Posts Tagged ‘family law’
Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California
After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:
TITLE OF REPORT:
CALIFORNIA’S ACCESS TO VISITATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING RESPONSIBILITY AND
OPPORTUNITY** FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENTS
2001-2003
WHO THIS REPORT WAS ADDRESSED TO:
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
WHO SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ON THE ABOVE TOPICS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
(The) Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature
pursuant to Assembly Bill 673.
Copyright © 2003 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the
Courts. All rights reserved.
This report is also available on the California Courts Web site:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v.htm
I HAVE A QUESTION:
HOW COME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR CHILD SUPPORT LITIGANTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THIS SITE
or INFORMED OF THIS PROGRAM
SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE BEING
FORCED THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS?
(FYI: “mandatory mediation” is the one of many way to achieve the grant-mandated “required outcomes”attached to this particular program funding. The “required outcome” is more hours, more time, more “accesss” going to the noncustodial parent. While “parent” is said, “father” is basically meant. Any legal process (with “due process”) that has a “required outcome” is by definition going to be, in some fashion, “rigged.”)
(It’s a rhetorical question.)
most of us are not checking up on the California Legislature while in an abusive relationship. . . . .
MANY of us cannot afford attorneys, and have come to this place through nonprofits. . . . . not police. . . .
Most of us are not rolling in extra time to do this research.
DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, I was dealing with transition from domestic violence.
It would’ve been helpful to know these processes and intents!
Brief Quote (I am running out of time to post today. . . . . )
Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded
a total of $50 million in block grants to states to promote access and visitation programs
to increase noncustodial parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. The federal
allocation to each state is based on the number of single-parent households. California
has the largest number of single heads of households (1,127,062) in the United States.3
California receives the maximum amount of possible federal funds (approximately
$1 million per year), representing 10 percent of the national funding. Federal regulations
earmark grant funds for such activities as mediation (both voluntary and mandatory),
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including
monitoring, supervision, and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines
for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of
California be further limited to the following three types of programs:
q Supervised visitation and exchange services;
q Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
q Group counseling services for parents and children
NOW, FRIENDS, FOES, AND VISITORS: HERE’S YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
READ THIS DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT (FROM OTHER YEARS, FROM YOUR STATES — I’M SURE THERE’S SOMETHING SIMILAR). “RESPONSIBLE CITIZENHOOD.”
And take a GOOD look at the “Fathers Rights” languages it’s laced with, and references to publications in footnotes on these matters.
This is social sciences through the courts. . . .
. . .
A recent study by Amato and Booth (1997), who
looked at several trends in family life and their effects on children, found divorce of all
factors considered, to have the most negative effect on the well-being of children.7
The trends of separation, divorce, and unmarried parents, have potentially adverse effects
on the financial, social, emotional, and academic well-being of America’s children.
Noncustodial parents, generally fathers, struggle to maintain healthy and meaningful
relationships with their children. A recent report by Arendell (1995) illustrates the
gradual disengagement of noncustodial parents. Contact with separated dads is often
minimal, with 30 percent of divorced fathers seeing their children less than once a year
and only 25 percent having weekly contact.8
Or, on page 6, Footnote 17:
K. Sylvester and K. Reich, Making Fathers Count, Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood
Efforts, (Social Action Network, 2002), p. 2.
In a nation where 23 million children do not live with their biological
fathers and 20 million live in single-parent homes (most of them lacking fathers)
AMONG REASONS, POSSIBLY, WHY, MIGHT BE”
(intake forms to screen and assess for safety risks; separate
orientations and interviews with parents; written child abduction procedures; policies to
respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior;
copies of protective orders, protocols for declining unsafe or high-risk cases).
(POST TO BE CONTINUED)….
SHARE THIS POST on...
Causal vs Casual relationships in single mother households, Violence, Poverty
Dear Silent Visitors,
I have some more news for you. Actually, this is over 4 years old in Australia, but apparently news to large sectors of America (North, USA):
UNLIKE Family Violence Prevention Fund, or, say,
White House.Gov (Issues – Family)
Australia actually USES the word “mothers” in conjunction with the words “Families” in a public forum.
When I saw, I was so excited, I had to post it.
I have also some more initials for you:
NCSMC
(Australia: 2005, NCSMC, Inc. writes SCFHS, Gov. (Say, Huh?)
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/fhs/reports.htm
22 April 2005
SUBMISSION NO. 108
AUTHORISED: 9 2OS~QS I
Committee Secretariat
Standing Committee on Family and Human Services
Parliament House
CANBERRA ACT 2600
fhs.reps@aph.gov. au
Dear Secretariat,
Please find attached the submission of the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children to
the Commonwealth Parliamentary Inquiry into Balancing Work and Family.
This submission specifically addresses the second term of reference in relation to single mothers. In
particular, we would like to draw to the committee’s attention how experiences of violence impact
on single mothers’ transitions from welfare to paid employment. We note that this is an area that is
largely unexplored and urge the committee to consider the need to rectify this.
NCSMC would welcome the opportunity to make oral submissions to the Secretariat in support of
this submission.
If you have any need for further information with respect to the issues raised, please contact myself
or the Executive Officer, Jac Taylor.
Yours sincerely,
Dr Elspeth Mclnnes
Convenor
NCSMC National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc.
220 Victoria Square Tarndanyangga Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: 0882262505 Fax: 0882262509
ncsmc~ncsmc.orc.au http://www.ncsmc.org.au
1
About NCSMC
The National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Incorporated was formed in 1973 to
advocate for the rights and interests of single mothers and their children to the benefit of all sole
parent families, including single father families.
NCSMC formed to focus on single mothers’ interests at a time when women who were pregnant
outside marriage were expected to give up their children for adoption by couple families and there
was no income support for parents raising children alone. Today most single mothers are women
who have separated from a partner. Issues of income support, child support, paid work, housing,
parenting, child-care, family law, violence and abuse continue as concerns to the present day.
NCSMC has member organisations in states and territories around Australia, many of which also
provide services and support to families after parental separation.
NCSMC aims to:
• Ensure that all children have a fair start in life;
• Recognise single mother families as a viable and positive family unit;
• Promote understanding of single mothers and their children in the community that they may
live free from prejudice;
• To work for improvements in the social economic and legal status of single mothers and
their children.
This submission will focus primarily on the second term of reference:
Making it easier for parents who so wish to return to the paid workforce.
NCSMC wishes to highlight that existing legislation does not allow single mothers on income
support to choose the circumstances of return to work as they are compelled to undertake certain
activities as part of their “mutual obligation”. It would appear that the Australian Government
intends to significantly increase these obligations, making choice even more limited. Thus,
NCSMC wishes the committee to note the double standard that currently applies where single
mothers face compulsion to undertake paid work, compared to couple mothers who may choose
their involvement.1
Parental separation and violence
Single-parent households comprise more than one in five households with dependent children in
Australia and comprise one the fastest growing family forms (Wise, 2003). Most single parents are
1 Refer to Appendix A for NCSMC’s Guiding Principles to further welfare reform.
2
mothers, with nine out of 10 children living with their mothers after parental separation (ABS
1999). The rise in single-parent households is primarily attributable to the rising rate of separations
between parents, and violence is implicated as a strong driver of relationship breakdown. Recent
Australian research into the reasons for divorce found that, after general communication
breakdown, violence and addictions were the most common reasons women gave for ending the
relationship (Wolcott & Hughes 1999).
This reasoning is supported statistically in the ABS (1996) survey of women’s safety, which found
that single women with an ex-partner were the most likely to have experienced violence, and the ex-
partner was the most probable assailant. The population survey found that 23% of adult women
who had ever partnered had experienced violent assault by a current partner or former partner, but
single women who had previously been partnered were at highest risk of experiencing assault, with
42% reporting violence at some time during their relationship (ABS 1996, p. 51). Family court data
indicates that 66% of separations involving children have violence or abuse (Family Law Pathways
Report 2001).
The data reported in the submission are drawn from a doctoral research project undertaken in South
Australia in the 1 990s (Mclnnes 2001), which compared the family transition experiences of single
mothers who left violent relationships with those who did not have to content with violence.2
Interviews were conducted with 36 single mothers, which included separated and divorced mothers
and women who had given birth outside of an established partnership. Of the 29 women
interviewed who became single mothers as the result of relationship break down, 18 reported that
their relationship ended due to violence. Abuse was self-defined by respondents and always
included physical violence and sometimes included sexual, social, financial and emotional abuse.
The violence typically formed part of the relationship dynamic in which the mother and children
lived in constant fear and anxiety, rather than a single explosive event.
Labour market participation
Only 4 of the mothers interviewed had never participated in the paid workforce, and 28 of the 36
women were either undertaking paid work or study at the time of interview. Thus for the majority,
paid work and/or study formed an integral part of their identity and daily experience.
Single mothers who separated from violent relationships were less likely to be in paid work, but
more likely to be studying, than other mothers at the time of interview. Of the 20 survivors of
childhood and/or adult violence, 70% were mainly reliant on income support. Two-thirds of the
3
mothers who were mainly reliant on income support were studying at the time of interview and
three out of four single mother students had left violent relationships. This fits with existing
research that found that divorced women who had been exposed to severe abuse were less likely to
be in the paid workforce than other divorced women (Sheehan and Smyth 2000).
The differences between single mothers’ paid work and study status according to their exposure to
violent relationships indicates that analysis of single mothers’ economic participation cannot be
reduced to infrastructure needs such as childcare. Women’s exposure to gendered violence and their
responsibilities for care of children combine to qualitatively change their access to the paid
workforce.
Gender and working parents
Australia’s paid workforce is highly gendered, where women’s work is predominantly clustered in
low-paid part-time service work (Baker and Tippin 1999; Edwards and Magarey 1995; Pocock
1995; Sharp and Broomhill 1988). Women’s increased participation in paid work has not produced
a proportionate decline in their share of domestic and family work relative to men (Bittman &
Lovejoy 1993; Hochschild 1997). Thus gender remains a clear determinant ofworkforce
participation, reflecting women’s unpaid caring responsibilities, and the higher rewards of work
available to men.
Current family policy increases the risks ofunemployment for single parents. Current family policy
pays higher rewards to mothers in couple families withdrawing from the workforce, through the
non-means tested payment of FTB B to single income families. When mothers are not partnered
they become subject to new participation requirements to maintain access to a subsistence income
support payment. Current family policy is thus incoherent and inconsistent by paying some mothers
to stop work and requiring other mothers to start work. The best protection against unemployment
for single mothers is to enable all parents, couple and single, to make structured transitions in and
out of the workforce as caregiving needs require over the life course. This means consideration of
initiatives such as maternity leave and paternity leave, quality affordable child care services,
retraining packages and subsidy entitlements for caregivers returning to work.
2 All identifying information has been removed to protect the privacy and confidentiality of respondents.
4
Single Mothers and Paid Work
A study comparing return to work programmes for low income mothers across Australia, Canada,
New Zealand and the United Kingdom concluded that the variation in levels of workforce activity
required of mothers affected the level of difficulty experienced by families, but did not essentially
change the degree or scope of poverty of single mother households (Baker and Tippin 1999).
Along with responsibility for dependent children, low paid work in insecure jobs in a gender-
segmented labour market prevented single mothers from gaining access to economic independence.
Only well-paid, secure full-time jobs would enable parents to support their children on a single
income, without any reliance on income support.
In the Economic Consequences of Marriage Breakdown study, McDonald (1986) found that being
in the workforce at the time of separation was the most important factor influencing post-separation
workforce participation of mothers with dependent children. Women who had undertaken paid
work during the marriage, particularly after the birth of the second child, were the most likely to
continue paid work participation. Women with professional occupational experience had a higher
workforce attachment, and better access to secure working conditions. Reporting these findings,
Funder (1989:82) noted that decisions taken during the marriage about the gender division of paid
work and child rearing responsibilities strongly influenced women’s post separation employment
prospects.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends that government policy be reviewed to address inconsistencies that
“encourage” single mothers, on the one hand, to enter paid work, and couple mothers, on
the other, to stay at home.
• NCSMC recommends that family support policy be reviewed to introduce paid maternity
leave and paternity leave, quality affordable child care services, retraining packages and
subsidy entitlementsfor caregivers returning to work
Factors such as the women’s level of education and history of paid work also affect their likelihood
of paid work participation. A relatively high wage was needed to compensate for work costs and
the loss of income support, as well as rent increases for mothers living in public housing. Research
in Australia into sole parents leaving the income support system, has confirmed that access to well-
paid employment with family-friendly workplace conditions and appropriate affordable childcare
was the most sustainable path out of poverty for single mothers (Chalmers 1999:45; McHugh &
Millar 1996; Wilson et al. 1998).
5
Factors identified in previous research as producing the highest incidence of reliance on income
support were:
• Being out of the paid workforce at time of separation;
• Not being involved in the decision to separate;
• Having an income lower than the benefit level paid;
• Having less than Year 12 schooling; and
• Not re-partnering within five to eight years (Funder 1989:85).
The number of children in the family also affected a mother’s labour market participation with
participation in work declining as the number of children rose (Funder 1989). In Mclnnes 2001, 72
percent of the sample had one or two children, and four out of five of these were working or
studying. None of the respondents with three or more children were in the paid workforce at the
time ofinterview, although seventy percent of these were studying.
p
Paid work and caring responsibilities
In the study by Mclnnes 2001, parents felt torn between their parenting and earning roles. The dual
demands of being the only available parent and income earner made participation in paid work a
balancing act for many women. While mothers expected to work and earn their own income as
their children grew older, a lack of alternative care meant they could not easily work outside
standard office hours.
If you have a partner it~s much easier to stay back at work. Childcare finishes atfive thirty and you have
to be there to pick the child up. I always had to leave early to pick her up … I missed out on hours of
work. Iwas only paid by the hour (Juanita, 41, 1 child).
It would be very difficult doing shifi work. There~s lobs that I’ve had that I wouldn’t be able to do now,
like when I was working with young disabled people 8 hour sh~fis over a 24 hours period seven days a
week and I]ust wouldn’t be able to get child care (Ann, 40, 1 child).
I couldn’t possibly see howl could keep a night-time job. Childcare was something that wasn’t available
at night in those days… My mother was prepared to have the children but only ~fItook them to her house.
She had no room set up for them. I had to pick them up at 11 o’clock at night, take them out and put them
in the car, and drive home (Kerry, 31, 2 children).
Respondents stressed that being able to meet their children’s needs came first, and their ability to
undertake paid work had to fit in around these needs. However, they did sacrifice their own needs
especially in relation to recreation and leisure time, leading to increased isolation and stress.
Work made me really very isolated because I was losing my energy … I was coming back at about seven
o clock in the evening and … trying to cook something for her. She was screaming because.. she spent
between ten and twelve hours in a day-care centre so she was miserable (Sasha, 42, 1 child).
6
When Ifirst came back, because I was so tired and getting so little sleep, I was bursting into tears all the
time and Ifound it very hard to look professional… I’ve had to go home during the day and have sleeps
because I was just so knackered (Ann, 40, 1 child).
Where mothers had made the transition into paid work some found themselves having to return to
income support due to illness, lack of child care, lack of transport and stress.
I can’t nurse any more … I’ve got registration however I’m not able to work any more as a nurse because
I have to take care ofeverybody including my ex. I had to accommodate my life to suit his 4fe because he
refused to do it (Sasha, 41, 1 child).
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that ‘welfare to works policy must enable easy and fast transition between
paid work and income support to ensure single mothers are able to meet their children ~sneeds.
Despite their efforts to find ways to work, single mothers’ workforce participation remained
subordinate to the demands of family for a number of reasons: P
• There was no other present parent to share care for children;
• Mothers barely saw their children when they worked full-time;
• Working full-time meant risking exhaustion;
• Children needed their remaining parent’s attention.
For those mothers who had experienced violence, their family demands were higher due to the
continuing impact of trauma on their own and their children’s health. Taft (2003) notes that there
are strong links between intimate violence and damage to women s mental health, including
depression, anxiety, substance misuse, suicidality and post traumatic stress disorder.
Child Care
The single mothers in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) drew on both formal and informal sources of
care, with the most advantaged mothers being able to draw on a wider range. Informal sources
included relatives, friends and the other parent and had the advantage of being both flexible and
cost free. For women who had experienced violence their choices were far more limited as they
were often isolated from both informal and formal sources of care.
Consistent with other research (Swinbourne et al. 2000; Wijnberg & Weinger 1998), the women in
the sample with close relationships with family found this the best form of alternative care. But not
all women could rely on family support, especially migrant women. Women who had experienced
7
childhood violence could not rely on family, and those who had experienced violence as an adult
had been forced to move away from their ex-partner and were thus isolated from family.
Only 13 mothers (3 6%) in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) had regular contact with their ex-partner. A
study of labour force capacity of sole parents who shared care with the other parent found that
mothers who shared care in a regular, co-operative, flexible and satisfactory arrangement with the
other parent were considerably more likely to be in paid work than single mothers who did not
share care (Dickenson et al. 1999). However, where mothers did depend on ex-partners for care
while they undertook paid work, ex-partners were able to continue to exert control over mother’s
activities, echoing other research findings that partners decided whether to ‘allow’ mothers to work
in couple families (Eureka Strategic Research, 1998:68). Full time work by mothers could also
create barriers to regular contact with the non-resident parent. When mothers were working full-
time, weekends were their only opportunity to spend leisure time with their child, competing with
non-resident fathers’ time. Access to care by the other parent was not possible for the women
whose ex-partners were absent, and not in the child’s interest when the other parent was abusive.
Survivors ofviolence thus had less access to this source of care.
A third source of alternative care was neighbourhood networks, providing the convenience of
locality. Like family, friends were an important resource out of hours, or when children were sick
and could not attend school or childcare. Relocation after separation created barriers to women
sustaining the neighbourhood friendships that had developed before their relationships ended.
Women fleeing violence were often forced to move away form their neighbourhoods. Those who
were able to remain in their homes during and after the separation were more likely to have access
to neighbourhood support networks that could replace or extend family support.
Most commonly, formal child care was used. Less flexible and more expensive, it was more
reliable for mothers to meet work and study commitments. Survivors of violence and migrants
were more reliant on formal childcare services. However, child care usually had to be booked in
advance, creating difficulties for women who worked casual hours and were unsure of their child
care needs. Cost limited mothers’ use of child care. Mothers who had experienced abuse of
themselves or their children were often distrustful of childcare. Overall, survivors of violence
experienced relative disadvantage in access to all sources of alternative care.
Despite the limitations, high quality affordable, accessible childcare was important to reducing
isolation among survivors ofviolence, migrant mothers and others who did not have ready access to
informal care sources. The data indicate that accessible, affordable, safe child care remains
8
fundamental to enabling single mothers to participate in paid work, particularly for migrant women
and those who have survived violence. Identification and awareness of the needs of parent and
child survivors of violence could provide considerable support to women seeking to improve their
workforce opportunities.
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that government fund affordable, accessible, appropriate, quality child care
places, in numbers sufficient to meet demand.
Workforce motivations and barriers
Poverty Trays
Gaining financial rewards from work was important to justify the additional cost and effort of
workforce participation for mothers, however, poverty traps undermined respondents’ motivation to
work. Respondents in this research (Mclnnes 2001) calculated the impact of market eamings on
their income support payments and felt there needed to be greater financial incentives to enter the
workforce, particularly for those living in public housing, when earnings also increased rent.
I was earning maybe one hundred and fifty extra but I had to cut it down to part-time and it just wasn’t
worth it. Housing Trust put your rent up. Social Security takes away money and I was aboutfive dollars
better off (Bonny, 28, 3 children).
My rent went up over sixty dollars a week when I started working and when I complained about that they
said ~youare already in subsidised housing what are you complaining about’ (Laurel, 38, 3 children).
The combination of low-paid, insecure jobs with high effective marginal tax rates in income tests on
public rental rates and income support payments, provided no economic benefit to families in public
housing to compensate for the time pressure and the financial and family costs of going to paid
work. Poverty traps did not as severely affect single mothers in private rental housing or
homebuyers as earnings did not directly increase their housing costs. Survivors of violence and
mothers without wage income capital assets were more likely to be living in public housing, and
were thus more severely affected by poverty traps than other mothers. The paradox of poverty traps
is that mothers with higher income earning capacity and assets are less severely affected than
mothers living in deep poverty, in public housing, with poor income prospects.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends the removal of quadruple income test (Youth Allowance, Family Tax
Benefit, Child Care Benefit and Child Support).
• NCSMC recommends federal and state governments cooperate to address the public housing
rental / market earnings poverty trap.
9
Access to transyort
A key dimension of poverty and isolation among single mothers was their access to private
transport. The study or workforce prospects of single mothers without access to private transport
were limited, compared to those who held a driver’s licence and could afford to run a car (Mclnnes
2001). Getting children to child care or school on public transport and then getting to workplaces,
often required mothers to rouse children at dawn. Women living in non-metropolitan areas were at
an even greater disadvantage due to limited services.
I would have had to drop him at somebody’s house atfive in the morning, having got myself up and the
baby up – it would have to be a house close by… I would have to have him there including weekends when
there was sh~fl work and it~ harder to find child care on rotating shifts (Judith, 34, 1 child).
I had to take her in the morning on the bus, then catch another bus, with the pusher, with her bottle, her
nappies, everything, to the child care. I then had to walk down to the day care centre, then come back
and walk to my classes and then back to pick her up. Whew! I was walking. It was a slavery (Sasha, 42,
1 child).
I was catching buses. I didn’t have a licence. I was leaving home at quarter to six in the morning to be at
work by seven and I wasn’t getting home tillfive thirty at night (Judith, 34, 1 child).
Women’s life histories of income status, relationships, culturally scripted gender roles and
motherhood formed part of the context in which some had not been able to learn to drive. Some
women had grown up in low income households without a car, others had lived in relationships in
which only men were drivers, and therefore controlled women’s mobility. Gaining a driver’s licence
meant gaining freedom to move.
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends that government provide funding to single mothers on income support to
cover the cost of driving lessons and purchase ofdriver ‘s licence.
Post Sevaration Violence
Despite the widespread belief that leaving the relationship stops domestic violence, a number of
survivors of violence reported continuing harassment, stalking, threats and physical attacks by their
ex-partner (Mclnnes 2001). Mothers who had to maintain contact with a violent ex-partner for
child contact found that management of their ex-partner’s violence changed, but did not necessarily
stop after separation. Their actions were still constrained and conditioned by the need to manage
and reduce the risk of further violence against themselves and their children.
I still have to appease his moods. Even though we are apart I have to be careful about what the children
might say on the phone to him so as not to rock the boat … in order to protect myself to protect the
children (Mabel, 36, 6 children).
10
There was ofien conflict at exchange at access so we have been through the Family Court and had
restraining orders put in place and conditions of access and that sort of thing (Tare, 36, 2 children).
In cases of continuing contact between children and abusive fathers, both mothers and children
were unable to work on recovery from their trauma, remaining hostage to the potential and actuality
of ongoing violence. Mothers whose children had been abused by their father were presented with
a no-win situation in which they had left the relationship to protect their children from abuse, yet
they were required to cooperate with presenting their child for contact with the alleged perpetrator.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC endorses the Family Law Council (2002) and Every Picture Tells a Stoiy Report
(2004) recommendations that a national child protection service be established, improving the
quality of child abuse investigation and evidence available to the Family Court.
• NCSMC recommends that the Family Law Act be amended to privilege child(ren) ~ safety in
determining his/her best interests.
Education and Work Histories
Those in the sample (Mclnnes 2001) with little education had mainly held low paid, part time jobs
such as cleaning, retailing or food and hospitality services. The mothers with post-secondary
qualifications were more likely to be mainly reliant on market income than those who had no post-
school qualification. Forty-five percent of the sample had not finished Year 12. Of these mothers
many had held jobs with no training, no security and relatively low pay. For women who grew up
with an abusive parent, leaving home and schooling was a way to escape the abuse.
Women who had not succeeded at school did not expect that they would be able to handle study as
an adult. Success at education as adults prompted women to re-evaluate their capacities and goals.
Gendered expectations about women’s working lives, the demands of marriage and family, as well
as experiences of violence were the main factors which had shaped single mothers’ education and
work histories. Many respondents had left education as young women believing they would
eventually be supported by their partners, or to escape abuse from their family. Husbands’ views on
mothers’ workforce participation, as well as the demands of children, restricted women’s work
during the partnership, and left many single mothers with a low income earning capacity after the
relationship ended.
Gaining new or updated workplace skills was an important step for single mothers who wanted to
return to work. Study and training courses provided women with new opportunities; however,
11
women were interested in careers which would support themselves and their children, rather then
short-term low-paid job options.
Single Mothers and Study
Combining parenting and studying generated similar conflicts to those between paid work and
parenting demands. Students were more able to be flexible to meet family demands, but student
workloads were often organised around the lifestyles of young adults without dependants. Mothers
often experienced time and family stress while studying. Not only did the demands of children and
study conflict, but educational institutions made few allowances for the needs of carers.
On the first day of orientation we had someone come in to talk about time management and he proceeded
to tell single parents why they shouldn’t be at university. That was my introduction.., we all felt really
bad. He told us you can’t be a good parent and study (Anita, 38, 2 children).
Despite the lack of flexibility and recognition of single mothers’ family needs by some education
institutions, access to higher education was greatly valued by women in the study. Department of
Family and Community Services data shows that sole parents were the income support group with
the highest rate of participation in education (Landt & Peck 2000).
Half of the respondents (Mclnnes 2001) were enrolled in a post-secondary course at the time of
interview. Two-thirds of these were enrolled in university and the remaining third in TAFE
courses. Further education was seen as a way to improve their earning capacity in the longer term.
The data showed a trend for the level of education to increase with age. Many respondents who had
returned to study as a single mother discovered they were able to succeed educationally. Success at
education was important to recovering a positive sense of identity and achievement, as well as
expanding social networks and decreasing isolation. However, poverty remained a barrier to single
mothers’ participation in education, and survivors of violent relationships often lived in deeper
relative poverty, with less access to assets from the relationship and less access to child support.
In summary, respondents’ motivations to begin studying were linked to their desire to achieve
longer term career goals. Success in education offered a positive sense of self-esteem and
achievement sufficient to persist though barriers including lost earning opportunities, costs of
studying, risks of not getting a job on completion and the stress on the family. When the family
experienced increased stress due to illness or other crises, mothers preferred to defer studies to
attend to family demands.
12
Recommendation:
NCSMC recommends government promote and encourage single mothers on income support to
undertake higher education, by subsidising places at institutions, allowing study as an approved
activity, and ensuring the continuation of the Pensioner Education Supplement.
Summary of Research Findings
The impact on work and study arising from violence emerged in the research (Mclnnes 2001) as an
issue for women in the workforce. Violence against women and children is commonly constituted
within a welfare paradigm of social policy providing crisis housing and financial relief, while the
legacy of violence on survivor’s work and education opportunities has received comparatively little
attention (Danziger et al. 2000). The poverty, health impacts, isolation and loss of trust arising
from violence affected survivors access to paid work and study and their use of alternative care
resources.
Single mothers’ opportunities to develop market earnings were underpinned by a range of
prerequisites which could not be assumed within the cumulative gendered effects of prolonged
poverty, experiences of violence and responsibility for dependent others. Such prerequisites for
labour market participation included:
• Physical safety for parent and child(ren);
• Emotional and physical health of the parent and child(ren);
• Secure housing;
• Access to transport;
• Access to appropriate child care resources;
• Access to suitable training / education;
• Access to network with employment opportunities.
Violence negatively impacted on single mothers’ workforce and study opportunities in a number of
complex ways, mediated by other factors:
• Survivors of violence often experienced increased family demand due to the physical, emotional
and financial stresses of past and continuing violence, thereby reducing their sustained
availability for other activities.
• Survivors were more restricted in access to alternative forms of care. Survivors were often
isolated from family and friends through having to move or go into hiding. They could not
safely call on their ex-partner to provide care, and their experiences often made them more
distrustful of childcare.
13
• Survivors were more likely to have been housed in public housing, and were thus exposed to
deeper poverty traps compared to those in privately rented or purchased housing.
• Survivors were less likely to have access to private transport, due to poverty, and never
obtaining a driver’s licence.
• Survivors of violence as children had often left home and education to escape, placing them at
risk of long-term disadvantage in the labour market.
• Survivors of violence carry the costs, including impaired physical and mental health of both
child and adult targets, which impact on their capacity to participate in paid work and education.
There are the increased financial and time costs of attendance at health services, medications,
and disability aids. Many survivors of violence also face increased legal costs to try to protect
themselves and their children using the state and federal courts. There is also the cost of the
loss or damage to housing and possessions arising from the destruction of property, forced
abandonment of home, debts arising from the relationship and forgone claims to property of the
relationship.
Policy approaches assisting mothers to seek work need to take account of the extra demands on
survivors of violence and the responsibilities of providing care. Constructing mothers as gender-
neutral agents in the labour market cannot adequately account for the gendered dimensions of the
distribution of unpaid care, poverty and violence. Thus increased compulsion on single mothers to
participate in workforce activity can be expected to create increased burdens on the most vulnerable
families and do little to address the drivers of relative disadvantage among single mothers.
Policy reforms such as increased financial rewards for paid work, increased access to affordable,
quality, flexible child care and increased assistance with transport and education cost are necessary
to supporting single mothers to improve their income-earning opportunities. Recognition of the
impact of gendered violence on single mother’s poverty and their subsequent working opportunities
indicates the need to dramatically improve legal responses to financially compensate mothers and
children for violence against them, and the support their safety and recovery after separation.
Recommendations:
• NCSMC recommends that government, in considering policies to encourage transitions from
welfare to paid work, prioritise rights to safety, healing and recovery for all victims ofviolence,
beyond the current scope of crisis intervention.
14
• NCSMC recommends that government does not overlook the imperative to consider the impact
of violence when developing policy to encourage the transition from welfare to paid work. In
doing so, further research specifically addressing this area will need to be undertaken.
• NCSMC recommends that government consider how it could improve the legal responses to
victims of violence to financially compensate them for the violence suffered, and help in their
healing and recovery.
• NCSMC recommends that government fund the provision of training and education of
professionals, volunteers and helpers who come into contact with victims of violence. This•
needs to include prevalence, characteristics, dynamics and consequences of violence/abuse in
families, how to recognise it and what to do about it. Workers need to know how to go about
prioritising responses to achieve safety, and supporting healing and resiliencefor victims.
• In addition to the above recommendations, NCSMC recommends that government implement
thefollowing policies in recognition of the unpaid care work single mothers undertake:
1. Increased national investment in access to retraining and education packages for
parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments.
2. The development of wage subsidy packages to build worliforce attachment and skillsfor
parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments.
3. A nationalflexible system of maternity leave and parental leave to support parents and
carers who haveforegone wages to meet care commitments in the early period of
children ‘s lives, with pathways back to employment emphasising parental choice and
flexibility.
4. Affirmative action in the workplace to support women ‘s and mothers~ access to
permanent employment with career paths and skills acquisition.
5. Increased investment in family support services, with pathways to employment and
education servicesfor parents and carers who haveforegone wages to meet care
commitments.
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996) Women~ Safety After Separation, Catalogne Number 4128.0,
AGPS, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (1999) Children, Australia: A Social Report, Catalogue Number
4119.0, AGPS, Canberra.
15
Baker, M. & Tippin, D. (1999) Poverty, Social Assistance and the Employability ofMothers,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto.
Bittman, M. & Lovejoy, F. (1993) “Domestic Power: Negotiating an Unequal Division of Labour
within a Framework of Equality”, Australian and New Zealand Journal ofSociology, 29(3),
pp. 302-321.
Chalmers, J. (1999) Sole Parent Exit Study: Final Report, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney.
Danziger, Sandra, Corcoran, M., Danziger, Sheldon, Helflin, C., Kalil, A., Levin, J., Rosen, D.,
Seefeldt, K., Siefert, K., Tolman, R. (2000) “Barriers to the Employment of Welfare
Recipients”, in Cherry, R. & Rodgers, W. (eds.) Prosperityfor All? The Economic Boom
and African Americans, University of Michigan, Michigan.
Dickenson, J., Heyworth, C., Plunkett, K., Wilson, K., (1999) “Sharing the Care of Children Post
Separation: Family Dynamics and Labour Force Capacity”, Family Strengths Conference,
University of Newcastle, November.
Edwards, A. & Magarey, 5. (1995) Women in Restructuring Australia, Southwood Press, Sydney.
Eureka Strategic Research (1998) Qualitative Research on Women~ and Families’ Workforce
Participation Decisions, Dept. of Health and Family Services, Dept of Social Security,
Office of the Status of Women, Canberra.
Family Law Council (2002) Family Law and Child Protection, AGPS, Canberra.
Family Law Pathway Advisory Group, (2001), Out of the Maze: Pathways to the Future for
Families Separation, AGPS, Canberra.
Funder, K. (1989) “Women’s Post Separation Workforce Participation” in Whiteford, P. (ed.) What
Futureforthe Welfare State? Volume 5, Income Maintenance and Income Security, SPRC Reports
and Proceedings 83, Social Policy Research Centre, Sydney.
Hochschild, A. (1997) The Time Bind, Henry Holt & Company, New York.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs, (2003), Every
Picture Tells a Story: Report on the Inquiry into Child Custody Arrangements in the Event
of Family Separation, AGPS, Canberra.
Landt, J. & Pech, J. (2000) “Work and Welfare in Australia: The Changing Role of Income
th
Support”, 7 AIFS Conference, Sydney, 24-26 July.
McDonald, P., (ed) (1986) Settling Up: Property and Income Distribution on Divorce in Australia,
AIFS & Prentice Hall, Melbourne.
McHugh, M. & Millar, J. (1996) Sole Mothers in Australia: Supporting Mothers to Seek Work,
Discussion Paper 71, SPRC, Sydney.
Mclnnes, E. (2001) Public Policy and Private Lives: Single Mothers, Social Policy and Gendered
Violence , Thesis for Doctor of Philosophy, FUSA, Bedford Park.
16
Mclnnes, E. (2004) Keeping Children Safe: The Links Between Family Violence and Poverty,
Because Children Matter.~ Tackling Poverty Together, Uniting Missions National
Conference, Adelaide.
Mclnnes, E. (2004) The Impact of Violence on Mothers’ and Children’s Needs During and After
Separation, Early Childhood Development and Care, 174(4), pp. 357-368.
O’Connor, J., Orloff, A. & Shaver, 5. (1999) States, Markets, Families: Gender, Liberalism and
Social Policy in Australia, Canada, Great Britain and the United States, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
Pocock, B. (1995) “Women’s Work and Wages”, in Women in Restructuring Australia: Work and
Welfare, Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Sharp, R. & Broomhill, R. (1988) Short Changed: Women and Economic Policies, Allen & Unwin,
Sydney.
Sheehan, G. & Smyth, B. (2000) “Spousal Violence and Post Separation Financial Outcomes”,
Australian Journal ofFamily Law, 14(2), pp. 102-118.
Swinbourne, K., Esson, K., Cox, E. & Scouler, B. (2000) The Social Economy of Sole Parenting,
University of Technology, Sydney.
Taft, A., (2003), Promoting Women’s Mental Health: The Challenges of Intimate/Domestic
Violence Against Women, Issues Paper No. 8., Australian Domestic and Family Violence
Clearinghouse, UNSW, Sydney.
Wilson, K., Bates, K. & Pech, J. (1998) “Parents, the Labour Force and Social Security”, Income
Support, Labour Markets and Behaviour: A Research Agenda Conference, Background
Paper, Dept. of Family & Community Services, Canberra, November 24-25.
Wijnberg, M. & Weinger, 5. (1998), “When Dreams Wither and Resources Fail: the Social Support
Systems of Poor Single Mothers”, Families in Society: The Journalfor Contemporary
Human Services, 79(2), pp. 212-219.
Wise, 5. (2003) Family Structure, Child Outcomes and Environmental Mediators, Research Paper
30, AIFS, Melbourne.
Wolcott, I. & Hughes, J. (1999) Towards Understanding the Reasons for Divorce, Working Paper
No. 20, AIFS, Melbourne.
17
Appendix 1
Guiding Principles — Sole Parents & Welfare Reform
Overview
NCSMC recommends that the Australian Government does not increase participation requirements
for Parenting Payment recipients for the following reasons:
• Sole parents are the most active income support recipient population undertaking paid work,
employment assistance programs, study and training;
• Demand for employment assistance programs, training and child care places far exceeds P
supply;
• No evaluation data is yet available to determine the success or otherwise of the Australians
Working Together legislation as implemented as at 30 September 2002, and 30 September
2003.
NCSMC recommends that the Australian Government implements the following reforms:
• Invest in the well being ofAustralian sole parent families by increasing the number of
places available in employment assistance programs, training and child care;
• Facilitate the uptake of such places by providing sufficient funding to allow sole parents to
fill these places;
• Provide evaluation data so the success or otherwise ofthe existing Australians Working
Together legislation can be determined. This should include, but not be limited to, data with
respect to parents and others on:
~ Movement from benefit to paid work (including casual, part time, and full time)
~ Access to services, including return to work programs (eg JET, TTW), training
education, and child care;
~ Breaching rates
Consultation
To ensure proper consultation takes place, NCSMC recommends the following consultation process
takes place:
• Public meetings to be held in each state/territory;
• A Discussion Paper is drafted by DEWR and released for public comment (by written
submission and with reasonable time line);
• Following this, an Options Paper is drafted and released for public comment (by written
submission and with reasonable time line).
NCSMC
National Council of Single Mothers and their Children Inc.
220 Victoria Square Tarndanyangga Adelaide SA 5000 Ph: 0882262505 Fax: 0882262509
ncsmc(~2ncsmc.om.au http://www.ncsmc.org.au
18
Assistance / Supports IServices in DEWR lan2uaael
• Retention of current Parenting Payment (pension) levels and income test (with taper rate at
40 cents in the dollar) for existing Parenting Payment recipients and new applicants;
• There should be acknowledgement that further assistance and support is needed (both access
to and funding of) to address the structural disadvantage faced by sole parents;
• Access to affordable, accessible, appropriate, quality child care, including before and after
school, vacation, night-time & weekend care;
• Provision of funding for appropriate and long term substantive training and/or education,
including the retention of the Pensioner Education Supplement (PES), as well as expansion
of PES to those receiving Parenting Payment Partnered (PPP);
• Access to and funding for appropriate transport, noting that sole parents have a double
transport burden (children to school and parent to work);
• Access to funding for job search costs; (noting that these costs were never factored into
current pension amounts, as raising children alone was considered sufficient activity);
• Access to appropriate employment / return to work programs, with appropriately trained
staff (eg TTW, JET, PSP) — these programs need to be responsive to needs of sole parents
and their children, flexible, friendly and not based on compliance;
• Access to and funding for health or other therapeutic services (parents and children) needed
to enable a parent to engage in participation requirements;
• Access to wage subsidy programs that lead to real jobs (paid work experience); P
• Access to family friendly workplaces;
• The RTW/JET child care subsidies should extend to all PP recipients undertaking labour
market related activity;
• Participation supplements, and/or well publicised, dedicated funds within Job Seeker
Accounts and RTW/JET budgets to assist with the direct costs ofjob search, employment
and education and training.
Incentives / Removal of Disincentives IWork Incentives in DEWR 1an~uas~e1
• Retention of pension income test (taper rate at 40 cents in the dollar), and this taper rate
should also apply to PPP recipients to encourage part time paid work;
• Removal of quadruple income test (Youth Allowance, Family Tax Benefit, Child Care
Benefit and Child Support);
• Progressively remove anomalies that result in reduction / loss of family income once
youngest child turns 16;
• Addressing major disincentives to repartnering (ie marriage like relationships);
• Addressing uncertainty brought about by forced participation (eg focus on meeting
obligations demands less focus on children’s needs, ability to transfer from paid work to
pension);
• Breaking down disincentives; including cost of child care, cost of working (especially initial
costs of work entry)
• Activities must lead to “real” jobs;
• Public housing rent increases / disincentives
• Concessions cards — need to retain access for some time as it provides access to state (eg
transport, telephone) concessions; and these concession cards should be available to PPP
recipients as well.
19
R&iuirements IWork obli2ations in DEWR 1an~ua~e1
Should the Australian Government not accept NCSMC’s recommendation and choose to pursue
an increase in participation requirements, at a bare minimum the following protections should
be legislated:
The legislative protections underpinning the participation requirements introduced in
Australians Working Together should be retained, including:
(1) any requirements should be averaged over a number of weeks rather than a fixed
number ofhours per week
(2) parents should have the option to participate in education and training that would
improve their future job prospects and income
(3) parents should be exempted from participation requirements where they have:
~ a child with a disability,
~ a sick child, or
~ where a critical event in the family’s life (e.g. divorce proceedings, threat of
domestic violence) would make compulsory participation unreasonable at this
time.
(4) decisions on breaches ofparticipation requirements or agreements should continue to
be made by the delegate of the Minister pursuant to social security legislation
(5) an accessible, fair and prompt Social Security Appeals system should remain in
place, and payments should continue or be resumed while appeals are being
considered
(6) existing arrangements to waive penalties on compliance and use suspensions rather
than breaches to encourage attendance should continue
• The following additional protections should be introduced:
(1) The legislation should specify that any participation requirements must be
reasonable, taking account of children’s needs, parents’ education employment and
training history and goals, and barriers to participation such as disabilities
(2) The breaches system should be reformed in accord with the Pearce Report:
including a reduction in maximum non payment periods to a maximum of eight
weeks
• no requirements apart from interviews should be imposed for the first twelve months
after the recipient receives Parenting Payment
• The current participation requirements for sole parents on income support whose
youngest child is 13 should not be increased;
• The legislation should protect the legal obligations / primary responsibility of parents to
provide care to their children without risk of loss or reduction of income support, or
other penalty (this would include missing appointments, leaving the work place, failing
to attend training, etc when children/domestic needs arise — both in the short term and
over the longer term);
• The legislation should protect the rights of child(ren) to have access to parental time as
needed;
• Where accessible, affordable, appropriate, quality child care is not available , there
should be no requirement to participate;
• Parents should not be required to engage in activities outside of school hours (including
school holidays);
• The number of dependents (children, elderly parents, etc) in a parent’s care should be
recognised as limiting their capacity to participate;
• Time limits should be placed on travel requirements consistent with current AWT
legislation, ie a maximum of45 minutes each way (this includes travel to/from child’s
school and parent’s work);
I
I
P
20
Monitoring
To ensure the well being of single parent families it will be essential to closely monitor the
implementation of any new welfare reform measures. This should include, but is not limited to:
• Ongoing and regnlar publication of data;
• Ongoing and regular consultation with sole parents and organisations involved with sole
parents;
• Independent evaluations of impact of any new reforms;
• A transparent and easily accessible complaints process;
• A transparent and accessible appeals process
P
21
SHARE THIS POST on...
Can we call it a day on these “Days” ?? What are they worth, to you?
Hey, people – – can we talk?
You can see from the gadgets to the right (Feedjit, Statcounter, etc.)
some people are at least zipping through the site. Let’s talk, or load page-views and just snatch data from each other
June 21st was Father’s Day. In May was Mothers’ day. In April, it was the next two holidays, and the other ones below
are of older origins.
If it saved even TWO lives, would you give up the “Days”?
Even if you worked at Hallmark cards, a flower shop, or a newspaper?
Now, I realize that all religions require sacrifice, sometimes (often?) entailing blood, sometimes human, often children.
But perhaps we could simplify, and get it down, nationally at least (or internationally?) to the long-standing world religions, and for good measure, “Bill of Rights” Day in the U.S., with particular emphasis on Amendments I and II, which entails that the Government shall protect our right not to believe in any god, or as a nation worship one, or have our money — our offspring– poured out at its altar.
Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I am beginning to think that part of every young person’s education should be memorization, by rote, of these amendments, and training in self-defense, by arms, not just karate. A karate kick doesn’t stop a bullet.
(RECOMMENDED: Intercollegiate Studies Institute //American Civic Literacy Program)
Discussion continued, AFTER you take a good look at two children murdered by their father (along with himself, a.k.a. suicide) last year for this reason: His (younger) wife dared to leave him, in May, and he wasn’t going to have them on Father’s Day, in June:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/02/09/wife-tells-of-ex-husban-s-sick-plan-to-murder-kids-then-blow-her-up-after-father-s-day-115875-21109000/
Twisted dad Brian Philcox – who murdered his two young children because he couldn’t see them on Father’s Day – planned a “spectacular few days of destruction” from beyond the grave.
He drove Amy, seven, and three-year-old Owen to a country lane, attached a hosepipe to the exhaust, fed it through the window and left the engine on.
All three died huddled in the back of his Land Rover at a North Wales beauty spot last June.
It was just the start of a day of horror that evil 52-year-old Philcox had carefully planned.
He had booby-trapped his home in Runcorn, Cheshire, in an attempt to kill his estranged wife Lyn McAuliffe.
And he sent a parcel bomb to her son Ryan, 18. Fortunately, none of the devices exploded.
Speaking for the first time since the tragedy, Lyn, 37, said: “He had planned the whole thing for a spectacular few days of destruction. He wanted to blow me up in his house before murdering his own children.
“He also sent a bomb in the post to my son Ryan. He planned for it to arrive the day after Father’s Day, when me, the kids and Brian should already have been dead.
And in another article:
Gassed children unlawfully killed
Those are the children above. I’m a little unclear on when it might be “lawful” to kill children — on what grounds, self-defense?
Mr Philcox had collected the children from their home in Runcorn, Cheshire in an arranged access visit last June {{2008}} the inquest heard. // But after drugging them with chloroform from a padded envelope, he attached a vacuum cleaner pipe to the exhaust of his Land Rover in an isolated spot near Llanrwst in north Wale. // The 52-year-old karate expert had separated from his wife in May 2008 after eight years of marriage.
The children’s mother, Lyn McAuliffe, 38, from Runcorn, Cheshire, wept as details of the deaths were read.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A typical court order, at least over here (US), will say: Children to be with their Father on Father’s Day, Mother on Mother’s Day, and then will specify the usual holidays — geared typically to the school year, which itself is generally arranged around (oddly enough) major Christian holidays, although Christianity, if not talk of “God” (as if real) is out of favor in many educational systems these days.
In my case, zero of these were enforced for the past almost 3 full years. The last time I attempted to stick up for this, there was retaliation. NONE of the “Shared Parenting” advocates seem too bothered when mothers, as opposed to fathers, are not seeing their children — sometimes removed on grounds of “Parental Alienation” (a.k.a., reporting child sexual abuse, or some other criminal behavior. In my case the criminal offence, I gather, was expecting, and saying openly, to everyone involved (including agencies) that I expected my ex- to be held accountable to obey all court orders, like I was. And to work, like I was…..”
WHY I DIDN”T POST ON FATHER’S DAY:
For one, grief. This news article came across my inbox, and others.
I am a mother. I was unable to see my own daughters on Mother’s Day in: 2005, 2006, and 2007. I did not make plans to blow anyone up or get vengeance. I had a hard time, I’ll admit this Father’s Day — especially that now I’ve done some research on the state of “Der Vaterland” religion in my country here — and did not post. It was a hard day for many noncustodial mothers worldwide, which I know because we talk with each other sometimes.
I also received another no-answer call, from a cell phone, from the same geographic vicinity as my ex, who has recently (though having won in court and happily ensconced with a new woman, and who would think in need of yet another “victory” or some sort) been both texting, calling, and at least once, showing up at my doorstep unannounced and unwanted. This, in this context, is called Stalking. If it was not him, still, the fact that I should have to do a reverse phone lookup, because it was so disturbing and part of an unbroken pattern is significant.
Here’s what the holidays meant for our family — and I know many others who have divorced, not amicably — occasions for incidents.
The national religion is, we are supposed to be happy, rejoicing, and ensconced in a family or extended family setting at these times. Or in a soup line for the homeless, being charitable (or, eating).
Add to this, I’m a musician, and major music events occurred around them, they were also financial fiascos. What should then, have been a joyful occasion became for me, a cause for anxiety and trigger to post-traumatic stress. With good cause, too. This was true BEFORE we separated, as well. We had to perform as a family. My ex apparently had performance stress, and one of my most major, earliest (though not THE earliest) memories of an outrageous physical (assault & battery, now that I know the proper term) of me, while pregnant, happened seconds after a nice family dinner event around Christmas, with my relatives. He had been embarrassed, somehow, and I was going to pay. One kid was dashed into the bedroom and dumped into a crib so two hands would be free to punish me properly. The other one had no choice, not having been born yet.
Let’s reduce the occasions for violent incidents!
Let’s move away from nationalized, attention-deficit-friendly, polytheism and ADD closer to either monotheism, or atheism?
It might give us more time to breathe, reflect, THINK, and memorize our national constitutions.
Here — this is only >>one<< instance of incidents planned for Father’s Day. There were others for Mother’s Day, for example, major political leaders in the US gearing up for the 10th Anniversary of Father’s Day (right around Mother’s Day), and (lying) to the public about how neglected and underfunded the concept of fatherhood was, and how we need to pass more laws, and send more money, of course, hire more experts, to protect the concept.
Included in such proclamations are the usual (gag….) statistics on how female-headed (formerly called “single-mother” only we are now carefully avoiding the use of this word “mother” in public arenas, except YOUNG ones that might generate home nurse visitation programs, also part of the agenda under Health and Human Services, USA). It’s no longer MOTHERS, it’s Children and Families. And, of course Fathers.
Absent from those statistics would be, for example, children such as Amy & Owen above. They are no longer “at risk” for anything at all, except, depending on your version of reality and the universe, possible resurrection, or is it fossilization. Their long-term futures are not going to be part of any Head Start, Healthy Families, or Low-Income Maternal/Parental bonding studies. So if you are reading any of these studies, generally footnoted by a number of Ph.D.’s, LCSW’s, MFTs, etc. (as are some of the contrary studies), just remember — the statistics are skewed. SOME kids never make it this far, and THAT is one reason why “FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS” can — yes indeed — be dangerous to children.
Especially as mediated