access, we can find out who’s studying (us):

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.

The Board of Directors are the Cream of America, as follows:

Board of Directors
Robert Solow, Chairman
Institute Professor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mary Jo Bane, Vice Chair
Professor of Public Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Rudolph G. Penner, Treasurer
Senior Fellow
Urban Institute
Ron Haskins
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families
Brookings Institution

RON HASKINS SOUNDED FAMILIAR TO ME. HERE HE IS:

Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins

Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families

A former White House and congressional advisor on welfare issues, Ron Haskins co-directs the Brookings Center on Children and Families. An expert on preschool, foster care, and poverty—he was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.

(SEE MY TOP ARTICLE, THIS POST – some people are not too happy about it!)

Encouraging Marriage Helps Everyone

Children & Families, Marriage and Family Formation, Social Issues, Social Norms

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

Business Week

Higher marriage rates among the poor would benefit poor adults themselves, their children, and the nation. Although I do not support coercive policies to achieve higher marriage rates, I do favor marriage promotion programs conducted by community-based organizations such as churches and other nonprofit civic groups. The activities these groups should sponsor include counseling, marriage education, job assistance, parenting, anger control, avoiding domestic violence, and money management.
The LAST PLACE I WOULD GO TO GET SOME HELP AVOIDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WOULD BE NEAR A CHURCH GROUP. ALMOST GOT MY FAMILY KILLED . . ., . . AT LEAST IT BEARS A TOKEN MENTION, NEXT TO LAST, IN MARRIAGE PROMOTION. I DON’T THINK MR. HASKINS PERHAPS MET RENITA PITTS (See top of blog), HE WAS PROBABLY TOO BUSY AT THE LATEST EVENT.
I also notice that creative solutions to making ends meet are not necessarily on the agenda here. For example, instead of funneling the “poor” in to poor jobs, low-wage jobs, how’s about helping THEM to start businesses and run them?
Or to get grants and pursue some of their dreams, possibly filling in a gap that someone from Harvard, MIT, or a sociologist might not see?
Does anyone besides me see the irony in having someone IN government coach someone else about money management ?? ?????

Lethal Trinity of Hoodlums: Fatherhood, Motherhood, White-hooded White Men in the American MidWest

with 2 comments

 

Custodial Dads & Stepmoms, Divorcing Dads, Foster Dads (married or single) and Absent Moms…  Not good for kids.  Sorry, folks, it ain’t.

I’ve been thinking about this one for a while.  I’m going to pick on Indiana, as it has a prominent Fatherhood promoter in legislator Evan Bayh, and recent trouble with another Dad that won custody, 5 year old girl died, and he and STEPMOM tried to blame it (unsuccessfully) on the REAL (biological) mother, who is now down a child, just months after losing custody of (her).

In this one, the mandated reporters who had a chance to, DIDN’T, and the first who did report, just went along with blaming the real Mom

New details emerge in death of 5-year-old girl at hands of custodial dad, step mom

(Muncie, Indiana)

 

The general public still thinks that mothers don’t lose custody unless they’re nuts or sluts. But this article tells you the truth: the protective mother lost custody because she COULD NOT AFFORD AN ATTORNEY. She was outgunned by a lawyered-up Daddy who could buy what he wanted. Which was basically a 5-year-old girl he could rape, torture, and systematically starve. Everybody happy now? In addition to CPS getting dragged through the wringer (again), are we going to see the names of the custody evaluators, judges, and other court officials who rubberstamped this custody arrangement? Don’t hold your breath. Even if a few CPS or medical workers get reprimanded or lose their jobs, the court people will stay golden. One of the few exceptions is Judge Robert Lemkau who got voted out of office after he gave a crazy violent father visitation of an infant, an infant who was murdered less than two weeks later. The public has got to start holding the courts responsible for these gross miscarriages of justice.

http://www.fox59.com/news/wxin-muncie-death-investigation-update-061610,0,871744.story

New details emerge in death of Muncie 5-year-old
During a six-month period last fall and winter, more than a half dozen health care workers treated or observed serious problems with five year-old Lauren McConniel. It wasn’t until about a week before she died on March 9th from severe malnutrition, that her injuries were reported to . . .

 

Indianapolis Stranger-rape, neighbors didn’t respond quickly to the commotion, child witness (NOT a father, but I guarantee you, a male….)

Child watches helplessly as man rapes mother Police said an Indianapolis woman was raped early Wednesday morning on the near north side, with her son in the same room.

Police are searching for a rapist who attacked a woman inside her home. They say the victim’s young child became a witness to the crime. It is a crime unsettling to even the most veteran of officers.”It is rather disturbing on a number of levels,” said IMPD Sgt. Linda Jackson.

Early Wednesday morning in the 1000 block of West 33rd, police say a young mother was raped in front of her own son.

“I heard him screaming,” said one neighbor.

Neighbors say they heard some type of commotion, but thought nothing of it, until now.

Well, maybe it’s time for neighbors to start figuring out FAST what’s happening when you hear a commotion next door, and some systems to respond if it does.   This MIGHT help with domestic violence cases also …  Maybe neighbors need to know our neighbors better than we thought we did.   That is NOT going to happen without some radical restructuring of basic institutions.  I’m not talking about the CONstitution, but practices. 

Pretending that Dads as a group or Moms as a group are all nice is just stupid. We’s a gonna have to give up some of our precious myths and figure out a workable philosophy, better than , “the experts — that I’m paying with my taxes — have it under control.”  NO suburb or city is an island, especially for females.

“It’s just sad ’cause she ain’t even been there a week. She ain’t even been there a good week,” said neighbor Lisa Coleman.

“To know that it’s right across the street – could’ve been us – ’cause we were sitting here watching TV. This window was open,” said neighbor Carmella Johnson.

In fact, the victim told police the suspect likely gained entrance through an open bedroom window. She was with her child on the couch in the living room when she says a masked man came in with a knife and threatened to cut her if she didn’t take her clothes off. As the rape occurred, police say, the suspect yelled at her son to shut up.

“During the course of the crime the suspect yelled at the child to be quiet to quit crying, when obviously the child was upset. There was something really bad going on in the house,” said Sgt. Jackson.

“I can’t imagine,” said Coleman.

On a street full of young children, it’s enough to startle already anxious neighbors who are currently reconsidering their decision to live here.

We all want “SAFE” places for us and our kids to live, and for the Police to all make it better and be fast enough, smart enough, honest enough, and in short able to protect us, along with other authorities we pay for this purpose.

The victim told police the suspect took her cell phone as he left. She waited 24 hours to report the crime to police. The suspect’s description is vague, as he was wearing a mask.

Go back,  another century, and ….. it’s not Fatherhood, it’s MOTHERhood

Here’s MOTHERHOOD WORSHIP with the HOODED WHITE GUYS, same state (and supported by religious women, also….)

  • Lies Across America: What Our Historic Sites Get Wrong – Google Books Result

    James W. Loewen – 2007 – History – 464 pages
    The Indiana Klan stressed law enforcement, motherhood, virtue, patriotism, In that year’s Democratic National Convention, the Ku Klux
  • (This is accessible to view by Googlebooks and shows that a large resurgence of this clan, pre-civil rights of the 1960s, happened in INDIANA.  It’s worth a read.  They had got the press, the governor, and were aiming for U.S. President, as I recall, and they emphasized MOTHERHOOD.  How ironic, the pendulum has swung the otherway; same state (and possibly same practices), now it’s “Fatherhood.”  In Indiana and, thanks to the internet and increasing centralization in the U.S., and a less and less diverse U.S. Congress (it’s EXPENSIVE to get elected), nationwide.

    I’m going to digress here, because the link to the “less and less diverse” article pictures Roland Burris, well-known in FATHERHOOD circles:

    Senate likely to be less diverse after elections

    By Deanna Bellandi, Associated Press Writer Fri Feb 5

    CHICAGO – That historically all-white club known as the U.S. Senate is likely to lose what little diversity it has after November’s elections.

    Two white men will be competing for President Barack Obama’s former seat in Illinois, now held by Roland Burris, the chamber’s lone African-American. Appointed by the scandal-tainted former governor, Burris won’t be seeking a full term.

    In contests in Florida, Texas and North Carolina, black candidates face daunting challenges to joining the august body, from difficulty raising cash to lack of name recognition to formidable rivals.

    Blacks comprise 12.2 percent of the nation’s population, but you wouldn’t know it in the 100-member Senate. Come next year, the total number could add up to zero.

    “It certainly is not a desirable state of affairs,” said David Bositis, a senior political analyst with the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.

    Bositis noted that blacks don’t make up the majority population in any state and in states where there are large numbers of blacks, as in the South, there are racial divisions that make getting elected difficult.

    Florida is more likely to produce the next Hispanic senator than it is the next black senator…

    Notice that this article is only talking about the ‘diversity’ of skin color, not the ‘diversity’ of political thought.

    In truth, if the Republicans take away more seats from the Democrat super-majority, the Congress will be certainly be more diverse.

    But of course in the minds of the Associated Press, the color of one’s skin is far more important than the content of their character.

    {{Guess that was not a pro-Burriss based on his politics site.  However, he’s no less “fatherhood” than white guys….}}

    Here’s to “Roland Burris fatherhood” google search:

  • U.S. Senator Roland Burris to Appear on a Special Father’s Day

    US Senator Roland Burris to Appear on a Special Father’s Day Edition of Chicago Attorney Jeffery Leving’s ‘Fathers’ Rights Legal Show’ on June 20th.
    http://www.prnewswire.com/…/us-senator-rolandburris-to-appear-on-a-special-fathers-day-edition-of-chicago-attorney-jeffery-levings-fathers-right…Cached
  • Attorney Jeffery Leving to Interview U.S. Senator Roland Burris on

    United States Senator Roland Burris (D-IL) will join Mr. Leving on his “Fathers’ Rights Obama’s proposed $500 million budget for Responsible
  • Fathers Rights: Jeffery M Leving-Leading Family Law & Divorce

    U.S. Senator Roland Burris to Appear on(etc., etc.)
    NOW, this is back about a CENTURY (almost) and talking about another kind of HOODlum (Pictured below, and self-described on the infamous site, below).  Look at how it was sold — temperance, and motherhood.

    20thcentury

    This exact figure was found in the book, “Inside Ku Klux Klan” by Paul Gillette ….. Women of the Klan in many Indiana counties met with township trustees to While girls were learning the virtues and tasks of motherhood and moral …. This meant stressing the virtues of Christian fundamentalism and temperance. …
    www.kkklan.com/various.htm
    God,” I hate to quote this, or even VISIT this site — but notice — described (in this “KKK” site) as historically just nice, law-abiding, religious folk contributing to charitable, children’s oriented, and church/school folks.  And that’s men & women BOTH…..

    The following was taken from, “Hoods: The Story of the Ku Klux Klan”, by Robert Ingalls.

    In Portland, Or., in the early 1920’s, the Ku Klux Klan pledged $50,000 to a children’s home and held a Christmas party featuring Kris Kringle. The Klan also organized a Klan Kommunity Kit to compete with the Community Chest, church visits became a kind of ritual. Typically, a small group of Klansmen would march down the aisle, hand the minister an offering of money, and silently depart. (page 39)

    Protestant ministers quickly found that the Klan’s emphasis on religion helped swell church attendance. (page 41)

    Similarly, the emphasis on DOMINATING women and keeping them in their “proper” roles is helping swell church tithes to this day, 2010…. 

    Most Klansmen were law abiding, church going family men. Klansmen also hoped to eliminate vice and corruption through the ballot box. One Klansman declared, “Everybody knows that politicians nowadays cater to all kinds of elements, mostly selfish, some corrupt, and some definitely anti-American. They cater to the vice vote and even to the violently criminal vote. What the Klan intends to do is make them pay some attention to the decent God fearing, law abiding vote.” (pages 42-43)

                                        wpe20615.gif (130773 bytes) Mr. Smith goes to Washington.

    During the 1920’s, the Klan was subjected not only to verbal abuse but also to physical assault in some areas. Bootleggers, for example, did not take kindly to the Klan’s attempts to enforce prohibition. When New Jersey’s Klan declared war on local bootleggers, the rum runners formed a defense council and publicly threatened to “Shoot to kill” anyone other then a policeman who interfered with their illegal traffic in liquor. (page 68)

    The following was taken from, “Hooded Americanism, the History of the Ku Klux Klan”, by David M. Chalmers.

    In Minneapolis, the Klan presented bibles to Methodist Churches and stressed “positive Protestantism”. (page 151)

    In Indiana the Klan gathered contributions to build a new hospital. (page 165

     

    NOW FATHERHOOD:

    =========

      We (see blogroll to right) have blogged on this before.  See Wikipedia for Son (Evan) and Father (Birch):

    Evan Bayh – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Birch Evans “EvanBayh III (pronounced /ˈbaɪ/, bye; born December 26, 1955) is an American Democratic politician who has served as the junior U.S. Senator
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Bayh17 hours agoCachedSimilar
  • Birch Bayh – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Children, Evan Bayh (born 1955), Christopher Bayh (born 1982) He is the father of former Indiana governor and current U.S. Senator Evan Bayh.
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_BayhCachedSimilar
  •  

    And see “MamaLiberty”‘s Sept. 2009 weblog for commentary on this:

    rotten-apple-thumb11

    http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/2009/08/30/fatherhood-initiative-bill-senator-evan-bayh-d-in-is-not-his-fathers-son/

    This is from the Indiana Mothers For Custodial Justice, covering the recently introduced Fatherhood Initiative Bill:

    Evan Bayh is Not His Father’s Son

    I heard this comment in a meeting yesterday, and how true it is. ” Evan Bayh is not his father’s son.”

    In Birch Bayh’s eyes, women should be given the same chances that men have.  Women deserved equality and this was evident in his legislation.

    ‘Father’ Of Title IX Honored

    By Richard Veilleux

    Former U.S. Sen. Birch Bayh of Indiana, considered the “father” of Title IX, the landmark federal legislation created more than 30 years ago that greatly expanded educational and athletics opportunities for girls and women, was honored during half-time of the women’s basketball game between UConn and Rutgers on Martin Luther King Day.

    . . .

    Sen. Bayh also played a leadership role in many other areas and in framing two Constitutional amendments: the 26th Amendment, which lowered the legal voting age to 18, and the Equal Rights Amendment, a proposed Constitutional amendment guaranteeing equal rights to women, which has been ratified by 35 states, including Connecticut.

    AND, now, the son….

    na in the U.S. Senate from 1963 to 1981.But for Evan Bayh, the apple has fallen far from the tree…he supports fatherhood (not parenthood)…this being sent out in preparation of the reintroduction of a Fatherhood Initiative Bill into the U.S. Senate: 
     

    Senator Bayh sent out this wonderful message for fathers on Father’s Day to the Hoosiers he represents. He missed sending out a message for mothers…tells you a lot, doesn’t it. He is up for re-election next year….Hoosiers mothers, are you paying attention?  

    Bayh 

    Watch out for these bill just introduced: S. 1309, introduced by Sen. Evan Bayh, (D-IN) and two co-sponsors.H.R. 2979, introduced by Rep. Danny K. Davis (IL-7) and 27 co-sponsors.President Obama told Senator Bayh last year he would sign the bill when he gets it. 

    The 2006 attempt at this bill (with U.S. Senator Barack Obama as one of the two co-sponsors) died:  

    The list below shows legislation in this and previous sessions of Congress that had the same title as this bill. Often bills are incorporated into other omnibus bills, and you may be able to track the status of provisions of this bill by looking for an omnibus bill below. Note that bills may have multiple titles.

    This one needs to die too. 


     

    Is it fair for our government tax dollars to go help take children from mothers, to help fund a custody battle in court (among other ‘fatherly’ support things), help that is only available to fathers? These funds pay for dads to do this. All dads are not good (see Dastardly Dads).  

    Abusive custodial fathers are constantly in the news, such as today [SEPT. 2009] :  New Mexico Custodial Father Murdered Allegedly By 10 Year Old Son Who Couldn’t Take Anymore Abuse and Jon Pomeroy, Father of Seattle-area Girl, Pleads Guilty to Starving Her.  Why should we help abusers take children from their moms?  The American Judge’s Association knows this is a problem, why do you want to fund abusers to take custody of the children?

    Yes, Evan, your dad took time to be with you. He didn’t seek to take your mother out of your life though, did he? Yes, this apple has fallen very far from the tree. 

    Birch_Tree11 

      


    Possibly related posts: (automatically generated) 

     


    THESE ARE SIMPLY HOODLUMS.  From the One-God, Family, Tradition.
    Watch the dichotomy between “faith” and “practice” as in, “fatherhood practitioners.”  Usually, it ends up hurting what they are supposedly protecting:  women & children.
    For another take on this, I do recommend (and am re-reading) a “Civil Rights” era book by a man  who had to reconcile his faith with practice.
    LET JUSTICE ROLL DOWN — John Perkins.  Set in Mississippi & California mostly, and the narrative (with details, names, dates, places, as well as commentary) and issues he deals with speak volumes to an evangelically-minded (segregated still, and as to male/female also) society. 
    If we cannot go back a half century, a century, a few decades, and read what was written THEN (and also examine organizations, legislation, initiatives, and nonprofits started THEN), we cannot possibly understand what’s going on now.  How can you understand “cause” if living in the eternal “now” of profiling by gender, race, religion, or class?
    Nor can all of these be wiped out by simply declaring they are irrelevant.  They aren’t.  It’s the blending and balancing of priorities that counts.

    How bad Is it? ~ Skirting the Truth at Cairo, Telling it in America, Turned Down at Brown, Left to Tell after Rwanda

    leave a comment »

    I was told to shorten my titles.  This was the original:

    In Cairo, Obama Delicately Skirts the Issue of Islamic Violence Towards Women, but Chesler (Honor Killings), LetsGetHonest (DV and Christianity), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Infidel), Nonie Darwish (They Call Me Infidel), Immaculee Ilibagiza (Left to Tell, 91 days in a Rwandan bathroom) shoot from the hip on the dangers of ANY pride/shame/hate-based culture

     

    Note:  Of the above “notables” obviously President Obama’s OFFICE outranks the rest of us, but I’ve put 4 famous female voices (& mine) to 2 male to underscore, well, who and what the others have downplayed

    Note:  LetsGetHonest’s voice here doesn’t mean she considers herself on a par with these feminist &/or COURAGEOUS for Truth women, but that my experience resonates to elements of their voices.  I have many role models, but these are among them, particularly Imaculee with her faith and Dr. Chesler with her decades of feminist writing & reporting, including on some matters regarding the courts.  
    The two “Infidel” Books (“Infidel” and “They Call Me Infidel”) describes aspects of polygamy which  – – strangely — spoke the inbred emotional truth of my own family line, in ganging up against a grown, literate mother to (try and!) teach a lesson about authority, and the punishment being removal of children and “excommunication.”  (and my family line identifies itself, with apparent pride, as NOT believing in God, this is for supposedly inferior intellects and emotionally weak individuals).  

    [Have been told to shorten the posts, too, not just the titles.  Working on it!]

     This post, July 2 (2 days before “Independence Day” USA)  had been on hold. Unlike several women featured here, I added my voice to theirs, telling it like it is, then self-censored out of fear:  I felt MY contribution was too radical, too out-spoken, and too indignant.

    Well . . . . 

    BUT, I have noticed the headlines since July 2nd — a litany of murder/suicides, family annihilations, and slaps on the wrist for men punching, stalking, kidnapping or threatening to kill women, after which they then kill.  I had my children stolen for daring to report abuse, violations of court orders, and for refusing to “submit” to arbitrary orders on how to dumb down my smart daughters.  I know what “shunning” is.  I know what “enabling abuse” is.  

    I have never experienced fundamentalist Islamic violence against women, but the sense of the Christian version of it over here is starting to feel like a sort of ritual purging process.  It is starting to ffeel like “No Exit” unless there is a miraculous parting of the Red Tape, a CLOUD covering my behind and a FIRE leading the way.  We already tried the “appeal to reason” paradigm, or the “appeal to law” ONE, ALSO.  We also did the “it’s not in your best interest” reason, but some people will pay a lot of money for the privilege of refusing to stop abusing.  Like they say, truth is on the auction block, and was sold cheap, Lies fetched a higher price.

    I pay attention, and have SEEN Protestant so-called Christian Caucasian men drilling young men how to dominate women twice their age in the name of their god, and been subjected to this as well.  Recently.  Yeech — Retch!  What kind of “sanctuary” is that??

    However, now that a suburban California back yard finally released ,29-year-old Jaycee Dugard and her 11 year old and 15 year old girls fathered by the man who kidnapped HER when she was only 11, I felt this post is quite appropriate:

    This case is shocking for its combination of statistics (18 years! Missed opportunities!  “We never knew!”  “But they looked like a nice couple!”  “I spoke with Jaycee on the phone, she was courteous and professional” (She was not only a sex slave, but also supported this man’s business while living in shack-like conditions in a back yard with her kids).  A WOMAN called the police reporting that people were living in the back yard.  Like my calls and reports to police that another man, their father, was going to kidnap MY daughters, her voice was not heard.

    Are we willing to listen and change behavior YET?  The behavior “we” need to change is to get smart and act on hunches.  While people who take the scriptures too literally are castigated and censored, disdained in public media, how about some of us in the U.S. start taking the 3 charters of freedom:  Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights literally for a change?  Starting by knowing their INtents based on their CONtents!  And then recognizing that humanity is a DNA thing, not a color thing or a gender thing!  And the usage of “all men are created equal” in the first was NOT “men vs. women” and did not say, although it was so practiced, “all Caucasian landowning males.”  It meant ALL EQUAL and not to be colonized, or, like Miss Dugard (sr.) was, pimped.

     

    I am United States citizen by birth, and was never beaten, or degraded because of my gender before I married.  Nor was I forced into marriage.  But women of faith or no faith nowadays who attempt to leave, risk being stripped of children, or killed, for the act of — leaving their marriage and asserting legal rights they already have.

    While our current President has described the angst and sense of loss he felt not having his father in his life growing up, the rest of us describe some of what it’s like to be a target of violence and punishment for the crime of having been born without a Y chromosome, for some, a life sentence punishable by death.

     

    President Obama, pre-election, helping out Senator Bayh in Indiana, with some more Mother-Omission:

    2006 – EVER TRYING TO RAM THROUGH ANOTHER BILL, FINE-TUNING & REDEFINING FATHERHOOD AND HEALTHY MARRIAGE

    As one of my fellow-bloggers commented in Indiana Mothers for Custodial Justice:  Evan Bayh is not his Father’s Son,

    Senator Evan Bayh’s (fatherhood-promoted) own father Senator BIRCH Bayh, was in favor of equal rights for women:  so much for a chip off the old block, and passing down values from father to son, politically.  

    According to this post (Verifiable Here) both Senator Evan and then-Senator Obama co-sponsored  YET ANOTHER “Healthy marriage and Responsible Fatherhood” bill, which was defeated in 2006.  

    Like this Senator, and another well-known FR attorney from the Chicago Area,  both the Senators also remembered all the Hoopla around Father’s Day, Fatherhood, Father Celebration, and etc., etc. (can we say “patriarchal?”) in June PR (June is Father’s Day month, FYI), but forgot the same on Mother’s Day, in May.  Actually, in 2009 and (I found) 2008, PR around now-President and then-Senator Obama eclipsed this acknowledgement of where they came from, literally (they  had mothers, right?), as the word “Mother” has become, as I blogged elsewhere, virtually invisible linguistically in connection with “families” on the whitehouse.gov site.  The preferred term, for those of you not in the know, is “Parent” when it comes to the divorce situation, and “Women” when it comes to who’s having violence (including murder) perpetrated against them by, often enough by the father of mutual children.

    ~ ~ ~ ~

    It is difficult to control a population aware of their “unalienable rights,” not intimidated by verbal derogatory talk, or economically dependent upon abusers or captive to them by the threat of death as they leave.  Now one factor that often gives a mother courage and motivation to LEAVE abuse is precisely her motherhood, so no wonder it would be threatening to any:

    Fear/Shame/Pride-based culture or religion.

    The mother/daughter/son bond, culturally needs to be degraded and broken (stepmothers will do) if we are to have a truly sheepish culture that will do what they are told without protest.  Family Court venue is GREAT for this, and I happen to believe was designed for the purpose, despite all the hoopla from under-funded (??), under-recognized (????????) fathers, especially those who like to minimize their own violence towards their own women, often prompting separation, which even that bill (above) recognizes is a primary cause of separation!

     

    @@@

    The link “parsing Obama” caught my attention, and led to an article from “Real Clear Politics” on the Cairo Speech.

    I have just written on “Women” vs. “Mother” and the weak (# occurrences) presence of both when it comes to Family Issues being discussed under the current US Administration’s “White House” page.  Not only were the words barely absent, but their usage (which I didn’t analyze and post — but noticed) was also weak.  In looking for the word “mothers” I would have to assume that after the age requiring home nurse visitations, we don’t exist.  For example, the President’s own mother was transformed into the word “parent” in a  sentence highlighting absence of a father.  To people who haven’t been through systemic prejudice against their “mothering” it may not register, but when examined, it’s blatant PR omission.  It undermines the credibility of the whole page.  (granted, the month was the month of Father’s Day, however, if someone has a record of this page during May and wishes to countradict my post, please feel free to comment).  

    SIMILARLY, when it comes to speaking in this nation, Egypt, the mention of Islamic violence (not bias, but violence) toward women, the omission is just as loud.

    So, I just slapped up the article, with someone else’s commentary on it, for your consumption.  Then I searched out and pasted up interviews, articles or book reviews from several women who do NOT Delicately skirt the issue of violence towards women, and hate talk in general.  Two of these women came to America, and one of them, since coming, has converted from Islam to Christianity.  

    A third woman from Rwanda didn’t convert, but was already Christian.  Her story isn’t about gender violence, but it was another “can’t put down” book of survival in the face of hate, and refusal to hate back.  The individual verbal abuse or hate talk that often DOES escalate to physical domestic violence got me (in marriage, after marriage) sensititve to moods and fluctuations in language that might indicate an “event” about to erupt also precedes genocides or attempted genocides.  The speech sometimes works the speaker or groups of speakers up, or justifies the abuse.  Whether the Holocaust or Rwanda, hate talk is a danger sign.  Just as PTSD from domestic violence does indeed have similarities with PTSD from actual war.

    So, this had me also noticing books and commentaries on the languages preceding genocides or attempted genocides; Rwanda had caught my attention earlier from the book on which the movie “Hotel Rwanda” was based.  This book details times when pastors protected, and times when pastors betrayed, those that were being hunted down.  So I include the “Left To Tell” book because it seems relevant.

    And I added my two bits.  And a few links indicating that this fatherhood stuff is turning to vigilante behavior, unfortunately.   And pointed out, again, what our Declaration of Independence was about….

    On my blogroll to the right, is a little Youtube showing just how low my President bowed, casually, quickly, to the leader of a Muslim country, in the company of Queen Elizabeth and a G20 meeting.  This disturbs me, and was of some serious debate in a blogtalkradio dialogue (as I recall the source, anyhow) moderated by Dr. Phyllis Chesler and Marcia Pappas of NYS NOW.  Is he the leader of the free world, or at least part of it?  Then what’s that obeisance about?  Would he kneel to the Pope to be politically correct, kiss the ring and insult all those boys and girls abused by priests, and the concept upon which this nation was founded, Bill of Rights Number I?  

    I myself am VERY disturbed at how domestic violence killings are starting to take on a vigilante nature, as if in retaliation to a woman leaving a family, or exposing a sin, how DARE she?  As a mature woman and mother who has been dumped by the roadside by a combination of my own family and my ex-batterer, apparently for — again, exposing family something or other — I am thinking about:  

    • How
    • Why
    • Who ARE these people?
    • What IS this world?

    How many OTHER myths have I believed about life, my country, my family, the legal system, etc.?  I will tell you one I have let go of:  “The American Dream.”  I have switched this my dream from anything material, and am changing it to a character issue, a personal one with myself.  

    I am calling upon the combination of my God (NOT the one that is a respecter of persons, or genders, or legalistically profiling and whimsical in judgment, that I have seen in certain places), and my courage, and putting my intellect a good bit lower, respectively, than it used to be.  Plus, from within, my emotions of concern and compassion for others, and whatever picture I can imagine.  Indignation about injustice only goes so far, and as the injustice basically never stops, another motivation must be found.

    I think part of the trouble around here is that people pretend to be neutral and detached (a high value) when they aren’t anything of the sort.  They can incite to violence, ride roughshod over families, due process, and civil rights, as easily as any other nation or culture, but claim this is based on “evidence-based practices.”  In one place on this post, I included a Rwandan woman — the issue was not on men versus women, but the same principles:  hate talk towards a certain group of people (Tutsis) and how quickly it ignited. 

    We have become an incredibly morally bankrupt place (as well as fiscally — and they are related), while drowning in certain materials and products.  However, the solution to this is not to be found in the institutions, but rather in the people who are aware that these institutions are not going to replace human basic functions of:  produce, protect, educate, alleviate, CREate (when it comes to arts, ideas, concepts, etc.), that which we have procreated.  If you’re new to this blog, you’ll notice that when I have a strong emotional reaction to a certain thing (or idea), I pile on labels, like sauce on a hamburger, or whipped cream on a milkshake, or, . . . . or. . . .    

     

    I was referring to the churches, some of which I left voluntarily, and one of which I got thrown out of last month for being female, having understanding of a Biblical passage, and speaking up (even with permission).  How dare I think I knew something!  

    See:

    Family Values” Pundits not so upstanding themselves.

     

    This is a new site to me:   REAL CLEAR POLITICS.  This dates to June 2009

    I simply posted the whole article.  Any italics are my emphasis, some (not all) of the other style changes are mine, too:

     

    Did Obama Say Enough About Women’s Rights?
    Posted by Cathy Young | Email This | Permalink | Email Author

     

    As I said in my previous post, I had a largely positive reaction to Obama’s Cairo speech.  However, I agree with David Frum’s criticsm of Obama’s comments about women’s rights — which should have been a key part of an “outreach to Muslims” speech.  In contrast to Obama’s strong affirmation of the principles of democracy, his discussion of women’s issues and Islam was too general, too weak, and afflicted with excessive even-handedness.

    {{with which “even handedness, as I have beLABORED in previous posts, the Whitehouse.gov agenda on families is not even remotely afflicted.  It flat out ignores the fact, practically, that mothers exist.  Period.}}

    Here is the passage in its entirety:  (OBAMA):

    “The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights

    “I know there is debate about this issue. {{“debate”?!?}} I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

    Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.

    {{EXCUUUUUSE me?  Is this or is this not a dodge, or an understatement?  Was there a political or safety reason for this understatement at this particular conference?

    http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/211/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence

    I have posted an excerpt below.  And photos.  OK, now you may continue reading President Obama’s speech…}}}}

     

    “In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

    Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”

    Frum takes issue, in particular, with Obama’s remarks about the head-covering issue: he points out that not only “some in the West,” but many women in the Muslim world regard the hijab as a symbol of female submission (not to God but to man), and that many women who “choose” to cover themselves (sometimes not only their hair but their face) do so because of coercion and intimidation either by family members or by radical Islamic militias.  I do believe Obama was right to affirm a woman’s right to choose hijab; quite a few Muslim feminists regard it as a legitimate and positive form of religious expression, no different from the Jewish yarmulke, and quite a few moderately traditional Muslims are alienated by the categorical rejection of the hijab as oppressive.  However,  it would have been fitting to balance his statement with an assertion of a woman’s right to choose not to cover their hair — a right that, in some countries, they are denied not only by informal pressure and harassment, but by law and official policy.

    As for the rest of this passage, it was nice of Obama to assert the importance of educational opportunities for girls and women, but that’s about as uncontroversial as it gets: who, except for the Taliban, disagrees?  In all too many Muslim countries, the main problems facing women are far more severe: forced marriage, vastly unequal treatment when it comes to divorce and child custody, and socially sanctioned violence.  How can one talk about women’s rights in the Muslim world and not mention honor killings?  Or the horrific recent public flogging by a Taliban militia in Pakistan of a 17-year-old girl whose apparent offense was to have stepped outside her house without a male relative escorting her?  Or cases in which Islamic courts have sentenced rape victims to death for fornication or adultery when the rape could not be proved under a stringent standard requiring two male witnesses?  (While we’re at it, how about the fact that in Islamic courts, the word of a female witness is officially given half the weight of a man’s?)  What about female genital mutilation?  Against the backdrop of these genuine horrors, literacy programs and micro-financing for young women’s employment look like a rather feeble response.   How about first ensuring that the girl who participates in a literacy program doesn’t get brutalized for showing a strand of hair in public?

    In this context, Obama’s comment that “the struggle for women’s equality” is also a problem in America is also, to say the least, unhelpful.  Yes, there are still gender disparities in the U.S., though I think many of them are due to, as Obama put it, women not making the same choices as men.  But to mention what sexism still remains in American society in the same breath as the violent misogyny and patriarchal oppression still pervasive in much of the Muslim world today is a truly misguided attempts at even-handedness.  It’s a bit like saying that of course it’s a bad thing that of course it’s a bad thing that Joe locks his wife in the closet, beats her senseless, forbids her to talk to any other man and monitors every penny she spends, but hey, Bill spends only half the time his wife does on housework and child care and treats his own career as more important than his wife’s, so if he voices disapproval of Joe he’d better mention his own failings too.

    Yes, of course it’s not only in Muslim countries that women face severe oppression.  (The issue of women being elected to lead in deeply patriarchal cultures is a separate, and fascinating, one, but I don’t think it’s a good measure of the overall status of women in society.)  And I know there is a vigorous debate about whether Islam is inherently more female-unfriendly than other major religions and whether an Islamic feminsm is possible.  Nonetheless, the fact remains that in recent decades we have seen a rollback of women’s rights in many societies — sometimes a drastic rollback — due to the influence of Islamic extremism.  Obama’s failure to mention this fact was extremely disappointing.  Talk about a missed opportunity.  In my previous post, I said that Obama’s comments on women’s rights deserved no more than a B-.  Analyzing them now, I’m lowering the grade to a gentleman’s C.

     

    I give it an “F.”  See below:

    PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE:  I PASTE ENOUGH TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET OVER THERE AND READ IT!

     

    Dr. Phyllis Chesler:

     

     

    Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence? (title is URL)

    by Phyllis Chesler
    Middle East Quarterly
    Spring 2009

     

    Families that kill for honor will threaten girls and women if they refuse to cover their hair, their faces, or their bodies or act as their family’s domestic servant; wear makeup or Western clothing; choose friends from another religion; date; seek to obtain an advanced education; refuse an arranged marriage; seek a divorce from a violent husband; marry against their parents’ wishes; or behave in ways that are considered too independent, which might mean anything from driving a car to spending time or living away from home or family. Fundamentalists of many religions may expect their women to meet some but not all of these expectations. But when women refuse to do so, Jews, Christians, and Buddhists are far more likely to shun rather than murder them. Muslims, however, do kill for honor, as do, to a lesser extent, Hindus and Sikhs.

     

    {{Everything underlined here, was an issue in my Western, non-Muslim marriage.  I snuck education.  I was stalked, through my own family and individually for leaving to the point that I have had major fear to finalize this divorce, and have not;  I experienced retaliation consistently of engaging in activities outside the home, specifically anything that related to my former profession.  This retaliation could come in the form of interfering with me getting out the door, or sabotage — allowing me to start, but making it hard to complete, a simple season’s engagement; complaining about or withholding funding for something as elementary as a simple black skirt and shirt to perform in; display of weapons immediately after returning from a rehearsal, leaving the car with insufficient gas to get back from one, and other night-mare-inducing behavior.  This extended also to times my daughters were engaged in music as well; UNBELIEVABLE.  I have watched my piano be physically attacked, buried under virtual trash, and then I was mocked for not practicing it enough, which I barely could find time to do in a day.  I left home once, with an infant, in another state, for a week.  I was given extra tasks to complete before leaving, and I came back to a house that was dangerously trashed –NO dishes had been done, broken glass on the floor (and we had a baby), and a special plant/bush I’d given him had not been watered, and was dead.  Food in pots was moldy; I was stunned.  In subsequent (to marriage) public times, in court, he repeatedly talked about the condition of the house, as if I didn’t also work, or was solely responsible.  I had an unbelievable time getting access to a car, which was resented.  

    Finally, when I was able to leave the family home for two weeks, for a music camp, with daughters, when I returned, I’d been thrown out of the bedroom, a lock installed, and in short, this was when I determined to leave.  These TYPES of activities continued, to this day, post-separation.  Every decision I made that entailed putting daughters in a music class, or lessons, was permitted reluctantly, but eventually stopped.  Then public declarations were made that I was isolating and depriving them.  I attended a VERY liberal Midwestern college, and as a young person, was not restricted or berated for anything regarding my gender.  The place I met this man was not illiberal — it ordained women, we preached in teams, and sometimes lived together.  

    During this marriage, I began to doubt that I was indeed in America.  I had never heard of any experience like this, or known anyone who had experienced a situation like this violence, and abuse.  Speaking of it to the variety of people I did, indeed, come in front of year after year, few of them had words to describe this thing that was happening to me.  To this day, my “liberal” relatives will not use the word “domestic violence” or “abuse” in front of me, practically, and appear to be furious that I have actually spoken in these terms and insisted that this is indeed what happened.  The denial has taken it beyond the legal terms — there has been, within my family — a literal denial that any of the laws to protect people from domestic violence exist, apply, or have anything to do with our case, or my many difficulties. Experientially, it needs a name.  Now, gradually, through blogging, networking, reading, talking — and I have not been through ANYthing like the women below here — I have come to understand that this is a serious moral / emotional / social crisis our country is in.  There are powerful political factors that HAVE to say the words “domestic violence” with their mouths, because the cat is out of the bag, and the horse is out of the barn.  BUT, they are diluting, reframing, derailing the conversation and attempting, in many and disturbing ways, to turn back the clock on this matter of women saying NO!  You can NOT do this! and saying it through the courts.

    Every woman has to determine how she is going to respond to this shunning, when women in our world survive, and are emotionally supported primarily through their connections with others.  that is the value that is respected (often) with American women.  We are in our communities, we have children  OR, we have careers, or juggle both.  For women of my age (middle, OK?) to have both lost children AND career, and contact with their family, but not be a radical feminist, is indeed interesting.  We can come into the church perhaps as ministers, acolytes (so to speak), or servants supporting its infrastructure.  I, for one, no longer care to support the infrastructure of anything so dysfunctional.  I consider myself to be courageous and independent (in certain ways), but there comes a burnout level.  I have PTSD, and when exposed to more “women, get thee behind me, Satan” talk in certain denominations (many of them), I simply have to speak up, then leave.  I will not hang out there.  At least I have a few options.  

    To survive abuse, sometimes, one has to become two people:  a public one and a private one.  This includes sometimes with one’s spouse.  At some level, my soul was not going to show itself any more, for another verbal beating for mere existence.  Instead, I took the verbal tirades for being, supposedly, apathetic, wimpy, not caring and passive.  Well, being anything else got me physically assaulted, or some other form of escalation, sometimes involving property destruction, or attack on pets.  Children were in the home.  I just couldn’t keep that up, and guess what:  No one was backing me up.  No one was confronting this man, really.  At the end of the day, I had to come home to sleep.  He began accumulating guns, and large knives.  I don’t use these, or know how to, and it wasn’t too long (although more than a year) after this that I realized — we had to separate.  I cannot tell you the level of shame and embarrassment I had, with or without children, having to hide my mail, ask strangers for rides, or a few $$ to put in the ggas tank (if I had a car).  One night, I got stranded late at night in a downtown urban area after my night job.  I took a ride with what might have been a drug dealer to get to a gas station.  My ex came and got me, but with the news that someone had run over the cat that day, my favorite one (I always found this suspicious timing).  The concern for my personal safety was at zero level.  I kept journals.  My journals were targeted, and I had to remove them from the home for safekeeping.  He went after, and befriended the people keeping them, I got them back.  

    NOW:  Now, I cannot live that dual personality way, and will not. When I go into a church and am expected to adopt a certain demeanor — I won’t.  It’s like violence to the soul.  I am one person:  I will tell someone (in my family) if I am upset with them, and why.

    The Court System:

    The Family Court system in this country has become a charade.  It rewards short-term performance in front of evaluators, mediators, judges, and other people.  No one really looks behind the scenes — there is no interest, time or resources to fully check facts.  For the most part.  This system rewards the batterer “snake” personality:  Charming, manipulative, dissembling.  Or, alternately, wounded and looking helpless.  I have seen a (female) judge leap to aid my ex, to the extent of testifying for him, as if he could not speak.  I have watched him interrupt an attorney and derail the direct question, and get away with this.  When I go to court, I am primarily PTSD, although I try pretty hard.  All such a person needs to do is get through the next appearance with some person in authority, get their way, and afterwards, do whatever they want.  

     

    There are too many similarities between the hypocrisies and coverups of fundamentalist religion, and what I see in these courts.  It is going to take women, feminist women, to address it.  The other factor is, in this court, children are involved.  We are  not always 100% on board with the radical feminist regimes.  I cannot tell you how many women in my situation, leaving batterers, losing their kids to stand by helplessly as their kids are showing symptoms of abuse, including child sexual abuse, are themselves religious.  Many of them, their husbands or partners specifically targeted them in these circles — because the environment is male-domination-friendly.  

    When I say in my posts, that churches are NOT havens for women leaving violence, or necessarily shelters for them, I am absolutely in earnest.  i hope, in my way, to be able to speak to this and do something about the shameful failure to support — or even SPEAK about — the laws against violence towards women, and children — in these venues.  They are in their own ether, with their own agenda, and their own intents.  I do not believe this is the genuine religion of, in my case, the man Jesus Christ as I read about him in scripture.  I read nothing about his abusive or dismissive treatment of women; in fact it is the opposite.  I think what we have now is a charade of that.  For the most part.  I don’t think most people have the guts to do what he did, but some do.

    (WOW — where did THAT come from?  Well, I’ll post.  I may erase some of it another day…..)

     

    Amina Said (L), 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead by their father Yaser at their home in Irving, Texas, in January 2008. Said was upset by his daughters’ “Western ways” and was assisted in the killing by his wife, the girls’ mother. The victims of honor killings are largely teenage daughters or young women. Unlike ordinary domestic violence, honor killings often involve multiple family members as perpetrators.

    Let’s Get Honest comments:

    In “ordinary domestic violence” family members could be either hostages, victims, OR enablers.  The truth is, it takes enablers for a PATTERN of domestic violence to thrive and grow.  There is denial, there is incompetence, there is scapegoating, there is helpless ignorance in what to do.  Many people in my culture have very strong emotions, but in certain classes and circles, this is not “socially acceptable.”  So they suppress them behind circuitous speech, evasive answers, or simply no answers.  When I got, out, I had some strong emotions (anger) as I began to stop hating myself (which was safer) and be angry.  My anger was noticed – his violence, and the danger this represented — was not.  I only recently simply decided to forgive, and do this entirely detached from any reason to, other than a decision, and a desire to be free from anger, and reactionary mode, which is typically either anger, or depression, when the insults, aggressions, etc. continue.  That’s how I am choosing to handle it at this point.  

    I am posting quite a bit here about Islamic violence towards women.  However, I am doing so with an understanding that forms of Protestantism (mainstream and nonmainstream) Christianity can still kill, destroy, and maim — physically and emotionally.  I am here to warn out country not to ignore this hate talk from governmental circles towards women.  In the lingo of domestic violence, denying it is a form of it (a.k.a. crazymaking).  Below, is a passage from “Infidel” about “baari.”  If I am able, I will find the passage from a Focus on the Family publication that sounds uncomfortably similar.  And I will say, the “shunning” and patronizing (social, psychological) takes a different form, but still exists, when a Christian woman throws out an abusive husband and then shows up in church unapologetic.  

    And expecting to be treated with respect. Or worse, looking for an opportunity to actually speak or teach the Bible (this was why I got thrown out of the last place, and I was entirely too submissive in that as well).  I finally came to the conclusion that it was safer outside those buildings.

    Another alarming trend, vigilante-style behavior  — AND TALK — around the issues of the family courts.  Continuing on the topic of Honor Killings, which was “skirted” nicely in the Cairo speech, above….

     

    The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 5,000 women are killed each year for dishonoring their families. This may be an underestimate. Aamir Latif, a correspondent for the Islamist website Islam Online who writes frequently on the issue, reported that in 2007 in the Punjab province of Pakistan alone, there were 1,261 honor murders. The Aurat Foundation, a Pakistani nongovernmental organization focusing on women’s empowerment, found that the rate of honor killings was on track to be in the hundreds in 2008.

    There are very few studies of honor killing, however, as the motivation for such killings is cleansing alleged dishonor and the families do not wish to bring further attention to their shame, so do not cooperate with researchers. Often, they deny honor crimes completely and say the victim simply went missing or committed suicide. Nevertheless, honor crimes are increasingly visible in the media. Police, politicians, and feminist activists in Europe and in some Muslim countries are beginning to treat them as a serious social problem…

    (SO WHY ISN”T OUR PRESIDENT?)

     

     

    PLEASE ALSO, READ THESE TWO BOOKS.  OK, THREE.  I DID.  I COULDN’T PUT THEM DOWN, IN FACT.  AND I FELT I WAS READING ABOUT MY OWN FAMILY.  I LIVE IN THE WEST.  I LIVE IN THE USA.  I DIDN’T EXPERIENCE, PHYSICALLY, AT ALL THE SAME AS THESE WOMEN.  WHY DID IT FEEL FAMILIAR?  

    I FEEL AS THOUGH OUR FAMILY HAS BECOME LIKE A POLYGAMOUS CULT, AND WE ARE A SMALL, NUCLEAR, PROFESSIONALLY INVOLVED FAMILY, ABOUT 3RD GENERATION IN THE COUNTRY.  NO ONE HAS BEEN JAILED.  WHY DID THE BEHAVIOR SOUND SO FAMILIAR, AND WHAT’S GOING ON?  I BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE EMOTIONAL, SPIRITUAL CONTENT OF THE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS THE SAME, FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE, EXPRESSED DIFFERENTLY.  HATE IS STILL HATE.

     

    This book, and woman, are so well-known, I don’t think there is too much to be added.  However, if not, READ.

    WIKIPEDIA:  (evidently not fully current)

    Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Nl-Ayaan Hirsi Ali.ogg pronunciation (help·info)Somali: Ayaan Xirsi Cali; born Ayaan Hirsi Magan 13 November 1969 in Somalia)[1]is a Dutch feminist, writer, and politician. She is the estranged daughter of the Somali scholar, politician, and revolutionary opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse. She is a prominent critic of Islam, and her screenplay for Theo Van Gogh‘s movieSubmission led to death threats. Since van Gogh’s assassination by a Muslim extremist in 2004, she has lived in seclusion under the protection of Dutch authorities.

    When she was eight, her family left Somalia for Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia, and eventually settled in Kenya. She sought and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, under circumstances that later became the center of a political controversy. In 2003 she was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). A political crisis surrounding the potential stripping of her Dutch citizenship led to her resignation from the parliament, and led indirectly to the fall of the second Balkenende cabinet.

    She is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, working from an unknown location in the Netherlands.[2][3] In 2005, she was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.[4] She has also received several awards for her work, including Norway’s Human Rights Service’s Bellwether of the Year Award, the Danish Freedom Prize, the Swedish Democracy Prize, and the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship.[5]

     

    HERE IS A LINK TO A 2007 Interview (NY Mag Review of Books).  “The Infidel Speaks,” by Boris Kachka, Feb. 4, 2007

     

    SHE SAYS SOME EXTRAORDINARILY RELEVANT THINGS.

    I THINK IT EXTRAORDINARLY REMARKABLE THAT MY PRESIDENT DIDN’T MENTION MUCH ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN, OR ANY OF THESE EXTRAORDINARY ONES, WHEN VISITING A MUSLIM COUNTRY.  NOTE (AS TO “CAIRO SPEECH”), NONIE DARWISH, BELOW, FLED EGYPT FOR THE USA, AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY.  HER YOUTUBE AND A PARTIAL INTERVIEW IS BELOW (SO LABELED:  THIS IS THE SOMALIAN SWEDISH AMERICAN WOMAN HERE:

     

     To her admirers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a maverick, bravely defying the Netherlands’ political correctness to address Europe’s growing cultural rifts. To detractors, she’s a charismatic bomb-thrower with as little regard for her adopted nation’s safety as for her own. Both sides would have to admit that the former Somali-Dutch politician is a master of self-reinvention. After a rough childhood (circumcision, daily beatings) in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia, she escaped to Holland from a forced marriage, eventually joined the Dutch Parliament as a Muslim criticizing her own culture, and made a provocative film with Theo van Gogh that got him killed and sent her into hiding.

    This is why I think that, just perhaps, President Obama might have been a little remiss to simply not address this issue in a Muslim nation.  Nonie Darwish’s father was killed in jihad, and she left Egypt for the US.  Now here is an American leader back in Egypt, speaking on this topic, and nothing substantial?

    When a rival threatened to revoke her citizenship, the resulting furor toppled the governing coalition. But Ali just moved on, resigning and moving to Washington, D.C., where she now works for the American Enterprise Institute. It’s all retold in her eloquent new memoir, Infidel. Stopping by Soho House recently, she spoke with New York about life and politics in her latest adopted land.

      

    You’ve been here for six months. How do you like the U.S.? 
    That is the question they all ask! I love it. The most comforting thing is the anonymity. I’m not allowed to talk about security—to tell you who in this room is security and who is not—but the pressure cooker of Holland is over. I am now just one individual in the melting pot.

     

    You’re at a conservative think tankperhaps an odd place for a harsh critic of religion in political life. 
    I consider myself nonpartisan, but I’m a liberal—not in the American sense, because Americans seem to refer to communists as liberals. What we see in Europe, because of the welfare state, is government pretending to provide all sorts of services they shouldn’t be providing.

     

    Let’s Get Honest comment:  My point EXACTLY, in many of these posts! 

    But what do you make of Christian conservatives in your ranks? 
    No one in the American Enterprise imposes their beliefs. We clash, and I think that’s what the West is all about.

     

    But you’re with them on the whole “clash of civilizations” thing? 
    When I was in Holland, the idea was, all cultures are equal and all are to be preserved. My idea was, no, all humans are equal but not all cultures are equal. In the culture of my parents, we never seemed to be able to succeed in such basic issues as getting food, interacting and living in peace with each other, or adapting to our environment, and the West, they’ve succeeded in all those. I’d been taught Western culture’s only bad. Maybe that’s good for your self-esteem, but it wasn’t taking us anywhere.

    This woman comes from WHERE?  And she understands the Declaration of Independence (principles) better than we do?  It’s not the CULTURE, it’s the HUMANS:

    When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

    THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENTS.  NOT DISHING OUT HAPPINESS AND HEALTH, BUT SECURING THOSE RIGHTS!

    That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

     

    LOCALLY SPEAKING, SOME WOMEN NEED TO DISBAND THEIR FAMILY UNIT, TO SECURE THEIR SAFETY.  WHO THE HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO UNDERMINE THAT DECISION BY GOVERNMENTAL DECREE, AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE FATHERHOOD RESOLUTIONS, GRANTS, INITIATIVES, AND TASK FORCES ??  ???  

    THE MAIN QUESTION IN THESE MATTERS IS WHETHER OR NOT WOMEN ARE INCLUDED IN THE INCLUSIVE NOUN “MEN”  NOW, WOMEN HAD TO FIGHT FOR THIS, BUT IN 1920, AFTER SLAVES, WE MANAGED TO GET THE RIGHT TO VOTE.  THIS WOMAN CAME FROM A RELIGION, THE NAME OF WHICH MEANT, “SUBMIT.”  THE NAME OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, PER DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM GREAT BRITAIN, ABOVE, IS IN ESSENCE, PERMIT.

    NOW AS TO FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES, I’D LIKE TO CITE THE PRIMARY CHRISTIAN VERSE USED TO JUSTIFY WIFE-BEATING:  


     

     

    You’ve dismissed accusations that you’re lashing out because of childhood traumas. So why write a memoir graphically detailing the abuse you and your siblings suffered? 
    It became important to say, “Okay, you guys keep accusing me of using my past. Let me tell you my story, and my story shows that I do not blame the death of my sister on Islam. I do not blame female genital mutilation on Islam.” My whole awakening was triggered by the eleventh of September, and it did not affect only me, it affected a lot of people.

     

     

    Do you regret certain things you said about Muhammad—like that he was a pervert and a tyrant? 
    I don’t regret that. I’m still convinced that for Muslims to integrate fully into modern society, we cannot avoid discussing the prophet. We didn’t only deal with communism militarily, but we said it is a bad idea. The works of Karl Marx were discussed.

     

     

    Maybe academia would have been a better—and less dangerous—venue. 
    Politics is not a good thing for me. But I wanted to bring out the issue of Muslim treatment of women in Holland, and I could only accomplish that in Parliament. If I had been a professor, it would just have disappeared in a cabinet.

     

     

     

     

    “the Territory that is now Somalia was divided between the British and the Italians, who occupied the country as colonizers, splitting it in two.  In 1960 the colonizers left, leaving behind a brand-new, independent state.  A unified Somalia was born.”  

    Page 12 of her book “”Of course my mother had no right to a divorce under Muslim law.”  “a woman who is baari is like a pious slave

     

    “If in the process of baari you feel grief, humiliation, and everlasting exploitation you hide it.  If you long for love and comfort you pray in silence to Allah to make your husband more bearable

     

    Page 13 of her book

     

     

     

    AND:

    “They call me infidel”. Ex-Muslim Christian Nonie Speaks out

    This was of interest to me because the author had experienced a regime change within her home country, and then come to America and experienced a change of religion.  So she spoke of the qualitative differences.

     (11/20/2006)

    Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish is “too controversial” to speak at Brown University, where her invitation to speak was just taken back. The title of her new book about says it all Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror . Good luck with that one. Here, where we’ve been attacked by jihadists, we don’t like to hear about the enemy we face.

    (THIS IS AN INTERVIEW.  EXCERPTS, HERE:)

    LOPEZ: Are the majority of Muslim women oppressed? What can be done for them?

    DARWISH: The majority of Muslim women are oppressed and that is due to Islamic sharia law which severely discriminates against women. Even the most educated and powerful Muslim women are faced with a legal system that is very discriminatory against women. Muslim women start the marital relationship from a weaker position. The Muslim marriage contract itself is unfair to women because Muslim men can add three more wives if he wishes. That changes the dynamic of husband/wife relationship even if a Muslim man does not exercise this right. Polygamy has a devastating impact on families. There are chronic social ills and tragedies stemming from this single right.

    The court system is designed to oppress women, without a doubt.
     

    {{Commentary:  I read her book.  She talks about how polygamy (one man, many women) pollutes relationships not just between the man and the woman, but also between women:  backbiting, whispering, intrigue.  I remembered my own case, which has many women involved in protecting a single man, vigorously defending his behavior, which was criminal, as though it were honorable, and I were the criminal for speaking up.  I could not put this book down, asking WHY? does this sound like my family?  I think these are spiritual issues, and that while the West does NOT endorse polygamy, within the court systems, at least, many of these dynamics are at play — first wives, second wives, etc.  They are used against each other, undermining ALL women.  }}

    LOPEZ: How prevalent is “honor killing”?

    DARWISH: According to Islamic law sex outside marriage is prohibited and the penalty for that is often death. The woman is always to blame because she is regarded as the source of the seduction. Muslim men’s honor is dependent on their women’s sexual purity. It does not matter how honorable the character of the Muslim man; but if his female relatives commit any sexual taboos, Muslim society will dishonor him. Arab culture is based on pride and shame** and a Muslim man cannot survive with this kind of shame unless he kills the source of that shame which is the female relative who have had sex outside of marriage. It is not known how common this crime of honor killing happens since it is often goes unreported and the police often looks the other way, but I believe it is common in certain parts of the Muslim world if the girl is discovered to be no longer a virgin or pregnant. That is why most girls in the Middle East remain virgins till marriage and there are very few births out of wedlock in the Middle East.

    {{**I am concerned about the culture of “manhood” in the west being based on the same things.  It is not a good basis.  I also believe that, despite the level of indoctrination being nothing of the like, this same BASIS of education in the U.S. exists — and that is not a good basis for human behavior.  Rather, how much better, to respect accomplishment in a variety of life situations.  But school is NOT a variety of life situations, it is ONE of life’s many situations.  To teach people to be puffed up, or feel inferior, based on their grade performances (although it is good to study and learn, and be able to have those skills), is simply wrong.  How much better to be, rather engaged in the process of learning, and let that be the intrinsic reward.  We will have better people.  

    I believe (opening up a bit here) that what happeend to me in music was, I was allowed to be more expressive, and less analytical, also less about, producing a grade.  I didn’t value grades — already had them.  They did nothing for me socially and weren’t hard enough to earn.  They di dnot increase my sense of self-worth at all, as an adolescent.  I learned to be ashamed about things that had no basis in shame, including my (good) grades, and so forth.  The act of going to and from a classroom is not exactly a major accomplishment in life.  The ability to help others learn to do something, or to engage as a human being; to build something, to design something, to perform something.  But to fill in the correct multiple choice answers on a test sheet according to data you were fed in a textbook?  That’s nothing; it’s for the convenience of the school comparing you to everyone else.  . . . ..  I remember failing on purpose, just to see what it felt like.  I still graduated at the top of my (public high school class).  The skills needed in college were entirely different.  Thank God, there were pianos and there was singing, which led to different types of social interactions.

    I believe that what I noticed about this book was when she spoke about the intense hatred, rivalry and bitter suspicious, ongoing, between women in particular.  I have been dealing with this for the many years since I left my ex-husband, after the difficulties while dealing personally with him in the home.  It really is wearing to the soul, and saddening.  I am still seeking and believing for some of these family issues to resolve, but I feel sad when I see that, for the sake of eradicating my world view and values, my children were, literally, uprooted from contact with me, as if I might contaminate them somehow, with self-confidence, and the courage to be different.  The courage to expect a woman to have equal legal rights to a man, in America, our country.  So far, “NO DEAL”!!}}}}

    LOPEZ: What’s it like to be a journalist in Egypt? Worse than life under the Patriot Act?

    DARWISH: I was a journalist in Egypt in the early seventies when I worked at the Middle East News Agency in Cairo, Egypt. I was an editor, translator, and censor. As a censor I decided what was to be allowed for publication and what was not allowed. Egyptian media outlets at the time were controlled more or less by the government. Journalists were not really journalists in the Western sense of looking to expose government corruption and internal problems; they were more concerned in blaming the outside world. Military information was totally off limits in reporting. I once said to a fellow journalist that I met a Jew in one of my trips and that that was the first time I met a Jew. The colleague warned me that Arab journalists who communicate with Jews in foreign countries come back to Egypt in a box. Very few Arab journalists were even aware of the true role of media in a society. As to Western life under the Patriot Act, I think it the opposite Arab government controlled Media. In the West it has often become Media controlled government where freedom of the Press (having too much of a good thing) often comes before other important things in Western society, such as for example national security. Sometimes Western media has no tolerance for any restrictions and that can help America’s enemies.

    LOPEZ: 
    What made you leave Egypt?

    DARWISH: I always regarded America as the land of hope, equality, and opportunity and that was my motivation. I also wanted to leave the Middle East with its problems, its jihad, its pride, anger, and anti-Semitism and above all the constant state of war with Israel.

    I CAUTION, the United States of America, I CAUTION them to monitor the “us/them” mentality in every area of life.  I CAUTIOn them to keep a lit on this vigilante return to Fatherhood, and the farming out of any conscience, guidance, and education of their young to anyone such as those in those in the Executive Branch of Government, who are presently engaged in establishing, on one hand a national religion (through a variety of means) and on the other hand, a totalitarian system in which choice is the heresy.  Opting out of government involvement in the basic processes of life is a heresy.

    There are aspects in which the fatherhood movement — as practiced, reminds me of the KKK.  It is the same type of hate speech.

    I am going to talk about another, very uncomfortable genocide I have read in some detail about (it just came up, and I continued reading, OK?  It’s what I DO!)  Rwanda.  This is of interest to me because some churches protected, and some betrayed.  Here is a personal, amazing story I ran across.  Again, it is told by a woman:

     

    LEFT TO TELL

     

     

    In 1994, Rwandan native Ilibagiza was 22 years old and home from college to spend Easter with her devout Catholic family when the death of Rwanda’s Hutu president sparked a three-month slaughter of nearly one million ethnic Tutsis. She survived by hiding in a Hutu pastor’s tiny bathroom with seven other starving women for 91 cramped, terrifying days. This searing firsthand account of Ilibagiza’s experience cuts two ways: her description of the evil that was perpetrated, including the brutal murders of her family members, is soul-numbingly devastating, yet the story of her unquenchable faith and connection to God throughout the ordeal uplifts and inspires. This book is a precious addition to the literature that tries to make sense of humankind’s seemingly bottomless depravity and counterbalancing hope in an all-powerful, loving God.”
    -Publisher’s Weekly, Starred Review, March 2006

     

    We all ask ourselves what we would do if faced with the kind of terror and loss that Immaculée Ilibagiza faced during the genocide in her country. Would we allow fear and desperation to fill us with hatred or despair? And should we survive, would our spirit be poisoned, or would we be able to rise from the ashes still encouraged to fulfill our purpose in life, still able to give and receive love? In the tradition of Viktor Frankl and Anne Frank, Immaculée is living proof that human beings can not only withstand evil, but can also find courage in crisis, and faith in the most hopeless of situations. She gives us the strength to find wisdom and grace during our own challenging times.” 
    -Elizabeth Lesser, co-founder of the Omega Institute, and author of Broken Open: How Difficult Times Can Help Us Grow

    “Left to Tell is for anyone who is weary of the predictable “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” trance most of the world suffers from. Immaculée Ilibagiza breaks that spell by bravely quelling the storm within, and contacting a force so powerful that it allows her to calm the storm “without,” and more important, to forgive the “unforgivable.” Her story is an inspiration to anyone who is at odds with a brother, a nation, or themselves.”
    -Judith Garten, teacher and counselor of The 50/50Work© and a child of the WWII Holocaust

     

     

     

    (As far as I got on this post July 2, 2009

    %d bloggers like this: