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 ‘family annihilation

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017)

with 5 comments

POST TITLE IS: 

Substance-Poor, Repetition-Rich: Parsing ~ Parent Coordination ~ Rhetoric ~ and some Organizations..(Publ. Dec. 14, 2011, updated (format) Oct. 30, 2017) (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ends “-WN”

My practice of adding borders and listing the post title with shortlink is more recent.

Currently this post is NOT listed on any Table of Contents (my lists only go as far back as Sept. 2012)…I see that many of the logos will not display, and that this post as written was about 10,000 words long. This update made only because a basic search on the blog for an organization I’m writing about again brought it up. (Update this time is only minimal format changes for easier reading; is not in detail and doesn’t include fixing broken links/missing logos, or more recent information on the organizations referenced).//LGH Oct. 30, 2017.


INTRO:

Overall, I seriously doubt that it’s possible to clean up or straighten up the family law system — at all, and I am utterly serious in saying this.  There is too much incentive for fraud, and too much need to “pay the mortgages” in the courthouses by ordering more services, and too little oversight and tracking of the funding.  There are too many public employees forming nonprofit corporations to franchise for-profit curricula (marriage, parent education, etc.) — in the old NonProfit/ForProfit combo.

There are too few tools in many states to track WHO is repeatedly forming corporations that go belly-up, only to have a partner or other person formerly on one board just go forth and from another one — in another state.   Many of these groups, as my last post showed, are membership organizations — membership is charged, conferences run, and we have some evidence from county payrolls or vouchers from court-connected professionals, that the public is billed to fund attendance at nonprofits whose ONE purpose is to expand their services.  Child support is one of the worst of these, but they come in all flavors.

Despite the bleak outlook — I still report and I am going to finish reporting on this field of Parent Coordination until it is CLEAR what the AFCC professionals’ intent is in establishing this field and, if possible, having it legitimized at the state level by establishing standards, or by mandate.

The Association for Family and Conciliation Courts runs many task forces at a time, as part of its strategic plan to expand (itself) and transform the “old” language of criminal law into more friendly-to-its-practitioners concepts.    One of them which they are taking VERY seriously in promoting — and I take VERY seriously in protesting — is Parenting Coordination.

Parents didn’t ask for this — it’s no grassroots movement, and from what I can tell how it’s been (1) advertised (2) pushed and (3) practiced — there’s no genuine NEED for it either.  For that matter, I see no historical record that parents as a sector (both male and female) asked for the family law system, either.

Why I’m addressing it — again:   

(1) AFCC PROMOTED IT – NOT PARENTS.  NO REAL NEED EXISTED, and SERIOUS ISSUES & OBJECTIONS AS THEY DID.

The LizLibrary lists a page of them, and towards the bottom, some legal opinions, too:  Parenting Coordination:  A Bad Idea

Here’s less than half the list — and so far I agree with ALL of them.  Thank you, Liz (Kates, the FL Family Law attorney, not Richards, of NAFCJ.net)
© 1996-2011 argate.net        frcp:

  • Parenting coordination is an inappropriate delegation of the judicial function
  • Parenting coordination is an impediment to court access
  • Parenting coordination is a denial of due process
  • Parenting coordination violates privacy
  • The parenting coordinator concept encroaches on family liberty interests
  • Parenting coordination represents arbitrary dictate by a person, in denigration of rule of law
  • Parenting coordination is a make-work role newly invented by psychology trade promotion groups
  • No studies indicate parenting coordinators make good decisions
  • No studies indicate parenting coordination improves families’ lives or child wellbeing.
  • Nothing qualifies a stranger to make family decisions for other people
  • Nothing qualifies a mental health professional to interpret a court order or legal document
  • Nothing qualifies a lawyer to play at being an unlicensed, unregulated therapist for hire
  • Nothing qualifies any third party to “fill in the gaps” in someone else’s contract
  • There is no definition of what constitutes a successful parenting coordination
  • Parenting coordination does not, in the long run, alleviate court docket congestion
  • It creates additional issues and leaves the door open for return trips to resolve them
  • Parenting coordination provides a new forum for squabbling over petty disputes
  • Parenting coordination is an additional expense that many can ill afford
  • Parenting coordination enables one parent to spend the other’s funds
  • Parenting coordination is time-consuming and tedious
  • Parenting coordination is not confidential
  • Parenting coordination constitutes continuous government discovery, 4th Amendment
  • Parenting coordination constitutes continuous discovery by each parent into the affairs of the other
  • Parenting coordination can never be “voluntary” because it implements unwanted court orders
  • Parenting coordinators demand that the parties sign “consents” that give up constitutional rights
  • Some have demanded that parties give up the right to go to court, contact police, or involve their lawyers
  • They are hired or appointed under shadow of the threat of court sanctions or loss of custody
  • They are agreed to by parties ignorant of the repercussions, in fear, out of funds, or overwhelmed
  • Parenting coordination does not result in increased family well-being
  • Parenting coordination does not make children happier, healthier, or better adjusted
  • Parenting coordination is not therapy but coercion backed by the state’s police power
  • Parenting coordinators tend to be hostile to, and at odds with attorney-client relationships
  • They align with GALs and other court appointees in a pretext of “focus on the children”
  • They encroach on parental-child relationships and decision-making
  • They undermine the parental authority children require for a sense of security and well-being
  • Instead of at least one authoritative parent, children have no authoritative parent
  • Petty tyrants place a premium on the perception of who is cooperating with them
  • Cooperation with the parenting coordinator is court-ordered and
  • They alone decide if a parent is “cooperating” with them

From the same page, a case “Parenting Coordinator Out of Control” — and I have to note that it’s an appeal from an order at the FL (presumably 20th) Circuit Court Level bearing Judge Hugh Starnes‘ name!

The Hon. Hugh Starnes showed up in yesterday’s post, where I was simply blogging an AFCC judge, and also his nonprofit in FL with the initials AFLP (logo on the post).  I also happen to know he was quite active in FL-AFCC Chapter establishment, which seemed to have the primary agenda of getting parenting coordination passed in Florida.  They have since succeeded, I believe, too.
Like I keep saying — sometime others will acknowledge — parenting coordinators are themselves pushy, and AFCC pushed Parenting Coordination, in fact they are one set of bullies when it comes to getting THEIR priorities into practice, then law – citing it’s already in practice anyhow.
This is primarily what AFCC does.  From the organization’s point of view, this is phrased as “innovative” and “helping” and “problem-solving.”  The problem (sic) is always the recalcitrant parents, and the UNFORTUNATE vestiges of separation of powers (legal/judicial/executive branch) and little details like confidentiality in a lawsuit, and legal restraints.
Here’s a link to Parentcoordination.com’s complaint about the legal limits part – and their plan of PC as an end-run around those limits!   {{It looks like I didn’t post that link, or it wasn’t saved to final… unless it’s shown in the DVLeap 2010 brief.}}

“The Court’s parenting coordinator orders unconsitutionally delegate judicial power and violate due process… The Special Master Order’s requirement that Appellant pay for the parenting coordinators to whom she objects violates law and public policy… The Special Master Order requiring Appellant to waive her medical privilege violates her statutory and constitutional rights to privacy…”

AFCC could care less.  They DEMANDED it and are still finishing up trying to get this mandated in every single United State.

  •  Even the brother of the Marriage Promotion President, the “Family” family, George Bush — as Governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, FL (2004) had the sense to object based on sound principles.  A newly formed (probably for this purpose) chapter of AFCC strategized, lobbied, publicized, practiced, and finally managed to ram it through, over his veto.  It only slowed them down slightly.

June 18, 2004   

Ms. Glenda E. Hood Secretary of State Florida Department of State

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.

 

  • He lists 5 objections, two of which clearly recognize that it in effect allows a parent coordinator to function as both judge and jury of parents’ or children’s rights, and one of which is that it fails to protect victims of domestic violence.   I also note from the language that it looks like a Committee (not the general legislature) attempted to have this substitute for an existing Senate Bill. . . . . 

(2) The “Termini/Boyan Factor” —

  • The People fixed on training parent coordinators have a terrible track record when it comes to staying incorporated(I found another one today — Seminars for Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals, or “SAIF.”  Formed in 2006, it’s already behind in its filings, in the state of Indiana. And it appears that, again, a nonprofit/for-profit combo, originating not with litigants, but with the professionals, was set up to give (again) some family law attorneys the right to crow about their own parent coordination training seminars they helped run themselves.  By and large, that seems to be the situation in Indiana — which it seems New Hampshire liked a lot, too. Termini/Boyan are Georgia/Pennsylvania — but same general idea.

(3) The language of “parent coordination” is impoverished and repetitive.

Here’s an example, from a family law attorney, a bona-fide certified one  (although the nonprofit membership she cites all over is anything but “bona-fide” when it comes to filing charitable returns in the home state!)

It’s even from an Amicus Brief (I THINK it got filed, although this isn’t the stamped version). Actually, this is where the title to my post came from:

 

CASE NO. C064475

SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. 34-3009-80000359

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

__________________

RANDY RAND, ED.D. Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGY, Defendant and Respondent. __________________

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FAMILY LAW SPECIALISTS __________________

Face sheet as posted at CaliforniaParentingCoordinator.com (using link from this 12/14/2011 post).

[Three images, inside blue borders, added in 2017 update.  See also their list Table of Authorities].

 

In the statute of authorities for this brief, bearing the name “Leslie Ellen Shear” and “Stephen Temko” (although the certificate of interested parties form bears the name Shear, and is dated 1/27/2011), after the legal and rules of court list, comes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents from Amicus Brief (source url shown on gray window-frame at top of image).

 

 

 

“Treatises, Law Reviews and Other Authorities” – and on reading it, I see it quotes, among others:

  • The nonprofit ACFLS (which she’s head of Amicus Brief Committee on, or was)
  • AFCC itself (at least twice)
  • A host of people, known to be AFCC professionals anyhow, for those who pay attention — such as Ahrons, Coates, Deutch, Greenberg, Kelly, and who knows about some of the others.  These quotations include those from the AFCC publication, Family Court Review (joint with “Hofstra Univ. School of Law”) and AFCC newsletters, etc.
  • Herself, like 3 times, in:
    • Shear (2008) In Search of Statutory Authority for Parenting Coordinator Orders in California: Using a Grass-roots, Hybrid Model Without an Enabling Statute 5 Journal of Child Custody 88…………………………………………..5, 18, 25  (cited on page 5, 18 & 25).

(I’m also adding this quote in 2017 update, from the Amicus Brief):

ACFLS’s purposes in appearing as amicus are to protect and perfect the parenting coordination service model in California family courts, discuss the implications of the issues raised in this case for the future of parent coordination in California, and address the implications of those issues for other family court appointed neutrals including but not limited to child custody evaluators4, minors’ counsel appointed per Fam. Code §3150 et seq., mediators, therapists, members of collaborative family law teams, and other court appointed or connected quasi-judicial dispute resolution professionals.

In other words, to protect her own kind….

 

Note title — trying to legislate parenting coordination.

Another set of professionals tried to write “Kids Turn” into law around 2002, right? (see my “Kicking Salesmanship Up a Notch post.”) then-Governor Gray Davis (properly!) vetoed even the version of it put out which didn’t overtly say “Kids’ Turn” on its face.

So here’s a sample section of this Amicus:

On page 4, quoting AFCC person Greenberg (whose writing I also ran across) cites who came up with the idea, vaguely characterized as:

In 1994, the concept of parenting coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who realized that some high conflict families remained chronically mired in conflict and required something different. . . For these families, the traditional tried and true approaches to containing familial conflict such as litigation, mediation, forensics, and therapy had not worked. Thus, the concept of parenting coordination was conceived as a different and needed dispute resolution intervention.

(Tried and True?  [is that really an appropriate phrase for use in an amicus brief?]

Try “Tried and found seriously wanting.”  Don’t believe me?  Look here.  I’ve already mentioned the Seal Beach (CA) massacre enough times, so here’s one fresh off the press — like YESTERDAY, in Florida.  Actually, it seems there’s an acquiescent mother in this one: even after Dad murdered the son, the surviving children (including one witness to that murder) miss their Daddy.  And they shouldn’t even be supervised, but be able to go to events like church, sports, etc.

Sounds like perhaps this is a stepfather (or second family) situation here, judging by age of the children.  And the shooter was a retired police officer!

Dad accused of killing son wants custody rights to surviving kids; judge lets him have unsupervised contact (Orlando, Florida)

POSTED: 5:56 pm EST December 13, 2011
UPDATED: 6:45 pm EST December 13, 2011

ORLANDO, Fla. — A former Orlando police officer accused of killing his son was back in court, arguing for custody rights to his other children. 

Timothy Davis Sr. won a victory of sorts Tuesday when a judge granted him the ability to pick up his younger children from school, including his 9-year-old daughter who authorities said witnessed the killing.

The retired police officer is accused of shooting his son, 22-year-old Timothy Davis Jr., to death at their Apopka home in what he said was self-defense after his son attacked him, injuring his knee in October.

Here’s another involving 3 children, and a custody hearing, plus prior assaults on the child and wife.

Dad managed to get himself shot (to death) after apparently attacking a state trooper.  I do not call this ‘tried and true.”  This was an American military, married in Germany, but the divorce action  appears to be HERE. He also was Marine Corps.

Here’s one from Texas; 40 year old father, who apparently had custody? (or certainly unsupervised visitation), emails nude pictures of his 12 year old daughter.   This man was living with his mother who, thankfully, was honest enough to do something about her pervert son, although somehow the courts weren’t alert to this in custody decisions:

by KHOU.com staff

khou.com
Posted on December 8, 2011 at 8:58 PM

KATY, Texas – A 40-year-old father is facing charges for allegedly distributing nude photos of his 12-year-old daughter online.

According to court documents, the suspect was living with his daughter at his mother’s house in Katy when the offenses occurred.

Investigators said that in August of 2011, the suspect’s mother found emails sent from the suspect’s gmail account that contained nude images of children.   Some of those images were of the suspect’s daughter, the grandmother said.

Sorry to bring up this very unpleasant reality-check, but when in Amicus Brief a parent-coordinator pusher talks about previously tried methods that work — the definition of “works” or “tried and true” apparently / generally just means “tried, sometimes resulting in death, physical or sexual abuse of minors post-separation, or having minor children showing up in child pornography in father’s possession.”  All of these were from December 2011 news articles, only.

Keep these incidents for a point of reference while I quote from p.12, a whole chapter on how parent coordinators have such difficult parents to deal with, “poor them”:

 

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage.** These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.

Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Families 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

**Difficult-to manage parents are the bread and butter of the family court.  They are the income producers.  Assigning them to parent coordination is yet one more source of income for the professionals, taken from either the parents, or (looks like there’s some effort to make even broke parents participate in this too — AFCC-CA has a workshop or presentation, on the 2012 hearing on this).

Perhaps the professionals in question should re-think the business of “managing parents” to start with.

So, the opening quote to this chapter is from two long-time AFCC professionals (Coates/Deutsch) in an AFCC publication?, although it’s only 2004, using an AFCC-originated concept and term, “high-conflict families” (although I hear Bill Eddy now says they are high-conflict individuals — see my post on “yet another AFCC wet dream.” and his High-conflict Institute….)

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to re- turn to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs,* and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

* perhaps this speaks to the quality of the co-parenting educational programs, more than the parents.

* or perhaps they are pissed at being forced to take co-parenting classes to start with, not mentioning affected if they also have to pay.

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents.

A casual dismissal of whether it’s just one — or both — parents here.  We KNOW that many of these cases — not just some — are in fact cases involving danger, abuse, and etc.   These cases do NOT belong in family court at all — but they are there because of greed of professionals, and because of the fatherhood movement (backlash to feminism) that incentivizes and insists that single motherhood is bad for kids.  For that matter, even if Mom remarries happily, it’s still supposedly bad for the world if biological father isn’t in his kids’ life.

In short — Ms. Shear and Mr. Temko (whoever drafted this) — are, with their colleagues — unable to literally distinguish between one parent and another when discussing “parents” in front of others who have some privilege (like a statutory justification) or grant to give them.

BUT — their own handbooks, and some appellate cases already involving parenting coordination, show clearly that they are QUITE able to distinguish one parent from another, and not only do, but literally plan how to, target mothers, specifically, for badmouthing and possible intervention in the form of getting the kids away from her.  (I have two links to parent coordination handbooks on this post, you can check them out.).

The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997).

You can’t see it here, but on the pdf it shows:  in this quote, we have a triple-layer AFCC site.  I believe Johnston is probably Janet Johnston (AFCC Board, or was).  Kelly, (below) who’s being quoted in the section, if it’s Joan B. Kelly, has been called the “grande dame” of AFCC and mediation promotion in the family law courts.  She runs a Northern California Mediation Center, and obviously publishes too.   And Shear is AFCC.  So — if so — that represents:

AFCC Shear quotes AFCC Kelly quoting AFCC Johnston, as to parent coordination, which is an AFCC idea.  (this is FAR more common than most people — who are less obsessive about looking things up than me — realize.  I have labored through some pretty detailed writings (NYState) where when they ran out of ideas, they simply restated them, and I literally read ALL the footnotes too, most of which were “ibid.”   

Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150

I don’t know how to state this clearly enough.  The difficulty any professional has — who by definition holds an option to quit the profession (which they chose) in dealing with a ‘difficult client” is no comparison with the difficulty of dealing — year after year thanks to policies — with an “ex” who has threatened to kidnap or kill, who has beaten one before, or who may be and/or has molested children, possibly one’s own (dep. on the case) before.   Suppose the shoe was on the other foot?  Again, if professionals don’t like the difficulty they have an option — find another line of work.

But thanks to their insistence on THIS line of work, i.e., at public AND private expense, and explicit danger to the communities — almost no parent — and I’m going to say mother, specifically– can actually get free from real criminals they’ve had children with, even when he’s already in jail.

I know of one case where the person has already done time in an unbelievably severe situation, and this mother/daughter who already went through hell — is being stalked again.  Until she’s safe, I’m not naming names, but once she is/they are, I will – because this case was high-profile and has been in the news.

One point of view is dealing with comfort, and potential burnout, in the performance of one’s duties that have internationally networked, federally-funded, county-judicial-level endorsed, and more — support groups.  The other is of staying alive, housed, and after that, functional and employed at all.

If one continues to read the Amicus, it continues to complain and blame.  The next quote by Shear is of Shear.  Here’s a little further on in the Amicus:

Parenting coordination is a very intrusive model, inserting state authority into the daily family lives of parents and children. With those intrusive powers comes a duty to exercise restraint, discretion and wisdom.

This work often creates the perfect storm. Parenting coordinators struggle to avoid being triangulated into the family’s conflicts.

Well, they triangulated themselves in there to start with, intentionally!   Which shows a lack of:   “restraint, discretion, and wisdom” per se.

From page 18 (“just one more”!) – This chapter complains that California hasn’t legislated parenting coordination by stipulation (i.e., authorizing it by force)  yet:

The only thing that is clear about appointment of parenting coordinators in California is that family courts are without jurisdiction to make them without a stipulation. Moreover, no published case has upheld orders resulting from a stipulated appointment of a parenting coordinator.

The quote from Greenberg in this Amicus acknowledges that professionals in California & Colorado (two hotspots of family law leadership; Center for Policy Research/Jessica Pearson et al. are in Denver) “spawned” the concept.  Or rather, it “was spawned” — we can’t name an individual father, so perhaps it was a sort of psychological gang-rape that produced the idea (just kidding).  Unlike “collaborative law” which actually names a father, “Stu Webb” out of MN. . ..      And that this began in the 1990s.

We are now in 2011.  Perhaps it’s time to admit that it’s a bad idea to start with; if even in California — where AFCC originated — they can’t get it into law!

The text continues — and understanding that I don’t know the underlying case, have not read the entire brief and am not an attorney, I’m to add a comment to the next section:

Of course, courts have no power to modify statutes. Statutes prescribe and proscribe what courts may do.

Damn right they do! On the other hand, has that really slowed down AFCC initiatives, has it?  I think there’s been a track record of resounding success, if getting around constitutional and statutory limits pending changing the statutes to accommodate more income streams to court-connected (or formerly court-connected, like retired judges) professionals… is what’s intended.

The California Constitution (art. VI, § 22) prohibits the delegation of judicial power except for the performance of subordinate judicial duties. A trial court lacks either statutory or inherent power to require the parties to bear the cost of a special master’s services, even where it may have the authority to make the appointment. (People v. Superior Court (Laff) (2001) 25 Cal.4th 703)

The Court of Appeal reversed trial court orders delegating authority over the visitation schedule to a child custody evaluator, requiring one of the parents to participate in psychotherapy and requiring that all future custody mat- ters be heard before the same bench officer in In re Marriage of Matthews (1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 811, 816–817 because there was no statutory authority supporting such a delegation.

Just GUESSING here, but perhaps if over a 21-year period (in one state), it’s still being stated that there are Constitutional limits on delegating Judicial power, and three years later the Governor of Florida (Jeb Bush) brings it up in a reason for vetoing a parent coordination stipulation — there just MIGHT be a good reason!   Parent Coordination is hardly an Occupy San Francisco (or anywhere else in California) grassroots protest or demand, is it, either?

We’re third generation fatherhood programs out here, we are also probably at least second-generation post-TANF (1996), post fatherhood (i.e., about 15-16 years since they passed), and perhaps– just perhaps — the last thing this state needs is more ideas originating from this nonprofit and all its collaborators in therapeutic jurisprudence great ideas.

Perhaps — just perhaps — it’s a good thing if constitutional and statutory limits on out-sourcing the judicial function mean something around here, for a change! Be content with what you got so far, as authorized by access/visitation (three categories of potential program fraud enabled) and all the marriage promotion money too, plus lots of the nonprofits — like ACFLS — not even bothering to report into the state Registry of Charitable Trusts (OAG) anyhow!

(REASON 4)

(4)

Moreover  — like most AFCC promotions — the language promoting parent coordination continues to refuse to think or talk in terms of legal rights to INDIVIDUALS as the Declaration of Independence asserted, which helped kickstart the USA, claims they are.   The language of parent coordination is continually pluralized, or group-talk.  It does not, really, acknowledge that a person could be a member of a family (like “parent” “father” or “mother”) and yet really have — and deserve — equal standing as an individual in any matter, before the law.

Here’s an example from ParentCoordinationCentral.com (Termini/Boyan site).  These are the supposed GOALS OF PARENT COORDINATION:

  1. Educate parents regarding the impact of their behaviors on their child(ren)’s development.

    [supports my thesis that AFCC members are often frustrated teachers.  They want to teach EVERYONE, and if people don’t agree, they are clever about figuring out ways to force this, and be paid for it, too.]
  2. Reduce parental conflict through anger management, communication and conflict resolutions skills. 
    [increasing the expense of divorce, treating parents like kids, undermining judicial authority, & due process, and invading one’s privacy sure will “reduce parental conflict”!! . .. And I haven’t even got (this post anyhow) to the training manual which has an openly hostile attitude towards mothers, it’s unbelievable).
  3. Decrease inappropriate parental behaviors to reduce stress for the child.
    [goes with AFCC goal of switching from a legally defined set of prohibited behaviors to an arbitrary, subjective, and personalized version of what is appropriate or inappropriate parental behavior.   Instead, how about just accept the basic definitions in the law, and as to court orders, compliance with them?]
  4. Work with parents in developing a detailed plan for issues such as discipline, decision-making, communication, etc.
     [Good Grief! — Go have your own children, and raise them — well.  Let’s see what fine examples they are, then parents can judge FREELY whether Mr. , Ms. & Mrs. Parent Coordinators are competent to make these plans.  I mean — the concept is ridiculous!  What about various cultures and family values, so long as they are not child abuse, domestic violence, or otherwise illegal?] [Even then it probably wouldn’t be a comparable situation, because the psychologists involved with the court, and AFCC professionals can usually drum up plenty of high-paying business, whereas a lot of the parents they are dealing with probably, by the time they are on the scene, absolutely cannot.]
  5. Create a more relaxed home atmosphere allowing the child to  adjust more effectively with the new family structure.
    [You want to have a more relaxed home atmosphere with children/  Again, go have your own and show it to us.  Then we can, awestruck by your competence – – and if we want to — copy it!]
  6. Collaborate with professionals involved with the family in order to offer coordinated service.
    [that’s closer to the real reason for it — more business referrals to colleagues]
  7. Monitor parental behaviors to ensure that parents are fulfilling their obligations to their child while complying with the  recommendations of the Court.
    [Children need due process, and they need an active, and respected Bill of Rights, for when they grow up.  One purpose of the Bill of Rights was to keep snoops out of one’s private business, so long as that business didn’t ramble over into the criminal arena.   It’s called LIFE, LIBERTY and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.  How can one pursue anything with the thought police on one’s heels?. . . . .
    Anyone who’s trying to function as a parent coordinator, and talking about children’s needs constantly (to justify it) apparently doesn’t comprehend what long-term dedication to one’s family AND country entails.  It entails respecting its laws.  I have before blogged an SF-area parent coordinator and family law attorney, who posted on his own site that the Constitution needs to be scrapped and rewritten, why revere it like Christians revere their Bible (guess he’s not one, and doesn’t understand how few Christians actually practice what’s in their Bible — or Constitution — to start with…)]
  • The NH “Parent Coordinators” Association of 2009 “FAQs” suggest a benefit is:
  • Q. What are the benefits of Parenting Coordination?

Parenting Coordination offers a much better way of resolving parenting plan issues than returning to court. And the resolution comes much faster than waiting for a court date and then the court decision. The Parenting Coordinator educates the parents about the harm to the children of hostility between parents, mediates issues as they arise, and if the parents are unable to resolve minor issues, makes the decision.

As ever, when selling their services, AFCC professionals see themselves as the mature adults on the scene, and the parents as a “plural,” and refuse to assign responsibility where it’s perhaps due.  They seem to utterly lack curiosity in fact-finding as to that matter.  This is understandable, because they deal in “psychology” more than law– which is the culture of the association.  While two individual parents are often involved, in the marketing prose, it’s always “the parents” v. “the helping professionals”

However, once in the door, and in practice — then they are quick to blame ONE parent, often the mother, and recommend severe intervention, often removing of contact with the children to counter supposed “alienation.”   In other words, they are hypocrites — professing neutrality and to be helping, but planning in advance (in this case) to do harm to one gender — the female, should she as a parent (mother) counter them.

I blogged this earlier, but again (from the same site) — here is their “sample” report from the handbook:

Handbook

A handbook for the purpose and practice of parenting coordination prepared by PCANH.

 Parts of this were credited (fn1 inside) to “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” in Indiana.  This is a nonprofit formed in 2005, EIN# 432074631 with principal listed c/o “Gloria K. Mitchell.”

So of course I looked this person up — she is a Rising Star Super Attorney, member of National Association of Counsel for Children, and works in a four-woman firm.  The nonprofit, however, is categorized as “exempt — earning under $25,000).  website’s “Divorce and Parenting Research Links” is typical, plus a direct link to the Children’s Rights Council” (hover URL).  CRC is pretty big in Indiana…  Six years after passing the bar, Ms. Mitchell was on the Executive Committee of Family Law Section of Indiana Bar Assoc., and chaired it in 2005.   The articles of incorporation show it’s a 501(c)4 (not “3”) and by address its place of business is another law firm in Noblesville, Indiana:  Holt, Fleck & Romini.  If the image (showing org.’s purpose) doesn’t show, it’s viewable for free on the site below.

Entity Name Type Entity Type City / State
FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC. Legal Non-Profit Domestic Corporation INDIANAPOLIS, IN

Gloria K. Mitchell, and the four attorneys in the law firm, 
Though only incorporated in winter (February) 2005, by summer (July) 2005,  Indiana, “Families Moving Forward”** already had a “Parent Coordination Committee” and presented the following report in this context:

Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum

3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute

and Family ICO Training Session July 28-29, 2005*

 *Note:  the Nonprofit to present this was incorporated 2/14/2005, in time for this, 3rd Annual Family Law Summer Institute agenda (see link) doesn’t show anything about parent coordination, although certainly it could’ve happened.  Law firm page for Ms. Mitchell notes that she was “Executive Committee of the “Family Law Section” 1994-2005 and its chair in 2004-2005.     So it would make sense that her nonprofit would have a good shot at presenting at that summer institute.
I note that at Ms. Mitchell’s office, one of her associates began as Parent Coordinator in 2006.
Another very smart attorney with stellar credits is Amy Stewart  (valedictorian of her law class) is president of this nonprofit (FMF):  notice also collaborative law emphasis, plus an AFCC affiliation.   In 1999 she had an article published on “Covenant Marriage:  Legislating Family Values”  Good summary of the issues of religiosity in marriage by a UK author, here  Actually, it’s a good summary and a timely read of marriage/divorce, and role of rising religiosity (UK/America) in the mix.
But it was a search for “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” that brought her name up.
Here’s Ms. Stewart’s bio (notice “Collaborative Law”); she works at Bingham McHale, LLP, a large firm with locations in 3 Indiana counties.  She is a partner.

Amy concentrates her practice in matrimonial and family law matters. She was one of the first Indiana attorneys trained  in collaborative law, and she has been instrumental in introducing the approach in Indiana. She has practiced collaborative law since 2007, has attended several conferences of the International Association of Collaborative Professionals,* and has been trained by collaborative law founder Stuart Webb. In addition, Amy also practices traditional litigation.   

*Readers probably may not remember, so I’ll remind us.  the “IACP” is another incarnation, membership association — out of many — formed by AFCC-type professionals, as you can see by the description:

iacp,collaborative law,collaborative practice,collaborative divorce,international academy of collaborative professionals

ACP is the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals, an international community of legal, mental health and financial professionals working in concert to create client-centered processes for resolving conflict.

I probably blogged it, too.  I remember looking up the various websites, corporate registrations, etc.   Here’s their About Us/History narrative.  I notice a good chunk of it (after inspiration by “Stu Webb” in MN) took form in the Northern California family court association nonprofit factor, aka the SF Bay Area, including Oakland (East Bay) and other well-known cities:

In May of 1999, the first annual AICP [=American Institute of Collaborative Professionals] networking forum was held in Oakland, California. The following year, a meeting was held in Chicago to discuss the state of Collaborative legal practice across the country. The nearly 50 practitioners who attended this meeting agreed that AICP should serve as the umbrella organization for our rapidly-growing movement. At the same time, they recognized that since Collaborative Practice was also developing exponentially across Canada, the organization needed a broader, more inclusive name and mission. Thus the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals was born in late 2000, officially changing its name in 2001.

The Collaborative Review has been published continuously since May, 1999. The work begun by initial editors Jennifer Jackson and Pauline Tesler. . . 

Jennifer Jackson (FYI, I’ve never met, spoken to, or dealt with her in court) is kind of branded in my mind as having helped start up Kids’ Turn (SF):

FYI — here is another Super Lawyer, high-profile, longstanding success.  Her “about” page lists many accomplishments. Notice which comes first; notice also the variety of terms which are basic to the field:  I’ll bold them:

About Jennifer Jackson

Before becoming a family lawyer in 1985, Jennifer Jackson was an illustrator and photographer, raising three children.

A LITTLE LOCAL COMMENTARY relating to this Super-Productive/Super Attorney and her many Nonprofits:  

I know artists, including photographers and illustrators.  It’s not that easy to make a living at; this speaks of either a good prior divorce settlement, (or not marrying) or some substantial education somewhere along the line, undergrad plus law school.  That’s quite a set of accomplishments, but I don’t think represents an indigence.  See Resume:

  • BA with Honors in 1966, became family lawyer (passed bar?)
  • 1985, with Professor’s Assistanceships (in law school) on child-related and mediation topics.  Maybe I can assume that almost 20 year gap is called “Mom” and “Wife” time.
  • In 1987, she helped found Kids’ Turn and was simultaneously involved in PTA Board at “Campolindo High School” where her kids probably attended.   Campolindo is — well, its site describes it well:

“Located in the hills east of the University of California, Berkeley, Campolindo serves the professionally-oriented and well-educated suburban communities of Moraga and Lafayette. Students, teachers and parents work together to provide a positive climate for learning where mutual respect, trust and esteem are valued. ” . . .”In statewide API (Academic Performance Index) ratings, for the fifth year in a row, both the Acalanes District and Campolindo are ranked in the very top percentiles of all public high schools in California with an API score of 919. Nationally, Campolindo is recognized regularly in Newsweek magazine as one of the “Best High Schools in America”.  The Association of Californa School Administrators honored Campolindo’s Principal, Carol Kitchens, as the Secondary Principal of the Year in 2009

This is my way — as is this demographics piechart** of saying, as fantastic as these achievements are for Ms. Jackson — something had her living (presumably) in Moraga around the time she passed the bar — and that’s a privileged community.   A neighboring one, Orinda, shows has a 2009 median household of $156K, and more than half the town earning that much, and the largest sector earning over $200K.
To get a general feel for housing in the area — this is my tactful way of saying that until the 1960s, some of these communities did not allow African-American housing loans, or greatly restricted them — read this thoughtful summary of Berkeley, including a lot on demographics and migration.
Essentially, people that might work as professors, or other high-paying jobs in SF or Berkeley (or even Oakland) would then leave those urban areas and commute straight past (on highways like as not) the dangerous and darker-skinned areas, right on back to the suburbs.  Just keep this in mind when someone from this area (however s/he got there) is all excited about helping poor kids, single mother or no single mother. And I don’t know specifically that Jennifer Jackson was; although no mention of a husband is made, or the children’s father.
(**scroll down to see race (total African Americans:  166, Hispanic, invisible — they are living elsewhere and working on the lawns and in the retail & domestic sectors no doubt (wikipedia, though, says 7% in 2010) — how few single parent households, and almost NO violent crime).  As of 2010, Moraga had a total population of 16,016 people.  As of the 2000 census, Moraga was the 79th wealthiest place in the US with a population above 10,000.   The median income for a household in the town is $98,080, and the median income for a family is $116,113. Males have a median income of $92,815 versus $51,296 for females.[almost 2:1!!] )

Blending this background of creativity, caring and flexibility with her legal training enhances her practice of family law and expands the options for her clients.

Jennifer believes that a lawyer must be actively involved in her professional community, and that life is about making a difference. Jennifer is one of the founders of Kids’ Turn, a program for separating families begun in San Francisco which has expanded exponentially in size and in quality of service to children and families.

(If you know my blog, you know EXACTLY why and how Kids’ Turn “expanded exponentially in size” — see family law attorneys, evaluators & judges on the board, see access/visitation funds “facilitating” parent education programs. . . . .As to the quality of service?  That’s debatable, but as I haven’t sat through any of the classes — except to note they use the word “parental alienation” a lot in stating benefits, i.e., “reduces parental alienation” type claims.  I’ll withhold judgment on this, as should others who haven’t  !!)

She is one of the founders of the International Academy of Collaborative Professionals and served for eight years as co-editor of its journal, The Collaborative Review. She has had leadership roles in her professional organizations at local, state national and international levels, and is a past president of the Northern California chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Within five years of passing the bar, she is serving as a judge pro tem– how common is that? Or this?

Standing Committee on Custody, North: Chair 1988-1990

San Francisco Bar Association

Executive Committee, Family Law Section: Chair, 1992; Member: 1987-present
Fee Arbitration Panel: 1988-1990
Barristers Club, Co-Chair, Family Law Committee: 1988-1990
BASF Delegate to the State Bar Convention: 1989, 1990
Volunteer Legal Services Program Volunteer Attorney: 1986-2000  

[[This is almost another topic — I’ve footnoted it [VLSP* at bottom of post, a section in itself….]

Expert: Temporary Restraining Order Clinic

Jennifer has been given an “AV” rating by Martindale-Hubbell and has been named one of the top 50 female lawyers (“Super Lawyers”) in Northern California in all areas of practice by Law and Politics Publications for the past five years in a row. Jennifer practices alternative dispute resolution exclusively; she has trained extensively in mediation and collaboration, and is committed to keeping clients out of court and at the negotiating table.

The IACP has created Standards for practitioners, trainers and collaborative practice trainings. It has promulgated Ethical Guidelines for Practitioners, and continues to support excellence in collaborative practice through resources, training curriculum, practice tools, mentoring and a comprehensive website, allowing collaborative practitioners to continue our tradition of sharing and learning from one another.

Where we are going…

Today, the IACP has over 4,000 members from twenty four countries around the world. We are dedicated to educating the public about the Collaborative alternative. We are committed to fostering professional excellence in conflict resolution through Collaborative Practice. We invite you to peruse this site to learn more about IACP, our services and initiatives.

Amy is the past-chair of the Family Law Section of the Indianapolis Bar Association (2003) and is president of Families Moving Forward, Inc., a multi-disciplinary non-profit organization devoted to developing healthy approaches to family transitions.. . .[Law Degree summa cum laude Indiana Univ. School of Law, 1999; admitted to IN bar same year, graduate “with high distinction” in 1986. ]

5 years of work and/or law school, and within 4 more years she’s charing the Family Law Section of Indianapolis (that’s one city, not the whole state’s) Bar Assocation.  What a nice nonprofit and what accomplished professionals, and how successful they are.  As such, we should believe what they say, especially as the nonprofit “Families Moving Forward, Inc.” is DEVOTED to a HEALTHY APPROACH to “Family transitions.” (typically called divorces or custody matters).
 ** a name in other states used for purposes such as helping with homelessness, or infants with fetal alcohol syndrome, other issues, here it’s referring to divorce:

FAMILIES MOVING FORWARD, INC., is an interdisciplinary organization of attorneys, mental health providers, accountants, and other professionals committed to improving the process of family transition in Indiana, by reducing conflict and cost, creating healthier outcomes for children, and enhancing the satisfaction of professionals serving families.

(However, notice the articles of incorporation say it’s there to serve the families as well as the professionals serving the families)
This report is on-line at “SAIF” where it probably was presented:

Seminars For Advanced Interdisciplinary Family Professionals


This For-Profit group incorporated as below in Indiana, with the address “9000 KEYSTONE CROSSING, STE 600, INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46240 (which is “HuirasLaw,”  Wm. E. Huiras, although the Registered Agent is another attorney, Robin Brown Neihaus (LinkedIn)

Date Name (Type)
7/27/2006 SEMINARS FOR ADVANCED INTERDISCIPLINARY FAMILY PROFESSIONALS, INC. D/B/A SAIF  (Assumed))
(the entity filed one report in 2008, file notes, it owes 2010/2011 – perhaps IN is only every 2 years).

Segments from the Indiana 2005 Sample PC report (handbook):

The sample report begins with a situation between father and stepfather which was hostile.  Both wanted to coach on Little (10) Joey’s baseball team.

Therapy for both TOGETHER is recommended:

5. Mr. Smith and Mr. Doe should attend counseling sessions together to attempt to resolve their(For example, the mother did not want the father to volunteer on Fridays at school any longer. She maintained that the children were emotional and upset on those mornings and did not want to go to school. The teachers were contacted and reported that the children looked forward to and enjoyed their father’s presence.

AFCC CLAIMS CREDIT FOR HAVING DEVELOPING PARENT COORDINATION:

From their 5-year prospectus:

AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination

In 2003, AFCC President George Czutrin appointed a Task Force to develop Model Standards of Practice for Parenting Coordination, following the first Task Force on Parenting

Coordination that conducted research and published the 2003 Report on Parenting Coordination Implementation Issues. The Task Force determined that the Parenting Coordination process was too new to use the term “Model Standards” and, in May 2005, proposed to the Board of Directors the AFCC Guidelines for Parenting Coordination. The Guidelines passed unanimously and are available on the AFCC Web site at http://www.afccnet.org/resources/standards_practice.asp.

AFCC Parenting Coordination Task Force: Christie Coates, J.D., M.Ed. (Chair), Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., (Secretary), Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D. , Philip Epstein, Q.C., Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William Jones (ret.), Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D

. . . .

The following new publications have been developed since 2002 while dated products were been eliminated:

• Parenting Coordination: Implementation Issues

There are scholarly articles galore about this.  One by matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. (and a parent coordinator) uses the phrase repeatedly in the abstract — but to access the article one-time costs $34 and permanently $155.  Needless to say, not many people who have parent coordinators in their lives can afford to read up on it….

“In 1994 the concept of parent coordination was spawned by a concerned group of professionals in California and Colorado who

WHILE PROMOTION EFFORTS TEND TO PHRASE PARENT COORDINATION PASSIVELY (as if a natural development), IN PRIVATE PUBLICATIONS, IT TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE FIELD:

AFCC STAYS FOCUSED ON IMPLEMENTING AND PROMOTING PARENT COORDINATION:

And I am going to show you what apparent frauds some of the prime “trainers” are in this field too.     But first, let’s look at the upcoming 2012 conference called:

The New Frontier

Exploring the Challenges and Possibilities of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts:

This is an upcoming (Feb. 2012) meeting of the California Chapter of the AFCC.  An entire day is dedicated to a workshop on Parenting Coordination, and a secondary one talks about how to get it in there — even if parents are indigent.

Here are the presenters’ bios (please scroll through).  Some are more than a page, others short.  Notice the types of professionals involved (typical), Judges, Attorneys and Psychologists, Mediators, etc.    Some have been around forever (Joan B. Kelly, Dianna Gould-Saltzmann) others seem newer:

Abbas Hadjian, JD, CFLS

Graduate of Tehran University School of Law and Harvard…

Abbas Hadjian, Esquire devotes a substantial part of his family law practice to educating the Farsi‐speaking community on the comparisons between the American and Iranian legal system and recently published “Divorce in California,” which is written in Farsi. He is an expert on Iranian culture and laws.

(from his website, partial description of an amazing background):

Mr. Hadjian was born, educated and lived in Iran until 1980. Between 1959 and 1968 Mr. Hadjian was a professional journalist in Iran, with positions including editor, writer, reporter, translator and commentator in major Iranian publications and news agencies. His profession a journalist required and helped Mr. Hadjian’s foundational understanding of the Iranian legal, social, economical and political structure. Between 1962 and 1966, Mr. Hadjian attended the School of Law, Political Science and Economics in Tehran University. Among others, he received courses in Iranian Constitution, Civil, Family and Probate law, furthering his understanding of the legal, social, economic and political infrastructure of his native country.

Upon graduation. Mr. Hadjian became a political appointee in the Office of the Governor General, Iranian Southern Ports and Islands (Persian Gulf), where he acted as a ranking civil officer in the region until 1978, the year of the Iranian Revolution. As deputy to the Governor General in social and economic affairs, Mr. Hadjian relied heavily on his legal studies and implemented them in real life situations. In 1975, Harvard University accepted him to the renowned Edward S. Mason Program for Public Development on full scholarship, acknowledging five years of Mr. Hadjian’s services in developing the Persian Gulf region as one year of post-graduate studies. He was awarded a Masters Degree in Public Administration

A related site from “Culture Counts.net” (site has three diverse professionals) has a page about fatherhood, the new normal, which “surprisingly” reminds readers about:

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Children

  • Children display increased self-confidence.
  • Better able to deal with frustration and other feelings.
  • Higher grade point averages.
  • More likely to mature into compassionate adults.
  • Paternal emotional responses to sons were associated with a 50% decrease in sons’ expressions of sadness and anxiety from preschool to early school age

Positive Effects of Father Involvement on Men

  • Helps men reevaluate their priorities and become more caring human beings who are concerned about future generations.
  • May reduce health-risk behaviors.
  • Decreases psychological distress as emotional involvement with children acts as a buffer against work-related stress.
  • Happiness and increased physical activity.
  • Sense of accomplishment, well-being, and contentment.
  • Men tend to be more involved with extended family and others in the community.
  • Over time, fatherhood increases marital stability.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
Here is the rather short blurb of a long-time attorney in California, who in this conference is presenting an all-day workshop on Parenting Coordination:

Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS

Ms. Shear is a graduate of UCLA School of Law and admitted to the California Bar in 1976 and maintains her practice in Encino, California. A frequent lecturer in custody matters, she has been involved in a number of high-profile custody cases over the years – most recently, Marriage of LaMusga and Marriage of Seagondollar.

I note she was admitted to the bar fully 20 years before welfare reform and almost as much before VAWA.
These three are going to present on Parenting Coordination — an all-day institute.  It must be important:

9:00am – 5:15pm

All Day Institute (2)

(I2) Inside Parenting Coordination Practice in California: Managing Roles, Responsibilities, and Risks

  • Lyn Greenberg, Ph D
  • Alexandra Leichtner, JD
  • Leslie Ellen Shear, JD, CFLS, CALS
Apparently even indigent people need parent coordination — there’s a workshop on how to get it to them:
  • W1 Establishing a Local Parenting Coordination Program Including Pro Bono PC Services to Indigent FamiliesHonorable Lorna Alksne// Charlene S. Baron, JD, MA // Shirley Ann Higuchi, JD  // Lori Love, Ph D


http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/submit-sentence-4.html

III. Parenting Coordinators Work With the Most Difficult Family Court Population – Those Most Prone to Assert Grievances and Challenge Decisionmakers

… cases are usually referred to parenting coordination because they are chronically litigious and difficult to manage. These parents have often had several attorneys, evaluators, and mediators — professional hopping and shopping is rampant. Their court files are thick with motions, court appearances, and allegations of wrongdoing by the parents.
Coates, Deutsch et al. (2004) Parenting Coordination for High-Conflict Fami- lies 42 Fam. Ct. Rev. 246, 252

The child custody cases referred to parenting coordinators are the most complex, acrimonious, difficult and demanding cases. Most parents regain their perspective and bearings within two years of separation, and do not need this kind of intensive and ongoing service model. Parents who continue to return to court with enforcement and modification requests after completing co- parenting educational programs, and after a child custody evaluation are can- didates for parenting coordination,

Parents who need a PC intervention are typically a special group for whom the passage of time has not reduced the rage and angry behaviors of at least one if not both parents. The 10–20% of parents who remain in entrenched and high conflict two to three years after separation/divorce are significantly more likely to have severe personality disorders and/or mental illness (Johnston & Roseby, 1997). Understanding the characteristics of parents with severe borderline, dependent, narcissistic, and antisocial personality disorders, why these parents react so strongly to rejection and loss, how the child is used in attempts to re-stabilize their functioning and punish the other parent, and how personality disorders are exacerbated by stress, conflict and the adversarial system will facilitate more effective work with these difficult clients.

Kelly (2008) Preparing for the Parenting Coordination Role: Training Needs for Mental Health and Legal Professionals 5 Journal of Child Custody 140,149-150

+ + + + = = = + + +  = = =

[VSLP*].  This footnote comes from a fragment of attorney Jennifer Jackson’s resume, which itself came from a bio of another nonprofit, Families Moving Forward, Inc. in Indiana.  I was following up in another nonprofit, “International Association Collaborative Professionals” and I guess you can see about how curious I am about the inter-relationships of various nonprofits.

I looked at the staff.  This one caught my attention — because of the specialties, not him personally:

Chris Emley (in 2011, or at least now on the website.)

Chris is a certified family law specialist and a Fellow of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, with 41 years of experience focusing on child custody litigation.  He has been included in Best Lawyers in America since 1991.  He has helped to govern VLSP since its inception in 1979.  He received the State Bar President’s Pro Bono Service Award in 1983, the Legal Assistance Association of California’s Award of Merit in 1989, and two Awards of Merit from The Bar Association of San Francisco (1977 and 2004).  He was a BASF board member from 1979 through 1981, and chaired the Lawyer Referral Service Committee.  Chris was Vice President of the San Francisco Child Abuse Council, Chairman of the Board of Legal Assistance to the Elderly, and Chairman of the Board of Legal Services for Children, Inc.

There happens to be one pro bono group in the SF Bay area which used to help women leaving violence and eventually in the news (and had I known at the time to check all these 990s, I’d have seen the notation that it specialized in helping NONCustodial, low-income fathers, I’d have realized why this group refused to help so many mothers stuck in the family law system.).   The presence of a Certified Family Law Practitioner on the board of VSLP, with his emphasis being on children’s rights, and without question, children in ANY institutional system these days need help and representation, does make me wonder who is helping with women’s rights when it comes to actual mothers who aren’t in jail for killing their batterers (which have some groups advocating) — but actually dealing with the horrors of year after year in a custody battle with a violent or abusive ex, and doing so without even a grasp of how it works, or who pays its bills.

General Comments:

I don’t see anything in VSLP which remotely deals with the situation, and was able to get no actual help (legal representation of any sort, pro bono) in my case either, not past the initial restraining order, and a perfunctory (and NOT in court) attempt to renew it, which I was told would be a non-issue, it’s often granted automatically!  No one came to court where I, like many, many other “custodial” mothers after leaving abuse, was blindsided by a prior ex parte movement consolidating renewal with a divorce and custody matter, thus shifting the case into the family law system, where it remained, and where the actual topic of ongoing DV was drowned by the type of talk we see in these realms — psychological states, not literal deeds!

The moral is, every program and every nonprofit has its target clientele.  As the target clientele (for keeping in their proper place) in so many federal grants to the states are fathers (when it comes to custody matters), it would make no “sense” for the government to also pay the opposing side, the protective mothers!

[[Interesting program, project of SF Bar: its family law person Chris Emley also on Board of “Legal Services for Children” which (as of 2001) got funding from City & County of SF, SF Dept. of Public Health, and SF Dept. of Children, Youth & Their Families.

Its address seems to be a few doors down from Kids Turn:  1254 Market vs. 1242 Market Street.  “Legal Services for Children” (2010) shows no Chris Emley on the Board, but its main purposes are:  1.  Guardianship for children wanting it; 2.  Helping kids dealing with expulsion and school-related issues; 3.  Immigration. . ..It also represents children in foster care and helps support LGBT youth.  200 Volunteer attorneys gave over $1mil worth of their help.    The group received over $1 mill. of contrib& grants, and gave $65,000 to a DC nonprofit, National Juvenile Defender Center (EIN# 02060456.  On “Foundation Finder” this EIN doesn’t pull up a tax return…..for any year.  Nor does a name search! However from NCCSdataweb, I see that it was incorporated in 2002 (legal services for children, in 1975).  This “National Juvenile Defender Center” interests me:  2002 income, 0.  A 2007 letter from Andrea Weisman, signed DC Dept of Youth Rehab. Services (“DYRS”)  (shares address with a Board member of NJDC, Mark Soler, 2002) expresses the serious problems of Youth in Adult Facilities.  Weisman and Soler (again, board member of the group which got $65K grant from the West-Coast “Legal Services for Children,” which takes funding from various depts. of SF and its city & county) worked together (1999?) on “No Minor Matter:  Children in Maryland’s Jails.”  Weisman notes she got a $1.6mil grant from OJJDP.   ]]

National Juvenile Defender Center:  

2002– income is zero.  By 2009 — they are into Technical Training and Assistance.  And ExDir. Patricia Puritz as only paid director, gets $134K salary) — and have landed over $5 million of grants, and earning $10K from investment income and have some serious program income in 2010 ($119K= almost (but not quite) enough to pay their own Exec. Director:.  Check it out.  So why, in the following year (revenues down to $405K — but probably some leftovers, wanna bet?) did a group in SF just grant them $65,000?  Or was that a sort of tax equalization between them both.  I live in the same state as “Legal Service for Children, Inc.” and we know that our K-12 schools are taking a serious hit?  Why should enough money to feed, clothe and house three families in this area for a year, be given to a nonprofit out of DC that just got $5 million the year before?

http://njdc.info/about_us.php

The National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC) was created in 1999 to respond to the critical need to build the capacity of the juvenile defense bar and to improve access to counsel and quality of representation for children in the justice system. In 2005, the National Juvenile Defender Center separated from the American Bar Association to become an independent organization. NJDC gives juvenile defense attorneys a more permanent capacity to address practice issues, improve advocacy skills, build partnerships, exchange information, and participate in the national debate over juvenile crime.

They operate 9 US Regional Centers; the California one is in SF and among its projects is:

MacArthur Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN)

In 2008, California was selected by the the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as one of four sites in the nation to participate in the foundation’s Juvenile Indigent Defense Action Network (JIDAN).  The four JIDAN sites, Massachusetts, Florida, New Jersey and California, join the four MacArthur Models for Change “core” states of Illinois, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and Washington to form an eight-state network.

The California team is led by the Youth Law Center, and includes members from the Center for Families, Children and the Courts of the California Administrative Office of the Courts; the Loyola Law School Center for Juvenile Law & Policy; the Los Angeles County Public Defender’s Office; theSan Francisco Public Defender’s Office; the Contra Costa County Public Defender’s Office; andHuman Rights Watch.

The eight-state network is coordinated through the National Juvenile Defender Center (NJDC), and engages juvenile defenders, policymakers, judges and other key stakeholders in designing strategies to improve juvenile indigent defense policy and practice. California was chosen as a result of its demonstrated ability to achieve measurable reform on juvenile indigent defense issues.  California’s JIDAN work will be centered in the Pacific Juvenile Defender Center.

The Exec. Director of this “NJDC.INFO” nonprofit (inc. 2002) was in 2003 appointed by the Governor of Virginia to a Board of Juvenile Justice:

This bio/blurb places Ms. Puritz Professionally, prior to here, she was ABA Juvenile Justice Center, etc.

Much of this relates to the “OJJDP” and the Juvenile Justice Delinquency Prevention Act.  This is an entirely different category than “Parenting Coordination” through the family law center; it is dealing with things such as the US being the world largest per-capita jailor, that those in jail are disproprotionately minority, that horrible things are happening to youth while in confinement, etc.  By comparison, the “Parent Coordinator” issue seems like kids’ play unless one begins to wonder how many of the youth in detention had parents stuck in the family law system, which definitely cuts down on actual parenting time and focus!

p://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/policy/juvenile_justice.html

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 14, 2011 at 9:00 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), AFCC, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Bush Influence & Appointees (Cat added 11/2011), Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Lackawanna County PA Corruption Protests, Lethality Indicators - in News, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Parent Education promotion, Parenting Coordination promotion, Psychology & Law = an AFCC tactical lobbying unit, When Police Shoot / Shoot Back, Where's Mom?, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

Reader Quiz — What Decade Were These Stories? About Fathers..

with 2 comments

My last post (Luzerne County) was at least a triple-header, ending with some emotion over a mother of three who has taken her case to the international level in disgrace at the U.S. treatment of her civil rights.

I am changed as I blog also. Maybe it’s just another bunch of incidents to you, but to me, I learn and expand the context of this system, look at its history, reflect when compared with my immediate reality and acquired readings.

What I learned — yesterday — is this: Restraining orders are not enforceable, and probably never were. IF a police officer wishes to arrest, or needs to, the RO may make his job easier. But if he or she witnessed a violation of it, and does NOT wish to arrest, the protected person has no entitlement to that arrest, no matter whose life is at risk. Now that “Castle Rock v. Gonzales” has gone to the Supreme Court and been turned back, it is being quoted in similar cases to protect the officers (not the women or children). While most of government’s operations are self-justified on providing services and protection to the populace, who they are diligently training to expect this from them (and not from within or their local communities). This is closer to feudalism, serfdom, and monarchy.

U.S., Rome, or the British Empire?

It’s time to expose the truths that in the United States of America, and have moved from being “the colonies” (with the colonized populations that came along, or were removed from their lands during westward expansion) to being colonized (if not virtually cannibalized) by our own elected leaders, many who have some real “bad attitudes” towards those they are supposed to represent and serve. Power tends to congregate with power, and unless it’s kept in check, will simply continue to do so, justifying it with manipulation and manufactured “needs.”

  • (#1) we are closer to monarchy then ever before, and willingly/passively in more denial of it also, and
  • (#2) that this emperor has no clothes has been known for a long time; but the tacit “Bread-and-circuses” agreement to pretend we don’t know, is wearing as thin as the “social services” provided by the superstructure. and
  • (#3) in a country such as the U.S., with this Constitution elected officials are sworn with an oath to uphold, the pretense that in practice we are actually OPERATING as a republic (not democracy) is even more deceptive.

Who has the bread, the weapons, and the supply lines to the decision-makers? Who’s issuing the propaganda? That’s the power base. As of about 1980, 1991 (creation of the Health & Human Services/Administration for Children and Families Dept./Operational Div. in the Executive Branch of Government of which the CEO is our President), the fields of propagation (family design) and the downward to Head Start & Home Visitation (education) up through university (foundations sponsoring studies and institutes, often regarding fatherhood and marriage, and the entire work force) have gone from idolizing motherhood (while tolerating beating mothers) and, in response to mothers getting OUT of some of that (feminism/violence against women movement, battered shelters, etc.) to scapegoating single mothers on welfare (for being on welfare), (see bottom of my post), to simply eliminating the word mother from association with the word “family” or “children.”

This is starting to resemble the planned production of human beings from womb to tomb, with the aide of pharmaceutics, apparently, and mental health professionals to categorize and drug the dissidents, which any mother in her right mind would be when she’s been beaten in the home, or terrorized there (or for attempting to leave it) and has noticed — which is what mothers do — the effect of this on her children. They are educated to subjugation and only to the level of their intended place in a fully managed society.

When I say “womb” to “tomb,” I do mean just that . . . . It’s being studied and categorized, and one major database is at ICPSR below. Fertility, lethality, and population studies in 3 urban centers (Chicago, Boston, San Antonia, TX).

Those “in” and cooperate on the planning and distribution of this will prosper, while the supply lasts, and receive government grants and contracts in abundance, which will then compromise them from informing the subject matter (human beings) what the overall plan is. For example

  • HQ in Denver: PSI (“policy-studies.com” is the URL, “Performance, Services, Integrity” is the motto)
    • Under Child Support Enforcement (one of the 3 major “solutions” area they outsource):
      • Noncustodial Parent Programs (“Through our innovative approach, PSI can help increase your collections and improve results for families. Our NCP program expertise extends across the following areas”)
        • Case management and community resource referrals
        • Enhanced child support services
        • Employment and training assistance
        • Peer support for NCPs
        • Parenting and conflict resolution classes
        • Access and visitation services
        • Mediation services
        • Mental health and substance abuse referrals
        • Legal referrals
  • HQ in Los Angeles: AFCC (“Association of Family & Conciliation Courts“)
    • AFCC brings together members of multiple disciplines in the public, private and nonprofit sectors, from all over the world. As a nonprofit professional association, AFCC is unique because members do not share a common profession. Instead, AFCC members share a strong commitment to education, innovation and collaboration in order to benefit communities, empower families and promote a healthy future for children.
    • “History of Innovation and Positive Change”For more than 45 years, AFCC and its members have served as a catalyst for generating major reforms. Dispute resolution processes such as child custody mediation, parenting coordination, and divorce education are just a few of the innovative ideas developed by AFCC members. AFCC developed Models Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediators, Child Custody Evaluators and Parenting Coordinators. Task forces and special projects address the ongoing challenges faced by AFCC members and the families they serve. AFCC actively disseminates innovations and ideas {“Parental Alienation, anyone? Mandatory mediation, anyone? Shared parenting, presumption anyone?”} to its members. The ripple effect can be seen in courts and communities throughout the world. {ONE of those stories I copy at length, below, in blue. The ripple effect was most definitely felt, and you can read about it, below.}
  • HQ in Denver: what I call “CPR” (Center or Policy Research) [Since 1981, 6 women, only!]


Did I mention that Jessica Pearson is also (per some sources) a founding member of the AFCC, if not also CRC?

  • In fact AFCC, CRC, CPR, PSI, HHS funded studies, and conclusions that MOST of our nation’s real poverty, inner-city, crime & juvenile delinquency problems is simply the ration of sex/conception/marriage, i.e., too few fathers (as opposed to, poor-quality fathers) in the home, and that the solution to this is through seamlessly blending mental health services with child support services, with the legal process — tend to congregate around similar key players.
  • Don’t believe me? See RandiJames’ “The List or Liz Richards pointing this out in 1993 “Fathers Rights and corrupt judicial cronies,” or again, in 2010, to the House Ways & Means Committee (found at House.gov, this committee, June 17, 2010 hearings, on left side), or an indignant “Fathers Battling Injustice” 2001 complaint “Liz Richards Hates Fathers with a Passion, which provides (if you scroll down) a good listing of key players and their interrelationships — including those on the CRC (Children’s Rights Council) 501(c)3 incorporation papers, and tying into others pushing mediation and Gardner’s “PAS” philosophies through the courts. I’ll try to upload that listing….

Around 1998, a disgruntled grandfather — and CPA — started tracking some of the founding documents of this AFCC, and has something to say about the money trail related to Jessica Pearson of CPR, and AFCC, who weems to be (with others) women of some real foresight and planning, and ingenuity in desgining systems — and evading tax accountability. THIS is listed UNDER “Is Justice for sale in L.A.” a.k.a. at “johnnypumphandle.com”

    • :Mr. Bryer’s Tort Claim of 1998. You can hear his tone of indignation and upset, and he flat-out calls this Mafia, RICO, money-laundering, etc. The people he is talking about are listed in part, above. I doubt if he ever got justice, or compensation (let alone more discovery), but at least me blew the whistle!. People who want to “reform” the courts ought to at least read the material. OR, they could go back and try to reason more with a professional that may or may not be one of these type of conspirators from long ago. The system remains, I’m pretty well deducing at this point.
  • Another take on AFCC et al.: He’s not talking psychology or sociology, but money, IRS, EIN#s and incorporations…
    • DESCRIPTION: The ACCUSED ( by this complaint) are part of an underground of white collar criminals who are involved in the theft of CITY, COUNTY, STATE, and FEDERAL money. The scheme started before their time as an organization known as the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. That organization changed its identity and assumed the name ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY CONCILIATION COURTS. Using various identity changes, the organization was listed in the LOS ANGELES SUPERVISORS DIRECTORY in 1993 as JUDGES TRUST FUND ACCOUNTING.The crime ring is an underground Mafia that posed as the COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES – by using the FEDERAL EMPLOYMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER 95-6000927. In recent dramatic announcements, the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has informed me that the EIN or FEIN number assigned to the latest version of the organization – the – LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION – is an EIN that was not assigned to the organization. It Is a COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EIN!

      I previously attempted to get this discovery – in the lawsuit BRYER vs PENTONEY – but 298 judges and commissioners in LOS ANGELES were disqualified on a ruse orchestrated by JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER – a ring leader of the scheme. JUDGE GARY KLAUSNER’S name is on the signature card of BANK OF AMERICA account listed under the name LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION EIN 95-6000927.

      I was forced into the corrupt county – ORANGE COUNTY – where a co-conspirator named JAMES P. GRAY told me he would throw me in jail if I tried to make any more discoveries. FEARING FOR MY LIFE in a county that is FOREIGN to me – I dismissed my case without prejudice and continued to seek discovery away from the strength of ORANGE COUNTYCONCLUSION: My family and myself have been robbed of our money and our rights by a conspiracy that has operated since 1962. In 1962 a JUDGE NAMED ROGER ALTON PFAFF and his cohort – MEYER ELKIN. The association was called the CONFERENCE OF CONCILIATION COURTS. This association routed money through the LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONCILIATION COURT -111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles California, 90012, ROOM 241. In 1969 – the association incorporated and has NEVER PAID taxes. Assuming they used EIN 95-6000927 – then duping the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT was easy. In 1979 the corporation was suspended. There is no record that they surrendered their bank account or the EIN. In California – the organization filed as a CIVIC LEAGUE – Revenue and Tax Code 23701g. A CONCILIATION COURT is NOT A CIVIC LEAGUE. The exemption certificate was mailed to a lawyer named Michael Aaronson at P.O. Box 1055, San Carlos California 94070. The STATE 3500 papers states the organization was to improve marriage counseling. However, conciliation court is a STATUTORILY mandated function of the COURT – not a private corporation for lying and thieving judges and their court staff. The income was alleged to be derived from dues and contributions. In reality, the funds came from laundering legal education money through the COURT CONCILIATION DEPARTMENT through the FINANCE DEPARTMENT.

      In an incredible BREACH – a Judge from Detroit Michigan was listed as the Second Vice President His name is Victor J. Baum. The corporation number is 576876. I have no record of what EIN they used.

      In 1981 – I presume their bank account was still open and they created a new identity called the Association of Family Conciliation Courts. [CPR, above, dates to 1981 also as a nonprofit] This time – Margaret Little – FAMILY COURT SERVICES for LOS ANGELES, and a Colorado individual named Jessica Pearson orchestrated yet another version of the LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE SCHEME. Pearson borrowed the EIN of the WISCONSIN AFCC and claimed her office was in Colorado as an ILLINOIS corporation. The LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE became PEARSON’S and Dr MARGARET LITTLE’S California – FOREIGN – CORPORATION.

    • (WI, Colorado, L.A. and IL if you can keep up with that…)
    • I just found a strange, but possibly corroborating 1986 document, the “February 1986 Newsletter of the Alabama Court News, “Newsletter of the Alabama Judicial System” On page 3, it reads, under headline: “Federal Grant funds Sexual Abuse Study:
    • The Research Unit of the …(AFCC) and the American Bar Association have been awarded a grant from the federal dept. of Human Development Services* to study sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases. The goal of the study is to find how court officials [such as…?] are presently handling such matters, identify preferred procedures, and develop educational materials on the subject.” “Court officials [sic] desiring to participate in the study should contact AFCC at the following address:

    • [Wow… Preferred procedures for handling sexual abuse allegations in divorce cases, such as — Gardner’s theories? They want to educate judges how to rule?] Also – it says since 1981 — at that address:]
    • [*Note: the HUGE “HHS that now dispenses welfare, child support, medicare, head start funds, and sometimes is the largest (as to expenses) Exec Branch Dept — was formed in 1991, as I recall. This is 5 years earlier).

  • In fact the information arm is one of the most important, to quell rebellion before it gets going.

Maybe Rome went down because of lead in the pipes, or maybe some “karma” (or god) just got sick of all the slaughter for entertainment. Ever read about what happened in that Colosseum?

Back to this millennium — and the last decades

of the last one (1980-2010). In re: marriage, abuse, divorce, custody..

And the concept of “protection from abuse” or “restraining orders” as if they were NOT certifiably insane, as to fulfilling their supposed purpose of protecting or restraining.

While the literature tends to focus on, “it’s just a piece of paper and can’t stop a bullet,” the ones we REALLY can’t count on are the arresting officers. It’s an additional component of Russian Roulette that a woman can’t afford. And suing for any sort of damages on the basis of, they had a duty to protect, a procedural due process right to the victim, a substantive due process right to the victim, or in short, any consequences that “absolute judicial immunity” or the 11th amendment wouldn’t make LEGALLY protected (let alone the practical aspects) — they don’t, and probably never did.

Some judges are crooked — I don’t know how many. Some attorneys are also, and get nailed on RICO like the Luzerne judges did, RICO (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations“) being a criminal enterprise. There’s a case I may post out of suburban Chicago (older) where the husband (an attorney) did murder for hire, but not until he’d conspired in advance to wire-tap (jealous), someone had been prepared to dispose of the body (i.e., of his wife) and someone had been prepared to obstruct the investigation. (Alan & Dianne G. Masters, West Suburban Chicago, 1982 she disappears~ 1988 RICO charges)

As RICO does require some organizational skills, and Masters had already been engaged in other forms of crime, all the players to add murder-for-hire to this were in place, and he didn’t resist the temptation to engage, showing us to drop our illusions that every person in public office, or in positions of power, influence, and with access to streams of $$ isn’t per se there for service. Some are, some aren’t. And the ones that aren’t would be normally attracted to people in compromised situations (like a troublesome traffic ticket, an illegal enterprise of their own, or divorcing with children from a frighteningly dangerous spouse who’s already committed some crimes against your body, or your child’s). This attorney was acting more like a pimp with a stable, and some affiliate marekting reps in uniform. Maybe he liked the thrill of the danger and risk (one sees definite business skills that migh twork just as well in legal activities) or maybe it was simple greed.

It didn’t save her life, and no one was ever charged for murder, but the three “perps” got caught on racketeering and put away for a good many years, and fined. Oh yeah, and he had a $100,000 life insurance policy on his wife also.

So are some officers. And some are good. – – – – that’s just life. Why, then, (though) when women come for help, were they then (1990s) and now (2000s) doling out protection from abuse orders as if they were reliably enforceable? They aren’t. They’re real good at getting men angry though.

~ ~ ~ ~I can’t put my story up (or too much of it). But it’s been so many years in this system here. My infrastructure is repeatedly broken down, year after year, and access to things like transportation, (sometimes food), internet, health care (uninsured presently) just shouldn’t be.

~ ~ ~ ~If you have not been in a situation similar to the one I’m about to post (the part below is summary of her judicial proceedings after deciding to leave– having gotten a real severe beating (while naked), a threat for another, having had a young daughter molested by a visiting stepson, her husband was no inner city young black male, but a nasty computer analyst who’d (it turned out) abused his first wife, too.

~ ~ ~ ~Sleep deprivation is a factor and technique of weakening someone (I know). Attack on personal private parts (ditto). Rules almost uniformly designed to remove one’s humanity, with severe punishment for falling short (and they’re impossible to fulfil) with no rule for him. . . . .Having to choose which child you can do more to protect, potentially sacrificing something important for the other. Having your strength or skills as a professional work against you post-divorce. Historic revisionism (no remorse or acknowledgement of injury, and of course the father was the real caretaker all those years). Health care professionals treating injuries and not really asking questions. Your kids watching the assaults.

I’ll pick up this story mid-stream. See if you recognize the characters: judge, psychologists, attorneys (#1, 2, and 3), theme of supervised visitation, and her knowledge that if she requested it, he’d go for custody, professionals continually minimizing the situation and playing their own games . . . all too familiar.

I want to say something about “stories.” THEY HELPED ME while I was in the abusive relationship. One of the cruelest things is the isolation and dealing with the man’s anger when he perceives you may be connecting with someone who might validate or connect with you, and to whom you might report. You might get out, but there also may (or may not) be retaliation for doing so. Or you might be put through hell beforehand, so you get out, in public, in trauma, shaking, or in shock. One trick pulled frequently in our home (with kids) was I’d have enough gas in the car to get there (when a car was available) but not enough to get back. Hearing of women who got out HELPED me. If nothing else, to feel less guilty.

I pick up the story mid-stream, and admit that I am exhausted today.

Overall, I found the lawyers and psychologists very self–promoting and egotistical. It seemed as if everyone was having a good time, playing the game of litigation and psychology. All the while, my life was on the line. My children and I did not matter. I also felt like the lawyers and psychologists were running a cash register business at my expense. They were a lot more interested in my money than my welfare. The first two years of my divorce proceedings cost me more than twenty–five thousand dollars.

As incredible as it might sound, the judge who heard my custody case had an outstanding protective order against him by his ex–wife. I also sensed very strongly that the judge did not like me. For these reasons, I told my lawyer I wanted to seek the judge’s recusal. My lawyer dismissed me, saying, “You’ll just get someone worse.”

@ @ @ @ @Z

I probably never would have gotten Daniel back, except that Russ’s live–in girlfriend (with whom he is still living) contacted the children’s psychologist to report that he was abusing Daniel. This was four or five months after Russ had gained custody of Daniel. I think the girlfriend made her revelation partly because I had told her that Russ was planning to seek full custody of Elizabeth, too. Russ was not really taking care of the kids; the girlfriend was. When she learned that he would be going after Elizabeth too, she said, “WHAT???!!!” I think she cared about the children and knew that Russ’s having custody would be harmful and dangerous for them, plus, I doubt she was interested in being the caretaker for both kids.

After learning about Russ’s abuse of Daniel, I immediately went to my lawyer (Lawyer #3), demanding an immediate petition for a change of custody. He said we could not seek a modification of custody because it was too soon. He said, “Let the ink dry on the judge’s custody order.” That was the last straw and I fired him.

I got a new lawyer and a new psychologist. I recorded a telephone conversation with Russ’s girlfriend about the abuse of Daniel. Russ’s girlfriend was subpoenaed, and because of the recording, I knew––and Russ knew––that the abuse of Daniel would come out. Even if Russ intimidated her into changing her testimony, I think he knew that the tape was credible.

Faced with a situation he could not win, Russ folded. He agreed to a modification and I regained custody of Daniel. I grabbed at the chance to get custody back, even though I had to agree that Russ could have unsupervised visitation with the children. I knew Russ would never agree to supervised visitation. I did not want, and could not pay for, another long, drawn–out battle in court. Besides, based on what I had seen, I did not want to risk what a judge might do.

As far as I am concerned, Russ agreed to the change of custody to save face. No one in authority ever held him accountable for his abuse. People in authority, like the judge and the psychologists, always supported him and held a good opinion of him. Russ wanted to maintain his good image at all costs. By giving up custody of Daniel without a fight, he could avoid the public humiliation of being outed as an abuser.

He portrayed the custody change to the children as a sacrifice he was making because he loved them so much. “This is what’s best for you,” he said. Once again, he took no responsibility for doing anything wrong in abusing Daniel. He showed no remorse.

Even after I had custody of both kids, Russ continued to engage in repeated violations of my protective order through phone harassment and stalking. Additionally, his son, Chip, was there unsupervised when the kids visited Russ. Apparently, though, Chip did not abuse either child further.

@ @ @ @

C. Attitudes Need to Change More than the Law

Domestic violence law is certainly far better than it has been in the past. We have seen progress in the legislative, [77] judicial, [78] and executive [79] arenas. Positive legislative reform is on–going, though there is a backlash as well, driven primarily by the Fathers’ Rights movement. [80]

Changes in the law are important. With better law, good people (judges, police, etc.) can do more and bad ones are limited in the harm they can cause. Law can also have an educational effect. A judge or police officer who initially resists laws and policies that are appropriate for domestic violence cases may ultimately come to see their value.

Mary’s story shows, however, that the primary problem is not with the law but with the human beings who interpret and administer it. The legal system betrayed Mary, but not because it lacked the power to act differently. The judges, psychologists, and lawyers could have protected Mary and her children. They could have understood woman battering, or made a point of educating themselves about it. They could have let go of their stereotypes about what batterers and their victims “look like” and how they act. They could have reexamined their values, under which abuse of Mom is irrelevant to Dad’s fitness as a parent. The list continues indefinitely.

Mary’s custody judge easily had the power to find that full custody with Mary was in the children’s “best interest” [81] and that Russ’s visitation had to be supervised. [82] The judge could have warned Russ, not Mary, that he had to be on his best behavior or he would lose even supervised visitation. The judge could have ordered Russ to undergo batterers’ counseling as a precondition for even supervised visitation. [83]

My point is simple: this did not have to happen. Without in any way ignoring or bending the law, Mary, the children––and Russ––could have been dealt with appropriately. Mary and her children, especially Daniel, may pay for the system’s sexism, ignorance, and indifference for a lifetime. And, as Mary says, society pays too when the aftermath of abuse spills out, as it often will, beyond the family.

@ @ @ @

F. Any “Solution” Not Based on Battered Women’s Experiences
Is Doomed to Failure

We cannot know what to do about domestic violence unless we listen to survivors’ stories. In them are the keys to solutions. Battered women and formerly battered women are telling us what works and what does not. People with professional training can help, but only if their actions and recommendations are based on what battered women and formerly battered women say. [116]

Women like Mary tell us that mediation, joint custody, and couples counseling can be terrible for battered women, [117] yet certain professionals continue to advocate for these things in domestic violence cases. [118] Their arguments, however, are from the viewpoint of the mediator or the system, not the battered woman and her children. [119] Women’s safety concerns are either not addressed or minimized. [120]

Proponents of mediation in domestic violence cases express a near–magical belief in mediation and mediators. They believe that the mediator can tell when mediation is not appropriate or when it should be stopped [121] (another example of the helper’s ego surfacing). Sadly, the only expertise that seems to count is the mediator’s. Battered women’s expertise does not seem to matter. [122]

Sometimes, it seems that battered women’s voices are getting more and more lost. The field has become professionalized, [123] semi–respectable, [124] and partially funded. [125] There has been a parallel tendency to turn the focus away from the victims and toward the professionals. [126]

I do not want to be misunderstood here. I have absolutely no nostalgia for the “good old days” when shelters did not exist or led threadbare existences, and when a professor who wanted to teach Domestic Violence would have been laughed off campus. I have been doing domestic violence work far too long for such foolishness. I relish the voice, the power, and even the respectability that our movement has achieved. But people who really care about battered women must remain ever vigilant against those whose solutions come from their own professional experience and not from victims’ lives.

@ @ @

As a mother and wife, I absolutely agree that families need rules. Nothing is sadder than a house where “anything goes” and there are no rules; everyone is unhappy, especially the children. [131] Nor do I think that every rule, even if somewhat imposed by one family member over others, is abusive.

But rules are different in a batterer’s house. They are never negotiated; they are always imposed. [132] And rulemaking is a one–way street: the batterer sets rules for other family members, while he does exactly as he pleases. [133] Russ ordered Mary not to watch comedies on television, just as he announced that he was quitting his job. Mary knew that even suggesting alternatives might result in violence. But Russ could be away for days at a time, and Mary was not to question his actions.

The rules in a batterer’s house are not just for his comfort and enjoyment. They are an integral part of his plan to control and isolate his partner. [134] As Mary said, the rule about no comedies on television meant she could not exercise her sense of humor, an important part of her self–image. Batterer’s rules also control matters such as whether and when she can leave the house, and how she can spend money. [135] Many rules reinforce the victim’s isolation, such as rules about not having any of her friends over or going out with other people after work. [136][137] She might hear something that made her feel good while listening to the radio, or she might hear a description of domestic violence and recognize herself and start planning her escape. Looking out at the world from her kitchen window (or having someone else look in and see what was going on) might decrease her isolation. Even “little” rules, like “don’t play the radio when I’m gone” and “keep the curtain in the kitchen down” are part of an overall pattern of isolation.

In the functional family, rules are negotiated and renegotiated. [138] One partner may give in to the other, but both partners engage in some give and take. The rules may not fulfill everyone’s needs, but they do not destroy family members’ self–esteem either. [139] In functional families, people are basically satisfied with the rules. [140]

Second, the batterer’s list of rules is ridiculously long and ever expanding and changing. [141] While his partner and children are struggling to comply with his existing demands, new and often contradictory rules are added. [142] This again is in marked contrast with the non–abusive “dinner at six” dad. We have all known non–abusive families where one member (usually, but not always, the father) must be catered to, but his demands are limited and stable. Further, the demanding but non–abusive family member is capable of being satisfied. “Just feed him on time and he’s a happy man” is not something an abused wife would say.

Finally, there is the punishment imposed for non–compliance with rules. [143] The non–abusive man does not beat or rape his wife or children if dinner is not on the table at six. He may pout for a while, or whine, he may even occasionally yell. His reaction may be unhealthy, but the other family members do not live in terror of what will happen if the rules are not met.

Identification protocols for battered women should include questions about rulemaking. [144] Something like this would be good: “Every household has rules under which it operates. Tell me about the ones in your house. What are the rules? How are they established? What happens when they’re not met?” With a sympathetic ear and a little prodding, a battered woman may quickly identify a long list of onerous and changing rules, imposed by the abuser and ruthlessly enforced by him. [145] If she is still in the relationship, or just getting out, she may describe the rules matter–of–factly, and may consider them normal. [146] One advantage of asking about the rules is that she may talk about them much more readily and with less shame than about the violence she has experienced. [147]

H. How Physical and Non–Physical Abuse Work Together:
Why Do We See It as Torture When [XxxxxXxxx] Generals Do It,
But Not When It’s the Guy Next Door?

People are still very ignorant about domestic violence and how it works. If you talk to people and read news reports, the emphasis is always on physical violence. [148] Mary encountered this ignorance when the psychologists, judges, and lawyers minimized her danger because the last severe beating occurred a year and a half before Mary left Russ for good.

~ ~ ~ ~

In other settings, we are well aware of how torturers combine physical and mental abuse to get and keep power over their victims. [154] Appendix B is one of my favorite charts, adapted from Ann Jones’s book Next Time, She’ll Be Dead. [155] In the left–hand column are non–physical torture methods that Amnesty International has recognized and cata

logued. [156] Totalitarian regimes often use these techniques against political prisoners. [157] In the right–hand column are battered women’s descriptions of how their batterers used these same techniques to control them. [158] I have added some examples from Mary’s story to what appears in Jones’s book.

Those who work with battered women must understand the interplay of physical and non–physical abuse. When seen in context, a “slap” is not just a “slap”; it is a warning that the victim must comply with the batterer’s demands “or else.” Repeated phone calls to her at work are not just a sign of a little insecurity. They are part of an overall scheme of isolation and control. Busting up the furniture at home, or throwing the cat against the wall are not unfortunate temper tantrums; they say, “you could be next.” [159]

We should recognize domestic violence as the human rights violation it is. [160] We should draw analogies between domestic violence and torture, [161] to kidnappers and hostages. [162]

READER QUIZ: WHAT YEAR WAS THAT STORY ?

(hover cursor above to find the copyright and which attorney related the story).

Hover over THIS and I’ll tell you when this woman married & got her RO.

It could’ve been a decade later, and wouldn’t have read much different. I found this story after, with curiosity, searching on the man who wrote the article below. I hope readers may go back (click on this link, the “READER QUIZ” link) and actually read Mary’s Story, which was an actual case (name changed), and too damn typical. I doubt a person who has experienced abuse would respond the same as one who hasn’t.

NOW, for comic relief, of the monotous drone of fatherlessness being the nation’s crisis (and we have JUST the solution to fix it . . . . ).

Fall of marriage seen linked to decline in domestic murders Drop in homicides called ‘ironic benefit’ of change

The decline of marriage and the breakdown of stable relationships have produced a paradoxical benefit: Domestic murders have declined, with the most dramatic reductions among African- Americans, a University of Missouri criminologist reported yesterday.

“We’re living at a time of dramatic changes in marriage, intimate relationships and family structure,” said Richard Rosenfeld, speaking in Baltimore at the meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “Those changes have had an ironic benefit in reducing the number of intimate-partner homicides.”

Dr. Rosenfeld’s findings are the flip side of the much-reported increase in young men killing young men, which he said may be attributed in part to similar factors — family instability and lack of supervision by harried single parents

READER QUIZ — WHAT YEAR WAS THIS ARTICLE (ABOVE)?

(author date & cite show when cursor hovers over link)

OK, now that you know when Dr. Rosenfled (a criminologist, not a PSYchologist) found out that the decline in marriage rates among African Americans meant reduced DV homicides among African Americans (although young men were killing each other more, they weren’t apparently killing so many wives or “intimate partners.” )

Let’s say what the head-honcho elected mostly white men were saying about the same year:

I searched the 104th Congress (1995-1996) for the word “fatherless.”

As we know, fatherlessness has been for so long blamed on the nation’s troubles that you can barely walk somewhere in a government agency, or any social service community agency (after you come back from either a Catholic church, where the (celibate?) priests are called “Father” in direct disobedience to Jesus’s command in the gospels, “call no man Father.” Or, an evangelical Protestant, not quite mainline (or, megachurch) where, after the ranks were being drained to women, they are adding testosterone to the doctrine, and teaching men to be more sensitive (in men’s groups, of course).

If you want to go without the straight-up religious variety, there’s always “The Mankind Project” and one can get a seminar of the Robert Bly type. There are fatherhood practitioners everywhere one looks, practically.

All I really wanted was the conversation where a legislator expresses shock and dismay that African American boys and girls are waking up on homes without their fathers. (NOTE: The “Mary” story above happened in the late 1980s, and HER 3 kids were waking up with their father in the home. In fact, her little girl Elizabeth, at age 3, had gotten an early introduction to sex when her stepbrother came there for the summer and molested her, after which her mother had another job of making sure they weren’t left alone together. (That couple were white and suburban, so maybe they didn’t count in this topic).

I got a little more than I expected in this 104th Congressional record:
Beginning
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996–CONFERENCE REPORT

 

I met a man who was an administrator of one of the hospitals in my community in the 15th District of Florida, and this gentleman told me that, before he had moved to Florida, he had lived in Oklahoma, and he had taken part in a program where he would go into inner city housing projects and read to young children in those projects. This program started because it has been shown in research studies that, if you read to a child, you can improve their reading score. Actually there are some studies that show that, if you read to a child, you may actually be able to raise their IQ slightly, {{Noble cause. Some Oklahoman going to raise inner city kids’ IQs}} and he told me something that I will never forget.

So this anecdotal evidence of an unnamed Florida Hospital Administrator, about (how many years previous?) that administrator going into the projects (hence, he wasn’t from them) was not 2nd-hand but 3rd-hand hearsay — if the event ever indeed happened. The impassioned delivery is to state how Welfare is Cruel — listen up how this is done:

He was going into those projects and reading to those kids, and those children were, by and large, children of single parents on welfare, and he would ask, many of them 5, 6 and 7-year-old children, `What do you want to be when you grow up?’ And, yes, some of them would say I want to be a fireman or a nurse, but some of them would say:

`I don’t want to work. I want to collect a check.’

Not all of them wanted to be firemen or nurses (separate by gender; I don’t know how many female fire”men” there are these days, but we know there are lots of male nurses… And probably were in 1996, too..)

Mr. Speaker, a program that does that to millions of children is not a program of compassion and caring to children. It is a program that is cruel and mean spirited to children.

Here’s the process — a man in Florida heard a man in Florida talk about his experience trying to improve the iQ of little kids in the projects (did he talk to their Mamas?) in Oklahoma, and concludes that (although even in the story some WANTED a profession, others wanted a check) FEEDING such children was mean-spirited and cruel…

Today a young male being born to a mother, a single mother on welfare in the United States, has a greater likelihood of ending up on drugs or in the penitentiary than graduating from high school.

I showed in “Luzerne County” that you don’t have to be poor or (presumable here) black to be a crook. There’s a difference between being a crook and actually being jailed for it. It should be common knowledge now, and I bet then (1996) that America, being the largest jailor (per capita) has those jails disproportionately filled with black males. Some of them got their assaulting their mother’s attacker, too. He’s taking two statistics (if that) and creating a CASUAL connection rather than a CAUSAL one. Of course, how many poor black males — or females of any social status or color — were there in Congress in 1996 to comment on his reasoning process?

And the young females, (single mothers have both boys and girls, right?) — are THEY ending up on drugs or in jail?

The problem that we have with illegitimacy in our Nation today is a problem that has been created by the program that we are trying to change, and you cannot fix this problem by tinkering around the edges. The illegitimacy rate in this country has gone up from 5 percent to almost 25 percent in the white community. In the black community it has gone from less than 25 percent to, in some areas, as high as 70 percent.

If you look at what correlates best, what correlates in communities with problems like teenage pregnancy, drug use, illiteracy, juvenile crime, the thing that correlates best in those problems in those communities, Mr. Speaker, is the amount of illegitimacy, the amount of fatherlessness in those communities. A program that perpetuates and cultivates things like this is a cruel and mean-spirited program, and that program needs to be changed, and our bill makes a serious attempt at doing that.

We are not talking about tinkering around the edges. We are talking about promoting family unity, discouraging teen-age pregnancy and illegitimacy.

The fact that this program perpetuates it, Mr. Speaker, was driven home to me when I was a medical student working in an inner-city obstetrics clinic, and I had a 15-year-old girl come in to see me who was pregnant, and I had never seen this before, and I was so upset. I was grieved to see this. I looked at her and said her life is ruined, she cannot go to college, and I said to her, `How did this happen, why did this happen,’ and she looked up to me and told me that she did it deliberately because she wanted to get out from under her mother in the project, and she wanted her own place and her own welfare check.

Again, on the outside looking in, and one anecdote.

This program needs to stop. The people have asked for it; we are trying to deliver.

WHICH people? I mean, these are elected representatives, are they really speaking for their constituents?

Mr. Speaker, I encourage the Members of the minority to stop their partisan rhetoric and join with us in reforming welfare and creating a program for the poor and the needy that strengthens family, does not undermine them, that strengthens the bonds of marriage, because it is strong families that make strong communities that makes strong nations, and our Nation cannot survive with a perpetuation of a program like this.

Is it the lack of marriage, or the lack of fathers that counts? Because I tell you one thing that makes lack of fathers — WARS. Another thing that previously, broke up families in a callous manner is called slavery.

Who created ghettoes? Who created the two-tier school system, good for some lousy for others (a factor to this date). Who directed one populace into “jobs” and the others (elite ones) into how to run businesses and understand investments, political connections, foundations, and skills that would go along with that goal?

So if you want to know how much we (we WHO???) have invested in the old welfare program over the past 30 years, it is roughly the equivalent of the value of all buildings, all plants and equipment, and all of the tools of all the workers in the United States of America. No society in history has ever invested more money trying to help needy people than the United States of America has invested.

Yet, what has been the result of all of those good intentions? What has been the result of that investment? The result of that investment, 30 years later, is that we have as many poor people today as we had 30 years ago. They are poorer today, they are more dependent on the Government today, and by any definition of quality of life, fulfillment, or happiness, people are worse off today than they were when we started the current welfare system.

When we started the War on Poverty {{and another war in Southeast Asia to follow up on the Korean war I guess}} in the mid-1960s, two-parent families were the norm in poor families in America. Today, two-parent families are the exception. Since 1965, the illegitimacy rate has tripled.

I know that we have colleagues on the other side of the aisle who are going to lament the passage of this new welfare reform bill. But I do not see how anybody with a straight face, or a clear conscience, can defend the status quo in welfare. Our current welfare program has failed. It has driven fathers out of the household. It has made mothers dependent. It has taken away people’s dignity. It has bred child abuse and neglect, and filled the streets of our cities with crime. And we are here today to change it.

Grammar: Is this guy going to “own” the welfare program, or objectify it? First it was guilt trip, “we have created” and net thing it’s got an independent life, like a disease, perpetuating itself of its own accord, where it can be separated from the rhetorical bosom of the speaker, and be viewed running around tearing up the place. As an “it” it can now have stones thrown at IT first. And after the vivid picture of 5, 6 , 7 year olds wanting to collect a welfare check (“millions of them”) (Seriously, that’s the subliminal message — guilt trip first, it’s ours” and then relieve the guilt by blaming the same thing “we” created, and QUICK, call to action.….) Some action is needed to take away

Let me outline what our program does. I think if each of us looks back to a period when our ancestors first came to America, or back to a time when those who have gone before us found themselves poor, we are going to find that there are two things that get individuals and nations out of poverty. Those two things are work and family. I think it is instructive to note that those are the two things that we have never applied to the current welfare program of the United States of America.

This man seems totally unconscious of the fact that SOME ancestors came to America in the bottom of a slave ship; that a lot of wealth, including likely some of the wealth that helped put people in Congress, came from came from businesses that included plantation labor, sweat shops, and some very, very hard work. When he says “us” as to doling out benefits, he also seems to have forgotten that those taxes came from employees’ wages, courtesy a few reforms dating back to 1939. He seems to have forgotten everything about “Jim Crow” and era of attempting to turn back the clock on some serious industriousness by freed slaves.

The bill before us asks people to work. It says that able-bodied men and women will be required to work in order to receive benefits. It sets a time limit so that people cannot make welfare a way of life. It seeks to change the incentives within the welfare system. And I believe the time has come to change those incentives within the welfare system.

I admit I’m maybe sensitive to this because I know HOW HARD I worked over the years, and none harder than while in a battering relationship that could’ve been a variety of the one above (but a decade later). This relationship, within marriage shouldn’t be happening any more in the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, or 2000s, but it is.

Family Court Systems Purposefully Mask Abuse and Abusers

(SEPARATE TOPIC, above)) just saving the link).

Intergenerational Impact of Ongoing Molestation…McNeill/Vargas case

with one comment

 

Sunday, the SF Chronicle (print edition) had a front page article on a young man who, after years of molestation by a certain older man (from the time he was ELVEN [11] into his TWENTIES [20s]) took matters — and a gun — into his own hand, and calmly shot the guy, to death, in front of his wife.  The young man was Vargas, the older one, McNeill.

There are lessons to be learned in the article, and in how the press handled it.

Mr. Vargas has a young daughter, per the account I’m linking to today, and the older one, McNeill, apparently having finished his run of molesting the young adult, was seeking contact with this granddaughter.

Let’s think about the Grandparent Visitation issues, as well as the ACCESS/Visitation issues, acknowledging that where abuse HAS occurred, either of beating a parent in front of a child, or of using a child for one’s personal gratification (either one is illegal, inappropriate, and consists of USING a person, whether an adult person, or a young person, to satisfy one’s primal instincts, rather than finding a creative — and LEGAL — outlet for expression of them.

I too, searched on-line for this, and it was NOT featured under front page links to the same newspaper.  Our society is so communally stressed, I think they just cannot handle the hard truths until they hit home.  Even then (collectively), only temporarily. 

So here are some High School Seniors from San Mateo (per blogsite) commenting on this event.  The blog is:  “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to National Affairs.” As I have found personally, the younger people are, typically the more honest they are going to be in general on some of the deep issues of life. 

The focus of the article had been what the TOWN thought about how to punish this young man, as well as the surviving widow.  My paragraphing is probably different than on their site..

Sunday, February 21, 2010

Cold-blooded murder. Town says it was justified?

I read this very interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle today. Unfortunately, there is no link for it online (SFGate says the article is only available in print). The article was titled “Town says abuse drove man to kill,” and it was on the front page of the newspaper.
Don’t you think that rather interesting?  I’m glad someone else noticed and commented on it.
The article discussed the trial of 32-year-old Aaron Vargas who is accused of murdering his 63-year-old former neighbor, Darrell McNeill. On February 8th of last year, Vargas went to visit McNeill. After exchanging a few words with the man, Vargas proceeded to shoot McNeill in the chest with “a .44-caliber round from a Civil War-style cap-and-ball revolver.” McNeill died slowly, and Vargas stayed and watched as he took apart his weapon.
McNeill’s wife, Liz, was present during the entire event. According to Liz, “Vargas told McNeill ‘he was lucky’ his wife was there.” After shooting McNeill, Vargas told the dying man “you’re not going to hurt anyone again.” He then revealed to Liz that McNeill had molested him as a child.
Vargas returned home and told his mother, Robin Vargas, that he’d shot McNeill. He also revealed that McNeill had abused him during his childhood.
Apparently, the abuse began when Vargas was 11-years-old and went on a fishing trip which McNeill also attended. Robin recalls that following this particular trip, Vargas’s grades plummeted and he became very withdrawn.
Apparently, the abuse continued until about 4 years ago, when Vargas finally stood up to McNeill.
But, McNeill did not back down easily. He continued to call Vargas and drop by his house, even offering to babysit his young daughter.
Did you get that?  This man, after (probably) sodomizing a man from puberty until shortly before (or after — how young was the daughter?) now offers to babysit said daughter.  Do you think this was a factor in Mr. Vargas finally taking matters into his own hands, in the form of a gun?
 
Vargas was arrested later that night. However, over the course of the past year, support for Vargas has grown. Quite a few other men have come forward and revealed that they were also victims of McNeill’s abuse. In fact, several people had filed reports against McNeill over a decade ago. None of the reports were ever followed up on.
Many within the community, including McNeill’s wife, Liz, think that it would be inappropriate to sentence Vargas to a life in prison. Liz has said that she would prefer Vargas to “receive counseling instead of a lengthy prison term.”
In fact, it seems that the only people pushing for a harsh sentence are the detectives investigating the case and the district attorney.
In this case, I have to say that I feel it would be inappropriate to sentence Aaron Vargas to a life in prison. He was abused by McNeill for 17 years!! I cannot even imagine the emotional pain Vargas must be experiencing. While I think he does deserve some prison time, I feel the focus should be on providing Vargas with the counseling and support he needs to move on.
While we cannot condone murder, I think there needs to be proper attention paid to the fact that Vargas was clearly not in his right mind. He had been abused for so many years, he just wanted the pain to end. What really irritates me is that there had been previous allegations against McNeill, but nothing had been investigated or followed up on.
If McNeill had been prosecuted a decade ago, so much abuse could have been prevented.
There is one point in the story that I find slightly confusing. Liz McNeill was present during the entire murder. She saw Vargas shoot her husband, and was there during the half hour in which Vargas waited for McNeill to die. I do not know the exact circumstances, but wouldn’t it have made sense for her to call the police? Vargas’s gun only had one bullet, which he used on McNeill.
It seems like McNeill’s death could have been prevented.

 

 I searched on this same site for “Domestic Violence” and found a link to a huffington post article.  A “Tip O’ the Hat” to the blogsters….\

When Getting Beaten By Your Husband is a Pre-Existing Condition

Abuse

With the White House zeroing in on the insurance-industry practice of discriminating against clients based on pre-existing conditions, administration allies are calling attention to how broadly insurers interpret the term to maximize profits.

It turns out that in eight states, plus the District of Columbia, getting beaten up by your spouse is a pre-existing condition.

Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you’re more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.

In human terms, it’s a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.

My personal experience, both in marriage, and in court, is that when human terms clash with economic terms, the economic terms, in general, prevail.  However, economically-motivated practices — like endless attempts to TEACH judges and others that woman-beating and child-molesting is wrong, but NOT wrong enough to deprive the woman-beater or child-molester of ongoing contact (supervised — at someone’s expense — or Unsupervised, with eventual consequences to society) — or even of contact PERMANENTLY (as a deterrent to OTHER woman-beaters or child-molesters) – – are often sold with a human-terms window-dressing.

That’s how Bush sold Abstinence AND marriage education.  We can see who is and who isn’t supposed to abide by those standards by reading the headlines involving political, sports, and celebrity headlines.  Or by taking a typical look at one’s local high school.

In 2006, Democrats tried to end the practice. An amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), now a member of leadership, split the Health Education Labor & Pensions Committee 10-10. The tie meant that the measure failed.

All ten no votes were Republicans, including Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyoming), a member of the “Gang of Six” on the Finance Committee who are hashing out a bipartisan bill. A spokesman for Enzi didn’t immediately return a call from Huffington Post.

At the time, Enzi defended his vote by saying that such regulations could increase the price of insurance and make it out of reach for more people. “If you have no insurance, it doesn’t matter what services are mandated by the state,” he said, according to a CQ Today item from March 15th, 2006.

[[THIS article is from 09/14/2009)

The fact is, economies are BUILT around allowing abuse to continue — but just to certain populations.  And other economies are BUILT around, supposedly, handling it.

Here’s a link to the fact that the SF Chronicle’s PRINT-ONLY policy (and the 9 headline stories it did NOT have on-line.  May be on-line Tuesday?).

Worth The $3? Today’s Print Only Chronicle With Bonus Video!

by Eve Batey  [[Thank you, Eve]] February 21, 2010 3:00 PM

chron2.21.jpg

 February 21, 2010 3:00 PM

As you might recall, the recently Chron announced that, in an effort “to provide a better reading experience for Sunday print subscribers and to differentiate it from our website,” certain items that appear in the print and e-edition Sunday Chronicle would not appear on their website until the following Tuesday.

Not that folks who buy their Sunday print Chron as a single copy would necessarily know that! because, as you can see from the video below*, this week the Chron modestly chose to hide their print only content from the casual browser:Oh, Chronicle. Anyway, our print only stuff this week’s the 4 front page stories, and 5 columns: Native Son, Matier & Ross, Willie’s World, Scott Ostler, and Ray Ratto.  What are these 9 “news” stories the Chronicle didn’t consider imperatively newsy enough to make available to SFGate readers for a few days? Let’s see:

Critics blast real estate reform Some people who are selling their houses are pissed because year-old changes to the appraisal system seem to be causing their homes to be valued at less than what they feel they’re worth. Worth the $3? If it’s been a year, it can probably wait until Tuesday. 

Town says abuse drove man to kill A Fort Bragg guy admits he killed another man (with a Civil War era gun!), says he did it because they guy had been molesting him since he was 11, then “badgering and pursuing” him for several years thereafter. And everyone in Fort Bragg seems to believe him, and doesn’t think he should do time. It’s odd that a story based in Fort Bragg, a town so far from San Francisco that the Chronicle includes a handy map in the story, should so dominate the front page. That said, it’s an interesting story, in a magazine sort of way. Worth the $3? Get a cup of coffee and read it on Tuesday.

 (for the other 7, click on link…)

Anyone able (today) to find more about that McNeill/Vargas story on-line, than what I just posted here — the high school student’s blog, and this person commenting on it NOT being on-line, let me know — comment today, send a link today.  Or tomorrow. 

Let’s take a moment and think about the IMPACT on someone’s failure to prosecute for this man’s molestation, upon:

  • Himself
  • His daughter, and her future without a natural father in the home.
  • The mother of his daughter
  • The widow (she became a widow; imagine handling that truth about your own husband…)
  • The molester (he died)

There is indeed a STORY behind those failures (think “Garrido/Dugard”) as there is behind the Town that didn’t know this was going on. 

Other people came forward after this homicide, and spoke their truths.

Here’s a blog on this from July, 2009, The Press Democrat:

By LAURA NORTON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 4:05 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, July 5, 2009 at 4:05 a.m.

( page of 7 )

The winding mountain road that twists out of Fort Bragg and east into redwood forests was dark and deserted the night last February when Aaron Vargas drove to the home of a man he had known since boyhood.

This was not a social visit.

Vargas, 31, carried an antique black powder revolver, one that requires the loading of primer, wadding and a projectile before cocking the weapon, details that would become important months later.

Pause to digest this age.  Another story says the abuse stopped only 4 years earlier, making Vargas 27 years old when it stopped.  I really suspect that Vargas’ awareness of what might be his daughter’s fate was a factor in the action he took to make sure it wouldn’t.

On this night the gun was made ready to fire. Vargas approached, and now stands accused of pointing the gun and firing a single shot into Darrell McNeill’s chest while McNeill’s stunned wife, Liz, looked on.

As the 63-year-old man lay dying, according to court testimony, Vargas disassembled the gun, placed it on the kitchen counter, and told McNeill’s wife why he was there: The man he shot was his molester.

McNeill, Vargas later told family, first molested him when he was 11 years old. He said he was just one of many boys who fell victim to McNeill, a man long seen in the community as a loyal husband, community volunteer and friendly salesman.

Darrell McNeill settled in Fort Bragg while working for the old Union Lumber Co. He led the local Mormon Church’s Boy Scout troop in the 1980s and mentored youth in the Big Brother Big Sister program before that.

Parents.  PLEASE!  Understand that there is more than one motivation running through people who want unmonitored access to your kids.  I know that’s hard to handle, but be alert, OK?  Know what’s up behind closed doors (figuratively speaking).  Do the McNeill’s have kids?

He sold families their refrigerators and washing machines from the store he established. That he could lead a secret life molesting child after child was unimaginable, yet even his widow now believes the allegations to be true.

She now wonders if she ever really knew the man she was married to for 25 years, the man who fell on hard times when his business went bankrupt and he was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.

There were no clues, no signs to the abuse, she said.

The men who have come forward to Vargas’ attorney to say they, too, were abused, are men Liz McNeill calls her “boys.”

Like Vargas, they were kids that hung around the house to play, kids with whom her husband had a good rapport.

“What I learned that night, I didn’t know had happened,” said Liz McNeill, whose eyewitness account of the shooting likely will be pivotal in the jury trial set to start in September.

She has asked prosecutors to reduce the charges against Vargas.

The community is struggling with questions of justice — for a homicide victim now branded a child molester, and for an accused killer who claims to be a sexual abuse victim. One is buried, the other in jail.

Prosecutors, however, say vengeance is no excuse for murder and the crime deserves 50 years to life in prison. A pretrial hearing will take place this month.

Supportive words

As the trial date nears, more than 1,000 comments asking the District Attorney’s Office not to prosecute the case have been posted on a Web page set up by Vargas’ family. Some of the comments are from victims of sexual abuse. Most are from current or former Fort Bragg residents. Many are coming to terms with a dark secret they may have lived with for decades.

Since the shooting, at least eight alleged victims have come forward to Vargas’ attorney, Tom Hudson, revealing stories of widespread sexual abuse spanning more than a decade, some of them detailed in written statements.. . …

The motive, Vargas’ attorney says, was the bottled-up rage from years of abuse.

Fort Bragg in the 1980s was a town of just over 5,000 people. It was a quiet, idyllic place to raise a family, said Jere Mello, a Fort Bragg resident since 1966 and a current City Council member.

 ——–

WHY NO NEWS ABOUT AARON VARGAS — JAILED FOR KILLING HIS ABUSE (Fort Bragg forum, Sept, 2009)

[[THIS COMMENTATOR — from UK — wonders, also…]

I have scoured the web but have been unable to find much information about the case of Aaron Vargas, jailed for killing the man that abused him and others in the community sexually and psychologically for over 20 years.

The abuser, Darrell McNeill, abused many children in the small community of Fort Bragg, California. The abuse was reported to the police by victims, and by a former wife of McNeill. Photographic evidence was even produced but no investigation was done. McNeill was never even questioned.

The relevant factoid I just picked up — Mrs. Liz McNeill is a second wife — the former wife reported his abuse.  A lot of “next women,” will need to overlook prior abuse, or naturally discredit it, in the interests of their new relationship.

Don’t think men don’t know this.  I’m glad Liz McNeill is doing the right thing — thank you.  I’m sorry for HER loss as well — including the loss of the illusion of who was that man she was married to.  And maybe a better understanding of his former wife. 

I feel required to say, from experience, that men like McNeill know where to find their next women, and how to charm them.  If we are society that undervalues women and over-values men, this is a partial consequence.  People will NOT NOTICE things they otherwise would, in interest of relationship #2. 

I do not doubt Mrs. McNeill when she says, there was NO evidence of the abuse.  Child molesters can’t keep it up without secrecy.  Vargas’ own mother didn’t know, either, til her told her.

Earlier this week Aaron appeared in court in a bid to get his bail reduced to allow him to return to his family and baby son. The application was denied and the bail was too much for the family to manage. No report in the press about this?

I understand the jury trial is due to begin Sept 28st 9am ~ Ukiah Courthouse.

From a blog on myspace. linked to the saveaaron.com website.

The Anderson Valley Advertiser – June 3, 2009
By Freda Moon

‘At the end of June, Aaron Vargas will stand trial for a crime that would normally be seen as inexcusable: He is accused of driving to Darrell McNeill’s trailer home on Fort Bragg’s Farrer Lane, shooting his former neighbor with a .44 caliber black powder revolver and then waiting nearly a half-hour for the man to die—all while McNeill’s wife, Liz, waited nearby.
But very little about Vargas’s case—neither the story of his life nor public reaction to his crime—is normal. Following the February shooting, McNeill’s death has had the unusual effect of eliciting empathy for a murderer and revulsion for his victim. That’s because, in this case, the dead man’s sins weigh heavy on the community’s conscience. They are sins that are only now surfacing, one after the next, revealing child abuse that appears to span decades and includes the sexual molestation of not only Aaron Vargas, but McNeill’s own sons and a growing list of other local boys—now adult men—with whom Darrell McNeill crossed paths during his 63 years.’

http://bit.ly/10G8Uh

Why no coverage, surely this is a case worthy of international attention but nothing in the local press or online?

Why no outrage?

Aaron supporters have set up a number of sites and groups and are desperate to raise awareness about this case but nothing else in the media.

Why no investigation into Mcneill after all the initial complaints and explicit photographs. Is someone trying to cover up the failures of the justice system?

Aaron needs rehabilitation and counselling, not jail. Don’t let the justice system just let him down again.

http://www.topix.com/forum/city/fort-bragg-ca/TBO24P8KKUVNS4JE2

[[Back to my commentary, here…]]

PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN GET JUSTICE IF THEY ARE GOING TO REPORT THEIR OWN ABUSE AND TRUTHS ABOUT IT.

This is not that hard a crime to prosecute from evidence of who shot whom, and as such, the prosecutors went right for it.  Abuse is harder, because abusers have to maintain secrecy, lies, and so forth.  It’s HARD to speak up.

I have been repeatedly, repeatedly, citing this SITE:

Bridging the gap between childhood trauma and negative consequences later in life

What is the ACE Study?

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

What’s an ACE?

  1. Recurrent physical abuse
  2. Recurrent emotional abuse
  3. Contact sexual abuse
  4. An alcohol and/or drug abuser in the
    household
  5. An incarcerated household member
  6. Someone who is chronically depressed,
    mentally ill, institutionalized, or suicidal
  7. Mother is treated violently
  8. One or no parents
  9. Emotional or physical neglect
The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study:
Bridging the gap between childhood trauma and negative consequences later in life.

{{GREEN ITALICS HERE = MY COMMENTS}} I no longer associate with the people who retain denial of the domestic violence I endured.  It has required building an entirely different life.  I also am in a professional switch, because the events surrounding it (I’m not talking sexual abuse, but battering within the home, and the patterns of control, intimidation, and so forth involved), for reasons relating to ongoing safety and past reminders of jobs lost during the FREQUENT, COURT-ORDERED, CONTACT with no safeguards for me, or my kids, during them.  Safeguards not just from abduction, physical harm, but also repeated emotional trauma.

 

As a mature adult, it took all I had to handle it, and deal with this.  I do not know how resilient my children are going to have been  until they are adult.  I do know that there is a high price to be paid for denial, and that it does go intergenerationally until stopped.  Trauma just doesn’t “go away” without an outlet.

When courts allow the PARENTS or RELATIVES of an abuser (domestic) of child molester to be the household or adult supervising exchanges, they are insane.  It makes no sense that a family that raised a person who can’t restrain him or herself, should then be overseeing the consequences of their lack of restraint.  Go figure….

 

 

But, We have a different “Clear and Present Danger” according to the professional organization basically running the family court system:

Is clear and present danger to the physical and mental health of the citizens of the State of California, a spousal batterer?  (like the California code says, at least last time I read it, and it’s on this blog, too).

Is clear and present danger the economic crisis?  Here’s a search result from last April, as this man says?

Commentary: Budget a ‘clear and present danger’ to our kids

To put it into perspective, the president’s budget would double the national debt in five years, increasing it from last year’s $5.8 trillion to $11.7 trillion in 2013, and would almost triple the debt in 10 years, according to estimates by the Congressional Budget Office. At the end of the president’s budget, an average household in this country will owe $130,000 in debt just to support the government.

The burden of this debt will be borne by our children, and they will bear the cost of this through a dollar that is diminished in value or through higher taxes. So the money they might use to send their children to college, or buy a house, or live a better lifestyle will be eliminated or significantly reduced.

Sen. Judd Gregg says the president's budget could saddle the next generation with too much debt.

Editor’s note: U.S. Sen. Judd Gregg, the ranking Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, represents New Hampshire. He withdrew his nomination for Commerce Secretary in the Obama administration in February.

Article:  Judd Gregg “Special to CNN”

The president’s proposal adds, on average, almost $1 trillion a year to the debt to dramatically increase the size of the government. This rate of spending is not sustainable and this course of action will put our country on the road to bankruptcy.

As families sit at their kitchen tables to assess their own budgets and priorities, they know they will have to make hard choices about how they spend their money and what they sacrifice to grow their savings. Yet the president’s budget neglects to make its own hard choices. It has zero savings for major entitlement programs which are on track to cost the nation more than $67 trillion in the next 75 years.

Sen. Gregg wrote: 

we may be the first generation to pass on to our children a country they cannot afford.

I have been reporting on this blog that we ought to track spending for the Designer Family Programs as they course through the courts.  WHO IS GOING TO DO THIS?  Some of the professionals profiting from that?  Judges?  Mental Health professionals?

Is altruism really the motive throughout this system?

Let’s see what the AFCC conference has to say.  I already blogged twice on this

First time:

Clear and Present Danger”…fuzzy usage by AFCC « Let’sGetHonestBlog

Second time:

AFCC Feb. 2010 Presenters — Family Law Vocabulary 101… « Let

What’s below is a re-paste (verbatim) of the same speaker bios from the upcoming 2010 AFCC conference stating that the CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER in our
These were the first & second results when I simply searched “Clear and Present Danger AFCC”
 
The 3rd result was this:
 

AFCC – The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

Court Resources: A Clear and Present Danger to Our Children Sheraton Delfina Hotel Phone 608.664.3750 Fax 608.664.3751 afcc@afccnet.org http://www.afccnet.org
www.afccnet.org/conferences/chapter_conferences.asp
“NOT ENOUGH MONEY FOR THE COURTS” is the word from the (court-related professionals, in conference) on the true danger for our kids.
WHOSE kids?  Rosa Vargas’???
This organization began, basically (in its own “history” page) in Southern California — L.A. area:

A Legacy of Innovation and Collaboration

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) took root in California in the spring of 1963 with the creation of the California Conciliation Courts Quarterly, the first publication to promote the interchange of ideas between California’s conciliation courts. Judge Roger Alton Pfaff, presiding judge of the Superior Court of Los Angeles, wrote:

California has become a model for conciliation services as a part of the judicial function for other states to emulate and each year we find jurisdictions creating such services. It may well be that in the not too distant future this little publication may have a wider dissemination with similar courts in other states.

Judge Pfaff’s words proved truly prophetic.  The publication, which now goes by the name Family Court Review, is presently read by thousands of subscribers around the world in countries including Argentina, Australia, Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States.  Meanwhile, AFCC has grown from a handful of California counselors and judges to an international association of judges, lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators, parenting coordinators, parent educators, court administrators, counselors, researchers, academics, and other professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.

For more on that, see JohnnyPumphandle site and “free Richard Fine” sites!

(Yet another) Court-enabled infanticide on court-ordered visitation

with 12 comments

 

You want to know why I call the DV Restraining order process “certifiably insane?”   Whether granted, or NOT granted?  Here’s why.

  • Local News in Victorville, CA

Pinon Hills man plans murder of infant son, suicide on Facebook

Comments 55 | Recommend 8

February 01, 2010 11:19 PM

In a chilling letter posted on Facebook for anyone to see, Stephen Garcia, 25, of Pinon Hills appears to detail how he planned his suicide and the murder of his 9-month-old son.

…..

Thinking that it is going to help us is grasping at straws.  Instead, make a safety plan.

However, this mother had a choice of possibly going to jail for contempt if she decided to disobey a court order that overrode her mother’s instincts.

“I led everyone on my side of the family to believe I wouldn’t of done this because I did not want them to know…” the letter reads. “I had been thinking about doing this for months.”

 In other words, the guy was deceitful, deceiving even his own family.  However, the mother of his son, who apparently knew him more “intimately” saw the danger, and tried to stop it.  She tried with the usual tools that women in this position are given:  Seek a restraining order.

She didn’t even GET one, because there had been no prior criminal record..  Therefore, he could not have possibly been a danger.  Sure…

The post may help San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Homicide investigators piece together what led to the Sunday morning tragedy, when Garcia took his infant son during a court-ordered visitation, drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks and ended both of their lives.
In the letter posted to his Facebook profile, Garcia claimed the deaths were an attempt to save his son from a difficult life — and to punish the baby’s mother, Katie Tagle, for refusing to come back to him.
“Our deaths are a lot for her,” the post continues. “It will have to suffice as her punishment. But that is not the reason I did it. It was the only way we could be happy without Katie. I did this out of love for our son, to protect him and myself.”
Saved letters, text messages and massive files containing e-mails and other correspondence give a glimpse into Garcia’s obsession, cursing Tagle and her family in some posts and asking her to return to him in others.
Court documents tell more of the story, with Tagle filing a request for a domestic violence restraining order on Dec. 11, 2009. On Jan. 12 that order was denied, as it was found Garcia was not a “threat to petitioner or the minor child.”
A search of his criminal record showed no history of domestic violence, battery or similar offenses in San Bernardino County. However, in one of a slew of other online letters attributed to Garcia, it states, “I’m sorry for hurting you. I’m sorry for hitting you. I’m sorry I made the wrong choices.”
On Jan. 17, shortly after the final visit with Judge David Mazurek, Garcia joined a Facebook group called “Organ Donor.”
In the days leading up to the murder-suicide, Garcia posted a half-dozen videos and dozens of photos of Wyatt with cryptic captions such as, “Please, it’s not too late.”
On his MySpace page, his mood over the last week was listed as “tested,” “bummed” and “scared,” with “one more day :(” his final post.
Hours before officials got a call Saturday night that Wyatt was missing and Garcia had threatened to kill him, he made his final online post: “We love you all.”
The suicide note was posted on Garcia’s Facebook profile Sunday, about eight hours after Hesperia Sheriff’s deputies found the bodies in Garcia’s car. It appears Garcia left directions for someone to post the letter and make it public for everyone to see.
The lengthy post also reads as a will, with directions for how to distribute his possessions and personal notes to family members and friends. It also states that Garcia left a signed letter in his truck, confessing to the killings and explaining why he did them.
Though Garcia mentions using a gun, investigators have not released information on how he killed Wyatt and himself, stating only that they both died from “traumatic injuries.”
Anyone who may have information about this case is asked to call Detective Ryan Ford or Sgt. Frank Montanez at the Sheriff’s Homicide Detail at (909) 387-3589 or call WeTip at (800) 78-CRIME.

Brooke Edwards and Natasha Lindstrom contributed to this report.

Beatriz E. Valenzuela may be reached at 951-6276 or at BValenzuela@VVDailyPress.com.

Here’s the SFGate Report on this:

SoCal man mentioned son’s killing on Facebook

 Tuesday, February 2, 2010

(02-02) 09:04 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —

 A newspaper says a San Bernardino County man who killed his 9-month-old son and himself left a Facebook message saying he did it out of love.Sheriff’s officials say 25-year-old Stephen Garcia of Pinon Hills was on a court-ordered visit with his son Sunday when he drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks, killed the boy and committed suicide.

The Daily Press in Victorville says Garcia left a message on his Facebook profile about eight hours after his body was found. The note, apparently posted on his behalf by someone else, says Garcia had been thinking of the crime for months and wanted to punish the baby’s mother for leaving him.

Garcia says the deaths are the only way he and his son can be happy without her and says he did it out of love to protect the boy.

Information from: Daily Press, www.vvdailypress.com (the first article, above).

He did it for “love.”  Some kind of love….

Here’s a fellow-blogger’s reaction. 

http://justice4mothers.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/california-judge-denies-protective-order-to-mother-bam-father-murders-young-son-and-kills-himself/

And a site worth spending time on. . . . 

See the heartbreaking MySpace page that belongs to the father and the bizzare RIP on it.
Judge J. David Mazurek needs to held accountable on this, and charged as an accomplice in this murder.  This needs to happen to every judge that allows abusers to take children, and then hurt or murder them.  Maybe then judges will start taking domestic violence seriously.  Thanks to the father’s rights advocates and their “false allegations” drivel, they have turned America’s judges into a bunch of pussies who absolutely have no clue.  Just get the child to the father….doesn’t matter if he is violent or not.  It is time to stop listening to the mantra from these groups and start taking these violent guys seriously, and start putting judges in prison that don’t.

We Moms are NOT de-sensitized to this insane callousness to who lives, or who’s going to die.  But if a Mom goes to jail in protest, what good is that to her children?  If she doesn’t go, then the risk goes to the children.  And/or her, and/or innocent bystanders, in some cases.

THIS overentitled, disillusioned, and unable to have a vital purpose in life other than punishing the mother of his child (how perverted is THAT?) was only 25.  Bet he attended a public school system, possibly in this great state.  Did he do college too?  If so, to what point?  Whether or not, there is clearly an attitude problem, a spiritual problem, and a moral problem.  I don’t think the millions upon millions (literally) going to the California Healthy Marriage Coalition are going to stop troubles this entrenched.  This guy was narcissistic, period.  And to a point, he was a product of a system that encourages — and does not DIScourage — this.  It’s a system where women have to fight uphill to get away from ground zero in their own lives.

I wonder how well we (well, people) are also reading characters before having babies.  Makes you think, right?

BUT: Apparently the courts are, and clearly the judges are callous.  Or, they are bound by the requirement to keep an ongoing stream of unwilling clients to their cronies.  Excuse me, colleagues

Well, no, I don’t think the judges are not clueless, and they are not pussies, I believe.  They just don’t care!  Why?  What’s at stake if they do? . . . .   An entire system.

A bribe perverts justice.   I’m not accusing this particular judge of taking a bribe, but the court docket below tells clearly that they passed the buck to family court because there were custody and visitation orders.  That’s how it goes. 

And family court was SET UP from the start, at least per some sites (CANOW.org family law page, NAFCJ.net, and some others) to be abuser-friendly, and father-friendly (despite allegations to the contrary). 

It was just business as usual.  And if you want “business as usual” to change, friends, you have to change who is paying for the “business as usual,” and in the bottom line, this is the taxpayers.   The Dept. of HHS in combo with some DOJ (Office of Violence Against Women) sources are conferencing together, educating together, declaring together, but the ONE thing they are NOT doing is confronting t he mandated mediation or custody evaluation where there’s conflict.  And that “required outcome” model of the court process.

The judge is not going to be charged as an accomplice to murder.  With luck, and persistence, he MIGHT be held accountable if this becomes a pattern.  The people most highly motivated to do this are probably already victims of the court system, and are still in the process of trying to stay housed, alive, and their kids alive also. 

However, what we MIGHT do for the next batch of innocent young mothers who show up thinking that family court is something you can walk into, and then also walk OUT of with a restraining order, is warn them

 

HERE’s the Docket:

12/11/2009  – She requests ex parte DV restraining order. 

12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete

 

 

WOW, lots of “Tagles” in this jurisdiction.  This appears to be Katie Tagle in a previous relationship, or another Katie Tagle.  In this one, she was charged with domestic violence.

Either way, the KNEE-JERK reaction of the court is to:

1.  Consolidate with a family law (dissolution, I guess case).

2.  Make a really STUPID order as to where violence has been alleged.  THIS one has a daughter, “Dakota” and they are to alternate every other DAY, and — of course — go to mediation, or else. 

Here:  2007 DOCKET, different couple (or at least, father)….

Case MFLMS010721 – RICARDO TAGLE JR -N- KATIE MARIE TAGLE
Action:   (Choose)04/04/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…04/03/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR
04/03/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M2
 

 

BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING.  
CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ  
REPORTER: GARY RAGLE  
 
PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT  
DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT  
 
PROCEEDINGS: 
DECLARATION RE: 4 HOUR NOTICE FILED. 
WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE JR IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. 
CASE CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE(S) MFL010729 MASTER FILE MFL010729  
 
 {{NOTE:  THis “consolidation” is where the issue of the DV gets basically lost, and is intentional.  It happened to me.  …  This consolidation action violates due process for at least one of the parties, but is routine…}}HEARINGS: 
CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/04/07 AT 08:29 IN DEPARTMENT M3.  
 
TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS: PARTIES STIPULATE TO  
SHARE CUSTODY OF DAKOTA TAGLE ON AN ALTERNATING  
BASIS BEGINNING 04/01/07 EVERY OTHER DAY UNTIL  
FURTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. WEDNESDAYS DAKOTA  
IS TO BE PICKED UP BY FATHER FROM DAYCARE UNTIL  
04/18/07. IF IT IS MOTHERS DAY FOR EXCHANGE IT  
IS TO BE MADE AFTER MOTHER GETS OFF WORK.  
THESE ORDERS ARE TEMPORARY UNTIL FURTHER ORDER  
OF THE COURT.   THINK:  IF violence truly occurred, the Court just buried discussion of it, and made SURE that the child IS going to be in the full, unmonitored (not that I’m thinking monitoring makes a difference) custody of the abusive parent.    
 
THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO REPORT ON 04/11/07, AT 08:00 TO FAMILY COURT SERVICES AND TO COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE FAMILY COURT SERVICES COUNSELORS DURING ALL STAGES OF THE MEDIATION/EVALUATION   {{Do you GET this yet?  The racket is going through mediation and evaluation and counseling.  Yes, I said “racket.”  See “Access/Visitation funding” which was thinly veiled way to get more fathers (although it says “noncustodial PARENTS, in practice, and even the language frequently slips into saying, FATHERS) more time with their children.  I have blogged on this earlier..} 
PROCESS. CUSTODIAL PARENT(S) SHALL MAKE CHILDREN AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES REQUESTED BY COUNSELOR. 
PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND ORIENTATION ON  
04/09/07 AT 3PM.  
ACTION – COMPLETE 
=== MINUTE ORDER END === 
==MINUTE ORDER CHANGED OR CORRECTED BY P MARTIN; CHANGES MADE ARE AS FOLLOWS: TO CHANGE TO ORIENTATION ==  

It might be that she filed for divorce, and he quickly filed for DV.  I don’t know without further research.

Here’s the minutes of the order, the next day.  As you can see, the court called the DV “mutual combat” (Sure, right….) and ordered them to a “Strengthening Families Class.”

Here it is.  We are talking, now 2 YEARS (almost) before another infant son died:

EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR (==link here)
04/04/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3

BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING.  
CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ  
REPORTER: GARY RAGLE  
 
PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT  
DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT  
 
PROCEEDINGS: 
WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
WITNESS — SOMMER MERCER IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
WITNESS — CARLOS TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
WITNESS — MARIA BROWN IS SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. 
EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:  

EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. 
EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:  
COURT FINDS MUTUAL COMBAT AND ORDERS PERSONAL  
CONDUCT ORDERS AGAINST EACH PARTY.  
THE RESTRAINED PERSON MUST NOT DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON OR PEOPLE: 
HARASS, ATTACK, STRIKE, THREATEN, ASSAULT (SEXUALLY OR OTHERWISE), HIT, FOLLOW, STALK, MOLEST, DESTROY PERSONAL PROPERTY, DISTURB THE PEACE, KEEP UNDER SURVEILLANCE, OR BLOCK MOVEMENTS. 
 
THESE ARE NON-CLETS ORDERS.  
 
PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND THE STRENGTHENING  
FAMILIES PROGRAM AT THE NEXT START CYCLE.  
 
HEARINGS: 
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SET FOR 08:30 AT M4 IN DEPARTMENT  
PETITIONER TO PREPARE ORDER AFTER HEARING.  
ACTION – COMPLETE 
=== MINUTE ORDER END === 
COURT FINDS MUTUAL COMBAT AND ORDERS PERSONAL  
CONDUCT ORDERS AGAINST EACH PARTY.  
THE RESTRAINED PERSON MUST NOT DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON OR PEOPLE: 
HARASS, ATTACK, STRIKE, THREATEN, ASSAULT (SEXUALLY OR OTHERWISE), HIT, FOLLOW, STALK, MOLEST, DESTROY PERSONAL PROPERTY, DISTURB THE PEACE, KEEP UNDER SURVEILLANCE, OR BLOCK MOVEMENTS. 
 
THESE ARE NON-CLETS ORDERS.  
 
PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND THE STRENGTHENING  
FAMILIES PROGRAM AT THE NEXT START CYCLE.  
 
HEARINGS: 
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SET FOR 08:30 AT M4 IN DEPARTMENT  
PETITIONER TO PREPARE ORDER AFTER HEARING.  
ACTION – COMPLETE 
=== MINUTE ORDER END === 

 

There are “Strengthening Families” programs across the nation.  A search found one from San Bernadino, UTAH (not this case, obviously), but this is probably typical of how it’s organized and got started:

(see original link, above for visuals.  This is, naturally, an “Evidence-based” practice.  The evidence in the Tagle case, out of San Bernadino, CAL is still that something ain’t getting that job done.  ….  No matter, the court-ordered parenting classes continue…)

The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) is a parenting and family skills training program that consists of 14 consecutive weekly skill-building sessions. Parents and children work separately in training sessions and then participate together in a session practicing the skills they learned earlier. Two booster sessions are used at 6 months to 1 year after the primary course. Children’s skills training sessions concentrate on setting goals, dealing with stress and emotions, communication skills, responsible behavior, and how to deal with peer pressure. Topics in the parental section include setting rules, nurturing, monitoring compliance, and applying appropriate discipline.

SFP was developed and tested in 1983 with 6- to 12-year-old children of parents in substance abuse treatment. Since then, culturally modified versions and age-adapted versions (for 3- to 5-, 10- to 14-, and 13- to 17-year-olds) with new manuals have been evaluated and found effective for families with diverse backgrounds: African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, Australian, and Canadian.

 

Goal / Mission The goals of this program are to improve parenting skills and children’s behaviors and decrease conduct disorders; to improve children’s social competencies; and to improve family attachment, harmony, communication, and organization.
Results / Accomplishments SFP has been evaluated at least 18 times on Federal grants and at least 150 times on State grants by independent evaluators. {{I question HOW independent…}}The original National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) study involved a true pretest, posttest, and follow-up experimental design with random assignment of families to one of four experimental groups: 1) parent training only, 2) parent training plus children’s skills training, 3) the complete SFP including the family component, and 4) no treatment besides substance abuse treatment for parents.

SFP was then culturally adapted and evaluated with five Center for Substance Abuse Prevention High-Risk Youth Program grants by independent evaluators using statistical control group designs that involved quasi-experimental, pretest, posttest, and 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. Recently, SFP was compared with a popular school-based aggression prevention program (I Can Problem Solve) and found highly effective (effect sizes = .45 to 1.38), employing a true experimental pretest–posttest, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up design in two Utah school districts. A NIDA four-group randomized clinical trial with about 800 primarily African-American families in the Washington, DC, area also found good results.

Categories Social Environment / Family Structure
Social Environment / Children’s Social Environment


WHICH (to me) JUST GOES TO PROVE, THERE’S NO “FREE” LUNCH.  YOU GO TO A NONPROFIT (POSSIBLY FUNDED B Y THE US GOV’T OR A STATE, OR BOTH) OR THE GOV’T (VIA AN AGENCY) FOR HELP — OR FOR THAT MATTER, ENROLL A CHILD IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR EDUCATION– AND YOUR CHILDREN, AND PROBABLY YOU, will, (read my lips), will BE “AT RISK” of becoming the subject of a demonstration, or randomized trial of some behavioral management theory. 

in this case, Ms. Tagle went to a judge seeking protection for her (new) infant son, and lost.  Again, I do not know that this is the same Tagle.  Possibly, possibly not.  Different man, though.  Last names not changed.  Was this a rebound relationship?

 

Oh yes, the 2009 docket, in reverse chronologic order.  No dissolution in this one:

  • Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
    Viewed Date Action Text Disposition Image
    01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
    01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
    01/12/2010 9:00 AM DEPT. M3 OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
    01/11/2010 ANDREW H. LUND IS REMOVED AS ATTORNEY FOR STEPHEN GARCIA, AND PRO/PER IS ADDED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Not Applicable
    01/08/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUPP DECL BY KATIE TAGLE BY MAIL ON 01/07/10 AS TO ATTORNEY ANDREW LUND, FILED. Not Applicable
    01/08/2010 DECLARATION OF KATIE M TAGLE FILED Not Applicable
    01/05/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANSWER TO TRO/IE BY MAIL ON 01/05/10 AS TO KATIE TAGLE, FILED. Not Applicable
    01/05/2010 INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA Not Applicable
    01/05/2010 ANSWER TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA, PARTY REPRESENTED BY ANDREW H. LUND. Not Applicable
    12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
    12/11/2009 CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT RECEIVED. Not Applicable
    12/11/2009 EX PARTE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
    12/11/2009 REQUEST FOR ORDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION Not Applicable
    12/11/2009 REQUEST AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED.(DV) Not Applicable

 

Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Action:   (Choose)02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/12/2010 – OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FI…12/15/2009 – EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC…
EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
12/15/2009 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3

 

DEBRA HARRIS PRESIDING.  
CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH  
COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE  
 
PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT  
RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT  
SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY LORI SMITH FOR ANDREW EUND FOR RESPONDENT.  
 
PROCEEDINGS: 
OSC/MOTION HELD.  
BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
DECLARATION REGARDING EXPARTE NOTICE FILED. 
EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. 
EX PARTE ORDERS DENIED.  
 
HEARINGS: 
OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE IS SET FOR 01/12/10AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT M3.  
ACTION – COMPLETE 
=== MINUTE ORDER END === 

 

For those unfamiliar with the process, let me narrate:

  • She asks for ex parte protection (12/11/09) which starts a process, and gives the respondent time to go get an attorney, which he does.  The request for protection stands, it’s just not ex parte — a requirement which is for safety purposes, because of potential for retaliation.
  • 12/15/09 the OSC for EX PARTE (immediate, without telling the other party) protection is apparently denied and the request for protection is continued to 01/11/10.  NOTE:  Christmas seasons, holiday seasons, can be very dangerous for the parties when there’s been a breakup; as it highlights “family” and a family is breaking apart…
  • On 01/05/10 the man, who by now has an attorney (WONDER WHO PAID FOR HIM…  ACCESS / Vistation FUNDING?), Mr. Lund, and files an answer.
  • The parties exchange income and expense reports (if family law is going to make some money off this, it’s important to know which side has the money…. If not, they’ll be sent quickly through mediation, not evaluations….).
  • On 01/07-08/10 the woman files and serves (by mail) a supplemental declaration to the man’s attorney, properly (Proof of service).
  • On 01/11/10, the man’s attorney QUITS.  (not enough money in it for him?  Or, the case has already been, basically, decided).
  • On 01/12/10, the OCS for a normal domestic violence protection order occurs, as follows:

OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
01/12/2010 – 9:00 AM DEPT. M3

J. DAVID MAZUREK PRESIDING.  
CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH  
COURT REPORTER JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND  
 
PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT  
RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT  
 
PROCEEDINGS: 
OSC/MOTION HELD.  
BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED.  
COURT FINDS THERE IS A PENDING PROCEEDING IN  
THE VICTORVILLE COURT THAT IS SUBJECT TO CUSTODY  
AND VISITATION ORDERS.  
 
COURT FINDS THERE IS NOT THREAT TO PETITIONER  
OR THE MINOR CHILD.  
THE OSC IS DENIED.  
 
ORAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES BY RESPONDENT IS  
DENIED.  
 
BOTH PARTIES ARE REMINDED BY THE COURT OF THEIR  
FAMILY COURT SERVICES APPOINTMENT FOR THEIR  
VICTORVILLE CASE.  
COMPLAINT STAGE AT DISPOSITION – OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL)  
DISPOSITION OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL)  
COURT ORDERS ENTIRE ACTION DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. REASON: REQUEST DENIED..  
ACTION – COMPLETE 
=== MINUTE ORDER END === 
  • This (civil, I presume) venue tosses the ball back to the FAMILY law venue, and reminds them to be good little girls and boys, and go to Family Court Services.
  • 01/26/2010 (LAST week, folks), something regarding fees is filed.
  • 01/30/2010 — Father kills son on court-ordered visitation, and then himself.  (NOT ON DOCKET).
  • 01/31/2010 — Sheriff’s Dept. reports to press (see top of post):

01-31, 18:38 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —

Authorities in San Bernardino County say a 25-year-old father and his 9-month-old son have died in what investigators believe is a murder-suicide.  A sheriff’s news release says deputies found Stephen Garcia and son Wyatt Garcia dead in a vehicle on a rural dirt road in the Twin Peaks area early Sunday.
The release says the Hesperia Sheriff’s Station had received a report Saturday night that Garcia took his son during a court-ordered visitation and threatened to kill the child and himself.  The department did not say how the pair died, only that they “sustained traumatic injuries.”  The county coroner will conduct an autopsy on both father and son this week.
Stephen Garcia was from the Pinon (pin-YONE) Hills area and his son was from Yucca Valley.

  • 02/01/2010 Someone requests a Court Transcript.

I had not meant to spend so long on this case, After all, EVERY WEEK, even in my own Golden State, it seems someone ground up by this system, dies.  If not a child also.  I can’t keep up.

But it does illustrate the futility of (I think– make your own decision, and this is NOT legal advice) seeking a civil restraining order, versus criminal, versus, better yet, some kind of safety plan.  Then again, for women with kids leaving abuse in the family law, there does not appear to be any safety.  Congressmen (Danny Davis was active in a case) will help fathers haul kids back from overseas (China, Brazil, come to mind recently), but good luck getting yours back from your own state, or a next door state.  

And again, a word to the wse — not that it’s an excuse — but cool it on the rebound relationships, if this was one.

AND — whoever posted on Facebook, and whoever SAW what was posted on facebook (i.e., a cry to have his threats taken seriously, as they should’ve been), YOU are responsible if you knew this couple, and did nothing.  Sorry, but you are. 

AND all of us need to get on the stick about this family law system.  The AFCC and all their experts that PROFIT from these situations leading to, basically, more deaths, is convening in February — this month.  Do research, people!  It’s not rocket science, just an investment of time!

I think that if marriage, and relationships are continuing to be this dangerous to have, and leave, it is a testament to the strength of testosterone (and other hormones) that people continue to engage in sex, let alone ongoing relationships.  Good grief!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A task force or a committee is not going to stop this stuff.  A good audit, ongoing, by someone with courage (and other source of income) MIGHT make a dent….

Wish I had time to say more, but I don’t.

 

Finding a Firm Place to Stand, Prying Loose Violence and Abuse

leave a comment »

Note on display:  Twice, I painstakingly went through and re-inserted the paragraph breaks in this post, and saved the revisions.  I do not know why they aren’t all displaying anymore, so presume only the most curious readers will wade through the nonparagraphed texts.  I did not (waders will find this quickly) correct all typos.  I am talking about how to THINK about the issues in family court and deal with them.  They become greater, often, than the issues which brought a family there to start with, and generally result in impoverishment of one or more spouses in the process, which then becomes an ongoing issue for the duration of the case.  
Although the label on the door speaks ‘reconciliation” “mediation” “family” and “negotiation” “parenting” and all kinds of good fuzzy words, the fact is it is a form of warfare.  First, between the parents, and second, upon the parents, and their rights and of course their wealth. I have been in this system many years as have other mothers I know.  Stamina is always an issue, and attitude even more so.  What I am interested most in, though, is angle of approach and reducing personal frustration by refusing to hold to myths which have proven to be myths, and arguing points that, though they shouldn’t be, are truly “moot.”  
I finally got out of my abusive violent marriage, and good thing, when I found a place to stand and vocabulary to describe the situation.  Then I had to experientially understand that something else was possible.  I had to believe that other ways to exist would open up, even if I didn’t yet know what they were, but the one firm decision was, this was NOT the way I was going to spend XX more time, no matter how murky the exit seemed.
I would like to leave a bridge for others and tell them where the U-turns and dead ends are, like a scout.  This would be best done before both my children have “aged out” of the system (one almost has).  Part of that process is chosing the right place to stand in looking at it.
ALMOST NONE of the evaluations of the family law system, or recommendations to reform it, deal with the issue of child support, although certainly both mothers (and mothers’ groups) and fathers (and fathers’ groups) complain loudly about unfair support orders, or unpaid ones.  That seems foolish to me.  While many others talk about the professionals in the courts, and complaints and versions of them, very few talk about the entire SYSTEM of this, or the HISTORY of this.  So in order to understand a thing, one must step OUTSIDE and look further, after the “full-immersion” version of what’s in there.  I was shocked, and am shocked, to find a trail leading back to places like Washington, D.C., Denver Colorado (in an upcoming post) and places like Minnesota, or Texas, in explaing what the heck is going on in California.  Or for that matter, on other continents.  Failure to understand this is silly, given globalization and the internet, however typically this is about how it goes on the local level.  
When I walked into some domestic violence family law places many years ago to try and get a handle on the violence that was ongoing and becoming more frequent, more frightening, more destructive (to work, relationships, income), and I was concerned also about whether it would turn deadly, the business of the day was bonding with other women, hearing their stories, learning I was NOT alone or without resources to change something, and learning the vocabulary.  While this is normal (and part of abuse is generally being talked AT and down TO, not conversed WITH, so this experience was important and validating), what I did not do at that time was question what this center was doing, who was running it, who had conflict of interest with whom, and why we were headed into the family law system when I had felony level domestic violence going on at home?  Why weren’t these people showing us how to deal with police?  
One time during an incident, they even SENT police (when I called to try to avoid an attack that was building up and couldn’t get out), but why wasn’t the difference between criminal and civil explained, that I recall?
Now these organizations have “morphed” also, which is another topic.
Meanwhile, this post “morphed” into two topics, and then I started reflecting, which makes three:  
So please bear with the initial posting, and then in a bit I will cut the pie into appropriate, more digestible pieces.  
I used to, more often, wonder about what happened to this statement, in the family law system’s communal “head” and reasoning.
It’s already been voted into law  I believe this statement to be true, experientially:

http://www.sddvc.com/pdf/2008finalwithsignatures.pdf
This is out of San Diego: Law Enforcement Protocol:

The California State Legislature has declared that:

(1) “[S]pousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and
physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California.” (California
Penal Code section 273.8.)

(2) “A substantial body of research demonstrates a strong connection between
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.” (California Penal Code section
13732(a)). 

So the next question is, “What are YOU going to do about it?” (when in court).
Or, “What can I do about it, when this is my family?”
Or, “What can I do about it, when this is my friend, or my community, or . . . . . . “
Or, if one is exceptionally social-minded or moved by this:  What can I do about this?”  PERIOD.
My approach, until I learned, experientially, the next truth, was this(same document):

“The decision to prosecute a batterer lies within the discretion of the District Attorney
and the City Attorney. Victims do not “press charges”, “drop charges” or
“prosecute” their batterers.

Ay, there’s the rub.  So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected.  Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc.  Then they find out what their:  family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about.  And the years go by, the kids grow up. . .  . . . 


Ay, there’s the rub.**  So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected.  Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc.  Then they find out what their:  family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about.  And the years go by, the kids grow up. . .  . . . 


**”To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub”  

Origin From the celebrated ‘to be, or not to be‘ speech in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, 1603:

HAMLET:
To be, or not to be: that is the question:
Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them?
 To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish’d. To die, to sleep;
To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there’s the rub;

 

When there is a clear and present danger, one (which one?  ONE!  We.  I, you, the mother, the wife, the father, the neighbor, the society, although I’m not into communal society dreaming a single particular dream. . . . . It runs to abuse . . .. . Who interprets the dreams?  WHo dreams them, the king?  Do we have a king in this country?  Ostensibly no, but our behaviors don’t always indicate this belief, no matter who’s currently in office), one cannot afford to dream.
But in “Family court matters” we are told to, as parents, or have our head examined by the local shrink more familiar with the dream.
I’m burnt out on all the propaganda in this field, let alone being preached AT from multiple quarters.  The beginning of any school year, which for a former teacher, and former mother with kids in the house, and former musician/performer, is often a tough time emotionally.  
So I’d say a WHOLE lot of this system is itself a “moot point” and intentionally so.  It’s not what it pretends itself to be, and don’t you tell me this is because judges jsut don’t “understand” the domestics of domestic violence.  They understand the power dynamic JUST FINE and are part of it.
Well, THIS post will have to be revamped for sure tomorrow morning!  What a day!
1.  Moot points and
2.  Paradigms as tools to pry loose from a confining world view that leaves one trapped in useless dialogue.
 And now here is
3.  Reflections, descriptions.
Just to be ornery, let’s do this in reverse order:

3.  How it feels (reflect, describe, (OK, complain)):

(I also have spliced in some reflection and reaction (personal).  Well, I will sort this thought laundry after it’s been rinsed, spun and dried. The situation arises today because I’m simply tired of a lifestyle of seeking funding, seeking grants, seeking ways to make a dysfunctional system function (it’s not “dysfunctional from certain points of view) and weighing that alternative with the prospects of launching a proper civil suit to demand damages for torts, or access funds due people in my situation, it’s called “victims of crime” funding, but they are working on shuffling this into the domestic violence shelters, supposedly), OR simply getting through another day when life is racing by, with no way to access and have reasonable contact with either daughter?  What would I do?  Bring one of them along for a grants application, or have them sit by while I fill out legal paperwork against their current caretakers?  Not hardly! I no longer associate with the former professionals, or have even funds for a museum trip.  Show them how to ask a stranger for bus fare?  This gets old after a while, particularly processing so many alternatives.  I need to pray).
I have about five decades of life under my belt, and now two-fifths of these dealing with a singular issue — family violence, and leaving it.  And approximately four and a half of these inhaling and exhaling music, for which I no longer even have an appetite, which is bothersome if you’ve lived and breathed this mode of living for such along time.
Of the approximately two-fifths of these decades dealing with the family violence issue, up until three years ago, my sole focus, intent, and drive was 3-fold:  
1.  set boundaries, and defend them so I could adequately
2.  Get both daughters a reasonable education without so much stress and melodrama (because the fight was over this, within the family)i.e., get them back into the arts and off to colleges on scholarships.  Literally the only way to do this as a single mother and with such limited funds, was homeschooling, which had just been stopped, or an alternate variety of the public school which gave them (and me) time to do the arts through independent study, or collaborative agreements with (by their ages now this was available) a local community college.  We got 2 weeks only into this in summer 2006, anda the girls were literally stolen by his father and a girlfriend from my custody on an overnight visitation, sending into chaos 1, 2, and this:  
3.  Regaining financial self-sufficiency and some decent STABLE relationships (or, barring that, at least income) by engaging in:  piano, choir and voice — which was what most of my life had been about, apart from being a mother and leaving abuse.

I believe it’s quite understandable why I don’t feel like taking up with a male for either sex, warmth, shared housing, or simple companionship before feeling literally, safe in my own skin, house, and profession.  For one, it’s outside of my personal beliefs to sleep around, and part of this is practical. I do not want to engage in another relationship without the financial capacity to leave should it turn the same direction again.  PERIOD.  And, I don’t want to engage in a relationship with a needy male who can’t pull his own weight and needs a woman to do so, or to help punish and ex, which is the type of person my ex made a beeline for in his second live-in relationship.
The question, who ARE you continues to come up, when the usual definitions don’t do, and this is an issue women constantly face as they go through life.  When the trip through family court adds to the turmoil with stigmatizing labeling, psychologizing and theologizing about who a woman is because she has personal limits on abuse and (________ deleted), it takes strength to redefine where one stands.
Which brings up the issue of, if you’re that strong, what does one “need” a partner for, as most of us do want to be wanted.  Sex?  Money/  Someone who knows you over time to eat a meal with on a regular basis, and some conversation (I’m strongly tending towards the latter)?  Someone to have some fun (and intimacy) with?  Yep.  So, then which religion do we throw out, eh?
 
I have always known that I was able to relate solitary (as to the art and work, nature, writing, etc.) BUT also in social groupings and communities was necessary, including individual friendships and relationships.  My family was nothing of this to me, they went through the routines, and in fact the only one whose conversations hold much weight with me at this point is actually my father, who has been gone 26 years.  At least he had a sense of humor, all I get from the surviving relatives is dogma, and bitterness, now that I surfaced as individual AND mother, and serious about both.  Like I said, i was tolerated to the extent I forked over the futures of two children I gave birth to, and the less complaint, the better.  That concept was disgusting to start with, and how it happened, worse.  How much more important values can a mother transmit to her daughters than that it’s unacceptable for any man to assault a woman, let alone a pregnant one, and that they are NOT commodities, but individuals?  That the laws of this land exist to protect them (actually false at this point, they are “moot” in practice) and that RIGHT is in this direction and WRONG is in that direction.  That true is true and false is false when it comes to certain facts, and that these matter?  That the sky, not the gutter, is the limit for them in all categories of life, and this includes demanding no double standards in work, in marriage, in life, and in schooling.  IN communication and anywhere else.
And that it is of CRITICAL importance to call that event what it was, several years ago, and a travesty and misfiring of the justice system, and a coverup of a felony action, covered up because it was committed against a female, not a male.  In the long arch of life, these are important.  
As is choice of college.
As I’m running out of years, and options (and have run out of funds) and have hammered away at the problem of ethics, illogic, and troubling immorality within, in order:  marriage, family, faith institutions, and ever expanding circles, including legal, family court, child support, and finally (how much further up can one go?) the U.S. Federal Government, and how it’s put together, apparently, I struggle between investing in another income initiative (knowing what this brings on from the family) and going for legal enforcement of some right (knowing how corrupt THAT system is) and continually calculating the odds.
Over the years, and as a female, I was naturally taught to seek help, collaborate and cooperate in this matter of throwing out a man that was dangerous, and maintaining a safe, but kindly access to my kids’ father, and yet also asserting –and REbuilding, really — a personal integrity and identity as mother, and professional.  
After multiple betrayals, and eventually, watching my  non-immoral, non-narcissistic, employed, tax-paying, non-law-rejecting supportive friends and colleagues (many of them also parents) vicariously, through this support, worn out, drained, and finally need to distance themselves to protect their OWN livelihoods and personal time, what remains instead is the toxic relationship with the ex-parent, and a continual need to replenish income and social contacts, however there is little common experience on which to make them.  
Meanwhile, whether with children or (criminally, was how this happened) absent children,  I was seeking simple law enforcement, asserting a right to reach financial independence in any legal moral way I saw fit, not in the politically correct to relatives and ex manner. I wanted control of my own infrastructure, and I wanted EVERYONE out of my personal turf that had no legal business there and no right to be there.  Boy, THAT was a war!  
How suspicious this is to our society in general.  Can’t a woman get a little peace?  My “liberal” relatives had a snit fit over me, without a resident male in the household, even though the resident male was, literally tearing up the place, and at times, portions of my face.  In front of our children, too.  What’s liberal about THAT?
I have been literally ordered to give my relatives what they wanted, and shut up about it afterwards — make the court orders, ALL of them “moot points,” prostrate myself and fork over all major decisions about life income and their schooling.  They wanted MY KIDS, through the father, who at one time tried to offer his custody rights to these people in order to follow through in a prior personal threat to do this, solitary confinement for the sin of standing up!
In that sense, yes, it was “about the kids,” but when it gets to suppressing facts, lying, and breaking laws, it’s not about any children but about ego.  How dare these folks use me as a surrogate mother to compensate for a prior elective choice, irreversible past menopause, to not have children?  And break laws, intentionally ignore and dismiss domestic violence, and felony child-stealing, all kinds of bribery, manipulation and extortion, and serious character defects in the father (such as failure to support even himself, let sufficient work to also help support them) in order to get their way?  
How dare my daughters be used for social, emotional props from a religious group that tolerates wife abuse?  But they are.  How DARE their distress fund the legal systems in two counties — but it does.

2.  Paradigms, Tools to Pry Loose, Places to stand and the Lever of Language

Well, there are a lot of fish in the sea, tne the ones that don’t travel in schools that dart too and fro as athey are told to, and with each changing current, are the somewhat smaller groups of predators with teeth.  So, I guess the task at hand is to figure out where the “teeth” are in this life.  And where is the MOST relevant truth at any individual point in time.  Where is the place to stand to move the system, or at least pull up the heavy stage drapes revealing the scaffolding, the catwalks, the prompters, and the actors without their stage makeup on.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
So, the first rule in depth perception is using both eyes — 2 Points of View.
For someone totally immersed, the first key is another set of experiences, a paradigm or language tools with which to Uproot Abuse and expose its roots.  Hint:  If one way fails, perhaps you have the wrong tools, and/or are standing in the wrong place.
(Where I’m eventually going with this is the money trail in the courts. . . . .. we won’t get there today….)
The reason I KNOW this is both the man who knocked my teeth loose
(for adjusting the volume on the radio from  earsplitting loud, at the wrong time)
AND
my family of origin
AND
it’s obvious by now the family law system (cf. grants to courts for “Access/Visitation” being administered by OCSE,
office of Child Support Enforcement.  There’s not even an attempt to conceal this on the websites)

2A.  Dude, it’s about the money.  That’s the paradigm to understand in understanding the family law system.  This means child support and federal grants have to be examined as well, as well as job referrals, and private conflicts of interest among professionals on the same case.

They all know it’s about the money.  So why do we all go into court and pretend it’s about the laws, REALLY?  It ain’t.  What is that, a courtly dance?  Pirouettes, music, and all?  And to half the people involved, at least, who can REALLY believe any more it’s about the kids – good grief!  (see my last post).  They themselves are growing up and saying they’re TIRED of being used in this manner.  They grow up suffering all kinds of problems later, and then support other underground economies, like DRUGS.  Then the fatherhood groups say this is because there’s a lack of father involvement.  The fact is, the converse might be true — abusive Dads were KEPT in relationships too long. And while aspects of the system might be responsible for excessive jailing of African-American men, and men more than women, that’s not the woman’s fault when a child is at stake!

You know what some women I’m aware of got jailed for?  Primarily,  failure to pay child support, and taking their kids to prevent child molestation after it’s already happened.  There’s a woman in southern California without contact with her kid.  She says she found him pimping himself on the internet and contacted him (with an RO in place) to say STOP DOING THAT!  She was threatened with jail for breaking a no contact order.  Was anyone else concerned about a young man pimping himself on the internet to get away from an abusive Dad?  There are all kinds of horror stories, and they are not just stories, either.

2B.  Anything that is obviously, over time, a moot point, then this is not the reigning paradigm, even if you wish it were or thought it should be.  Another one is actually primary.  is the goal to change the system or win your case

(and which first?  Because one timeframe is shorter than the other.  This is where many organizations, with a cash flow, employees, business offices, and a little momentum, have a different world view than mothers, who have fast-growing children and fast-changing situations personally.)


MOOT POINTS:  
When I was married, pretty much every thing was a “moot point” but what “mood” someone was in.  It didn’t take too long to figure this out, but what to do about it was definitely a work in progress, and required my adjusting my concepts of both marriage, self, relationships, and (most importantly) PRIORITIES until I came to the conclusion that OUT was BEST.  

I have been questioning recently why I bother to blog.  Will it change anything?  Does it make someone feel better or give a person hope or more tools to make sense of their situation?  Does it help record these “stolen” years?  I blog, therefore I am?  Is it as much a contribution to society as my former practice, teaching kids, youth, and adults to SING, which I know was empowering and helpful to society.  It was another “paradigm” for many of them, to hear what they could do, especially ensemble. And there is some terrifically beautiful and inspiring choral music out there; one can draw from different centuries and DEFINITELy different cultures. ANd build a skill, some discipline, some good times in the process also.  What a great profession!

On the other hand, in the years behind me is a trail of court actions pronouncing one thing or another, after which I’ve been dumped by the roadside of life, having fulfilled my civic duty:  Surrogate mother (as to our family line) and Family Court Client (as to the last many years).  Before then in life, tuition has been paid through two sets of bachelor’s degrees, and our difficult divorce has justified (supposedly) the existence of several court-related and many nonprofit institutions, none of which (from MY standpoint) have fulfilled their assigned purposes, as judged by what the titles proclaim they do.  For example, “Child Support Enforcement” “Restraining Order” “Custody Order” and “visitatin/vacation” schedule.  All became “moot points” in our case history.  So as far as “giving at the office,” I’ve done my part in life.
The collateral of THESE becoming “moot points” is that my work history and efforts have become JUST as “moot..  I would get jobs, only to lose them around the above.  And then  be targeted for further ridicule from my own family who were both the source of many of the job losses and (my mother) of some of the help to recover from them, since my local government determined not to enforce its own laws when a mother & woman was concerned.  Go figure THAT one out.
Now we are to start again, but the situation has not been closed, and moreover, more cooks are involved, within my own family.  The second chapter of leaving abuse is leaving the family of origin, or the abuser’s associates’ influence. 
So, I have been bounced out of the paradigm of getting and maintaining and income, and investing some planning in doing so, into the paradigm of navigating either the government bureaucracy of welfare, being insulted that the same government drove me and my kids back there, from a different segment, OR (as my ex either does, or simply exists under the radar; which isn’t clear yet) trying to go “off the grid,” OR, getting back into the arena.  
What happens with wrong paradigm?  You lose! A lot.
Oh, by the way, did I mention that, barring repentance, a new character implant, or true reformation, or actual, actual inner spiritual awakening (not just the kind that gets probation vs incarceration, or that wins the heart of a gullible vulnerable female), “conciliation” isn’t really the reigning paradigm in the family law courts.  OSTENSIBLY it is, but in practice and practice shows intent, it ain’t.
While I was operating under the (illusion, I say) paradigm of LAW vs. Enforcement/compliance, etc., and with the vocabulary I learned post-separation to describe this abuse — because without a tool for the mind, the words, one is hard put to dig, pry, or loosen a situation, to objectify it and decide what to do with it, the people on the other side of the court motion, including one unrepentant woman-batterer, were using the pretense of negotiation to enforce ultimatums, point by point, on my life that no court order warranted.  And while the courts and police exist to handle this, it was not practically possible once the downward slide got going with some speed.  And the first thing that slid away was jobs. and with them relationships and sources of referral for more work (i was self-employed in the profession as many if not most classical/teaching musicians are)
So  WORDS ARE CRUCIAL, just as words justified abuse and oppression in marriage — the wider picture was the rapids ahead — family law, instead used the exact opposite paradigm  the paradigm of pathologizing conflict and reuniting family.   The paradigm of Big Brother (and his other relatives) as “doctor” and anyone that comes through the doors as little children needing coaching for their “squabbles.”  It was the paradigm of “Reunification” for the good of society.  Only much, much later did I learn of the paradigm of the social crisis of “fatherlessness.”
Words alone are not indicators; when they are only as good as their context and who is speaking.  So listening to content only is a literal, Western-minded, linear type of thinking that just don’t work in the jungle.  One has to listen differently than one was taught to in school and in other areas where tuning out the static and background noise would actually be functional.   Again, abusers and people whose intent is to dominate, not reason together, listen and observe in this manner also.  This listening goes on outside the courtroom, and in fact outside the courtroom is often MORE relevant, and INSIDE, while the arena whre a judge signs and order, is a very, very small portion of time in the life of a lawsuit.
WORDS.  So, enter “cognitive dissonance” the first time it hits you, and a lot of water (time) under the bridge dealing with it emotionally.  THAT is the point of the game . . . . .   like a spider injects toxin into its prey, to numb it, or a lion roars, or sometimes headlights can blind a deer.  The point is the fascination that freezes the prey.  The TALK is the toxin.
So for some years and months, and to different entitites, I kept talking law, rules, safety, and “get real!”, while this system kept talking different words, but they were only smokescreen words.  I had already (the year prior) translated the family “talk” sufficiently to act on it.  I deciphered that they rejected the analogy of domestic violence (not to mention the restraining order then in place, also) and I acted accordingly, and went about my won business.  Problem?  Hadn’t fully analyzed the situation yet, how adversarial indeed it was, and what was at stake, namely total control of my daughters.  
To take the words coming through the family law system at face value is to deal with the pawns, not the bishops, knights, rooks, or kings and queens in the game, which have different powers, patterns of movement and move (except the king) further and faster, although if you get the ponderous king stuck between a pawn and a knight, it’s still check-mate.
So, there are two paradigms and two languages in effect; one is public (glitter and sham) and the other is private, and that IS the money and professional affiliations involved.  That IS the business of the court, literally, and it is interlaced with the business of government, and the total transformation of society into basically, I’d summarize it, basically back to a feudal system.  The Court, The Courtiers, the Courtesans (of course) and the subjects.  Fealty counts.  Betrayal of secrets is punished harshly, as individuals suffer when attempting to individually break a family code that tolerates almost anything WITHIN its ranks, but not disloyalty to “outsiders.”  To them, this is “good.”  TO those who disapprove of the family cult or clan, it is “bad.”  There you have it.

2C.  GENGHIS KHAN:  Who was he?  Who was his army?  How did they conquer so much territory?

That’s a lot of territory. Now, it’s less geography, populations.  Technology and using language to transform beliefs.
The Devil’s Horsemen:

“The Devil’s Horsemen.”

 

The conquering Mongols were most feared by their victims as “the devil’s horsemen” who carried everything before them and left nothing behind.” (Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests, 1190-1400 [page 8]) The “invincible” Mongolian Army faced little opposition, physical, nor mental, until they began campaigning in areas outside of the steppe regions.

. . . 

The first problem that the Mongols and their current leader Genghis Khan overcame, was the complex planning needed in order for them to defeat their more organized, and better equipped foes. “New military technologies therefore had to be learned and relearned

. . . 

At Xiangyang in 1272 Khubilai Khan was forced to send to his kinsmen in the west for counterweight trebuchets, the latest thing in siege catapults, to breach its walls.” (Genghis Khan & the Mongol Conquests, 1190-1400 [page 9]) The need for a more strategic way of fighting allowed the Mongols to evolve. Without that evolution, the Mongols would never have been able to stand up to their well-trained, well-organized enemies. This extraordinary skill to adapt, and thus survive, helped the Mongols not only in the physical aspects of warfare, but the psychological. Becoming an enemy that has the ability to adapt and thrive in any situation and on any terrain earned the Mongols the title of “the Devil’s horsemen”.

Application:
When you begin studying grants, particularly as to “Domestic VIolence Coalitions” and “Healthy Marriage Coalitions” as I have, you’ll see the heavy upfront investments in INFORMATION DISSEMINATION and “Technical Support” infrastructures.  Money to shelters may be cut back, but not discretionary grants to preventative organizations that confer, publish, conference, and advise — no sirree!  
This is the “technology” of our age.  Backed up, though is the reputation of terror.  This system can literally terrorize, tear up, traumatize, and restructure a family at will.  As Ghenghis Khan united warring tribes, after establishing his reputation, I can trace (and others have) how certain organizations (nonprofits / for-profits) have positioned themselves as “experts” in several fields and united, dominated the conversations in these fields for decades.  As I like to say, “before you got up for breakfast.”
Whereas formerly these fields supposedly (and probably) were separated:  “Father’s Rights’ (i.e., anti-feminist), Violence Against women (i.e., feminist, meaning, we’re human beings with equal rights, not baby-producers or upstart rebels), and Child Protection Services (I can’t say whether these groups ever performed the function, and I haven’t studied them as much) they now pride themselves on collaborating.
The “technology” of our time is the internet and information, but it is indeed backed up by police force to incarcerate — OR, to release from prison some thug that is GOING to kill or terrorize again.  Toms River, Minnesota, California, Nevada, you name it, it happens.  

The Mongols

by antonio2godoy</a>” href=”http://socyberty.com/author/antonio2godoy/” mce_href=”http://socyberty.com/author/antonio2godoy/”>antonio2godoy in History, March 29, 2009

This is an a little description of what the Mongols were like under Genghis Khan’s rule.

(I put it in very fine print, because it’s not central to this post, just related:)

The Mongols were amazing herders and horse back riders. Within time they dominated China and Eastern Europe. Who would have envisioned that these nomads, herders that relied on animal and natural resources for survival, would reign over a great deal of territory belonging to the Chinese and Eastern Europeans?! But with the leadership of Genghis Khan, the Mongols conquered all who opposed them and ruled with an iron fist earning a reputation for extreme cruelty. Then, after a hundred years the Mongol empire disappeared. After reading this you’ll learn how the Mongols put effective leadership first and then effectively manage it with discipline.

 

. . . Genghis Khan changed his name from Temujin after numerous victories. Temujin was born in 1162 and was part of the Kiyad tribe close to the Burhan Khaldun Mountains. He had three younger brothers and his father, Yesugei, was the tribe leader. Yesugei arranged Khan’s marriage to Borte at a young age. Yesugei was poisoned at a dinner of a neighboring tribe. Although Temujin was next in line, he still had to prove that he was the strongest to before he can lead over the tribe. At the young age of 13 he killed his brother while hunting. Age 17 Temujin married Borte and united two tribes. Borte was then kidnapped by an enemy tribe. Legend says that Timujin sent an army of 40,000 to rescue his wife which may have led him to his destiny. After Temujin conquered and united numerous tribes, as well Mongolia his name was well known throughout the land as Genghis Khan, Ruler of the world.

 

{{establish dominance.  A “name” is very important to leadership}}

 

Many historians consider Khan ahead of his time because his army was well structured, trained and equipped. He organized his 80,000 soldiers into divisions of 10,000, with 1000 in each regiment, 100 in each company and 10 in a squad. In 1206 all of Mongolia was conquered. {{HE WAS 44 years old}} 

Khan made all of his soldiers from different tribes pledge loyalty to him. He won his victories with his skilled horse warriors and archers. He required his soldiers to wear light leather and metal tunics with protective silk undergarments. Khan also made sure his soldiers had enough equipment like 2 bows, a quiver of 60 arrows, scimitar, and attached 5 horses. His soldiers also carried useful tools such as meat pots, needle and thread and objects to sharpen arrows.

 

Khan controlled his people by a code of law he created called the Yasa. These laws were extremely cruel and harsh. The death penalty was a sentence for many offenses including stealing, cheating on your spouse, {{interesting, eh?}} resigning from combat in the middle of a battle, not paying taxes three times and even peeing in public water routes

 

Genghis never taxed the outside land he conquered. He let defeated kingdoms live as they liked, which gave people the choice of religion, and to live with their custom laws and celebrations.

 

((Therefore not provoking their rebellion.))


Another place to stand to move the world.

When I finally Decided to Leave / Moot Points.

The final decision to get OUT came when I experienced two full weeks (not just one, as I had an earlier time in the marriage) actually free from his abuse and threats, for the most part, and still fully functional in my beloved profession of music.  This was WITH little girls (stilll, then) in attendance.  I was amazed at the experience of being talked to, working, and interacting with people for several days in a row with no trauma, and no likelihood of imminent trauma, geographically near.  
Then I returned, and experienced the response to my having been “allowed” out of this man’s control for the first 2 weeks (that I recall) in almost 10 years.  Literally.  There were no other such 2 weeks.  
To “pay” for this, all my belongings were thrown out of the bedroom I was then living in, and my ex ensconced himself IN, putting locks on the door, and again, I was (since not working) reduced to hoping or asking for a $1.oo or perhaps $2.00 for the day, with small children to care for, and I do not recall if an operational car at this time.  Yes, I did, but cars still need gas to go anywhere.  I specifically remember shamelessly, if he forgot to close the door all the way, going through his pants pockets for spare change.  This is a while back, but as I recall there was no bank account and no income — the last full-time apparently had so threatened the guy that another man was brought into the home to try & persuade me to turn all income over to my husband shut down my bank account.  Alternately, I could quit my job.
 This was discussed in front of me AND two growing daughters, as if I were not even there.  We are talking a woman in her 40s, and in an urban California area.
Because I now had, experientially, not just theoretically (BIG difference!) 2 points of view, back to back, this highlit the situation.  The guy was indeed right to be extremely threatened by letting us out from underneath his thumb for a few weeks, because witnessing his retaliation to this, DID indeed tip the scale between fear of action and inaction.  I was disgusted enough and wanted the better way of living ENOUGh, to get out.  
When others got out:
In another blog here, I mention a woman who was held captive to her father for many years, and had to bear children for him.  She was able to report WHEN SHE KNEW HER KIDS WERE SAFE.  “Alyssa” a.k.a. Jaycee Dugard, who also fathered two children for HER kidnapper/rapist (though not her own father) was also able to get free finally, when she was in one room, and her captor/father of her daughters (Phillip Garrido) in another room, both with law enforcement there.  I don’t know all the details, but I bet that Mr. Phillip was NOT in the room during the conversations with Ms. Alyssa when the truth came out.  
Another woman, that Phyllis Chesler connected with the Dugard case, and that I also mentioned on-line, had been kept captive in a BOX 23 hours a day for years, until she was allowed out and graduate to family slave.  She’d been told that a group called ‘the Company” would come and cut off her fingers, or do horrible things to her family, if she rebelled or left.  (Incidentally, I consider stalking and other threats, along these lines, basically, this is a form of control and intimidation to force compliance).
One day the other woman got tired of the same man’s betrayal and mistreatment, and she told the captive that there was no “Company.”  The person then got on a bus and went home.  She’d been captive for YEARS.
When an individual parent exhibits this amount of control over contact with the other parent, and child abuse or domestic violence has not been identified as a cause, the court would be RIGHT to switch custody.  However, instead they tend to do it in the opposite situation after it HAS been identified, and sometimes even on the record, with evidence, etc..
What is happening in the court system, my friends (and enemies) is that mothers, morally, cannot get out, because their kids are going into unsafe situations.  In this scenario, they have a choice of abandoning their own kids under basic threat to hurt them MORE to save themselves, or staying in the fight, and passing off the drama and drain to society.  
Therefore, the family law forum, and the systems that resonate to its drumbeat (or vice versa, it’s a synergy!) is practically a foolproof business model. While there is SOME attrition — some people will escalate, and annihilate one or more family member, but even then the survivor and the paternal grandparents or maternal can duke it out around who gets the kids and how.  Meanwhile, new kids and new divorces/separations are happening weekly, monthly, year after year.  
Other “attrition” could be considered when parents actually do settle out of court and do NOT escalate to high-conflict (a misnomer) and/or violent custody battles.  To the parents, this is good.  To business, it’s not, really.  Hence, putting a child into the hands of the wrong parent guarantees they will come back, and back, and back, until some or both are destitute or dead, or simply cannot handle it any more (my current situation is 2 out of 3, and you can figure out which one I’m  not).
 In this paradigm, the “business model” paradigm, a kidnapping – – though on the books, a felony — can be even better — someone can, but depending on which parent (male or female) may not get jail time.  
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA how many federal grants and studies are based on captive audiences, literally?  Plus the professions staffing the jails, and the skillsets those professionals acquire?  For example, the social worker from a corrections center, in Lodi, California — whose wife he imprisoned, starved, and humiliated for 22 months, until finally she called 911, and when the police cars approached, she RAN out and DOVE through an open patrol car window. They apprehended this man it says with $23,000 and NINE (count’em) (9) weapons.  Her life musta been hell.  The man doing this learned how to control people and play two-faced “let me fix you” (while I use my woman at home, that I imported for the purpose) and apparently how to use a gun also.  (search my blog I blogged this article recently).
Generally, though, with a kidnapping, the left-behind traumatized parent is going to go to court again and again to try and get justice, just as the disgruntled ex did when the cause of separation was domestic violence or child abuse.  Evaluators mediators and court-appointed attorneys are hopping for business, and I’d imagine have more caseloads than they can personally handle.  The profession is certainly booming.  Supervised visitation centers and professionals to go with them, and software to support these centers, is also BOOMING.  It is a replicatable business model described and sold on the internet — see “The Duluth Model.”  See Family Justice Center Alliance, st arted with a million ($1million) grant from Verizon (may blog this).  
The presses (on-line and/or print) are churning, and periodicals addressing the problems in the family law venue area going full steam, and to publish in these is a notch in the career belt; to quote them lends a sense of authority, and along with these there are conferences on how to stop violence against women, help fathers become better parents (and gain access to their children) and of course how to stop children from experiencing abuse, trauma, molestation, kidnapping, or anything distressing.  That IS, presumably, (??) what family law is all about.
And so, I was thinking about my situation here, where so many avenues already tried, and failed, failed, because the law is a “moot point” unless enforced, and the law enforced is also a moot point if the person held back by it gets pissed off and comes close to express this is in a nonverbal way, either stalking (itself an escalation), or the risk implicit behind the stalking, which I don’t want to name just now.  All of the theory is moot point in certain circumstances.
I know that I need to stand a different way and in a different place, probably with a different TOOL, to do THIS:
???
Archimedes:

The engraving is from
Mechanic’s Magazine
(cover of bound Volume II,
Knight & Lacey, London, 1824)

Courtesy of the
 Annenberg Rare Book &
 Manuscript Library
 
 University of Pennsylvania
 Philadelphia, USA

Wall painting in theStanzino delle Matematiche in theGalleria degli Uffizi(Florence, Italy). Painted by Giulio Parigi (1571-1635) in the y

“Give me somewhere to stand and I will move the earth.”

Greek Mathematical Works, by Ivor Thomas, Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1941, vol. II, p. 35

 

First, analyze the situation accurately.  Accurately, the chances of a court order being respected in my situation, or someone doing something about this (even if officially asked to in a motion) are nil.  Most times, while I went about this, a guerrilla attack (and clearly purposed as such) came from another “gang” member offended by the principle that my motions should disrupt their equilibrium, the equilibrium of the self-anointed, self-evaluated, self-selected, with zero accountability.  Point 1.  The lever must be long enough and not break under the weight.  The longer the lever, the less weight need be applied.

Where to stand?  I say, look at the finances.  Do not approach a crook and talk about ethics!  Do not talk about someone drunk with power and talk about the immorality of using their power!  Talk in terms they understand, not your own paradigm!  How do you think we got into this place to start with?

WOMEN NEED A PLACE TO STAND IN THIS LIFE.  WE NEED TO MAKE AND DEFINE THIS PLACE IN FAIR NEGOTIATION WITH MEN.  WHEN CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED, THIS FAIR-NESS IS EVEN MORE CRUCIAL.

YOUNG WOMEN NEED TO BE TOLD SOME HARD TRUTHS — THERE ARE MEN THAT WILL GO FOR YOU TO PRODUCE A BABY (THIS CAN ALSO BE TRUE OF THE YOUNG MEN).  PARTICULARLY IF YOU ARE YOUNG AND FERTILE, AND HE’S ON A REBOUND.  OR IF YOU ARE OLDER AND AFFLUENT, IN THIS CASE, YOUR HOME IS NEEDED FOR A NEW HOME FOR HIS KIDS FROM THE FIRST WOMAN.  OR, ALTERNATELY, YOUR CHILDREN FROM A FORMER MARRIAGE MIGHT DO, TOO.

i feel this is just as applicable to professional women in their late mid to late 30s/early 40s as others. Until our society starts VALUING women as people and as women (including mothers!), the whole climate isn’t healthy enough all round, and people need to know in the river of life where the rapids and sharp rocks lie.  This differs by culture and community, and it AIN’T up to Washington D.C. and a bunch of economists and human behavioralists drawing research from shelters, prisons, and head start outfits, to set the standards!  (OR, churches, dammit!  The average church these days, I’ll speak for Protestant, is basically a cult.  In every sense of the word.  Marketing spirituality and social connection and good feelings, for a price, allegiance. . . .  And money, and services).

 

So now we get too MOOT POINT.  This post is just about a moot point today: I’ll revisit it in a while.

 

Idiom:  Moot Point


If something’s a moot point, there’s some disagreement about it: a debatable point. In the U.S., this expression usually means that there is no point in debating something, because it just doesn’t matter. An example: If you are arguing over whether to go the beach or to the park, but you find out the car won’t start and you can’t go anywhere, then the destination is said to be a moot point.

Category: Law

View examples in Google: Moot point

 

Wiktionary:

  1. (US) An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.
    Until we rebuild downtown, whether we build more parking spaces is a moot 

     

Moot point  (http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/moot-point.html)

Meaning

An irrelevant argument.

Origin

Some may disagree with the above meaning and argue that it means ‘a point open to debate‘, rather than ‘a point not worth debating‘. That former meaning was certainly the correct one when the term was first coined, but that’s going back a while.

In this post, I refer to the second usage


Laurence Humphrey, the president of Magdalen College, Oxford, wrote Nobles or of Nobilitye, a manual of behaviour for the English nobility, in 1563. In that he wrote:

 

“That they be not forced to sue the lawe, wrapped with so infinite crickes and moot poyntes.”

 

In medieval England, moots, or meets, were assemblies or councils where points of government were debated. The country was split into juridicial areas called hundreds and administered via assemblies known as hundredmotes. The form of government has long since vanished but the term hundred is still in use as the name of the procedural device which gives consent to MPs’ resignation. British MPs aren’t allowed to resign and, when members wish to leave Parliament they may do so by applying for the notional position of Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds. In such assemblies points which were put up for discussion were said to be mooted.

The change in meaning has come about following the introduction of ‘moot courts’, which are sessions where law students train for their profession by arguing hypothetical cases, i.e. ‘moot points’. The lack of any substantive outcome from these theoretical cases has led to the ‘unimportant/not worth discussing’ meaning of ‘moot point’, which is what many people accept today.

 

 

 

 

Here is one WHOPPER of a “moot point.”  I used to think that bringing this one up would make a difference.  I was so glad to see this written here.  But, it’s a moot point — in practice no one actually believes this.  If they did, too many programs would have to shut down.

 

Let’s go over this again:

http://www.sddvc.com/pdf/2008finalwithsignatures.pdf
This is out of San Diego: Law Enforcement Protocol:

The California State Legislature has declared that:

(1) “[S]pousal abusers present a clear and present danger to the mental and
physical well-being of the citizens of the State of California.” (California
Penal Code section 273.8.)

(2) “A substantial body of research demonstrates a strong connection between
Domestic Violence and Child Abuse.” (California Penal Code section
13732(a)). ”

Now, same document:

“The decision to prosecute a batterer lies within the discretion of the District Attorney
and the City Attorney. Victims do not “press charges”, “drop charges” or
“prosecute” their batterers.

So, those offices bear looking at. When they don’t prosecute for any of those (or child-stealing, case in point).

 

Ay, there’s the rub.**  So, they go get civil or family court restraining orders, which are less respected.  Or, they go to their family, friends, faith institution, etc.  Then they find out what their:  family, friends, faith institution, etc., are about.  And the years go by, the kids grow up. . .  . . . 

 


 


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

leave a comment »

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

1.  IN open court — in open, and 

2.  Behind closed doors — in private.

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

Last Updated: 6 June 2005

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENTIntroduction – the proceedings

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

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

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


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

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

 

RELEVANT:  What the jailed Dad wants.

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

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

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

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

===============================

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

   

 

What is the ACE Study?

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

 What’s an ACE?

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

 

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

 

Origins and Essence of the Study (2003)

 

ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES AND STRESS:  PAYING THE PIPER (2004?)

 

The findings of the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, an ongoing collaboration between Co-Principal 

Investigators Vincent J. Felitti, MD, of Kaiser Permanente, and Robert F. Anda, MD, MS, of the Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention. 

 

 

Because the two links above are in multi-column format, I can’t copy and paste.  I exhort you to take a look at some of this.

 

Please note that “one or no parents” was NOT on the top of the list, as it is on current “fatherhood.gov” policy, or HHS/ACF grants prioritization in the Designer Family mode it appears to be stuck in.

 

Women, including women like me, whose children have been exposed to from 1 to all of the factors above, are after removing their children FROM such factors, having the courts force them back in through shared parenting considerations.  IN this case the theoretical ideal is held over the head, and clubbing protective parents, of the practical reality that Batterers do NOT make Good parents until they thoroughly address the battering behavior, and what drives it.  Moreover, men have graduated with flying colors from programs allegedly adjusting their attitudes, and gone right out to murder that bitch who forced them to sit through it (McAlpin is one case that comes to mind, Bay Area, 2005.  Within just a few days, her body was discovered in a trunk).

 

 

 

 

Again, the issue becomes who gets to rig the test and give the grades?  I give any policy that lacks common sense — protect the kids! — and ignores the golden rule and “F.”

 

Golden Rule in Family Law:  Do unto OTHERS as you would have them do unto YOU (i.e., if it were YOUR kid, whose father just killed a newborn, would you as a judge order the woman who was alarmed at said murder to have her head examined, and the child ordered into contact with the parents of the killer, OR would you yourself be alarmed, and rule accordingly?)

 

If it’s not good enough for YOUR kid, it’s not good enough for HER kid.  That’s the golden rule in the courtroom, I say.

 

This of course presumes that a judge cares about his or her own kids, which may be a presumption indeed; some judges have been convicted of collecting child pornography and making some of it (Thompson, NJ), another of sexual harassment of female employees (Fed. District judge in Texas).

 

 

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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.

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: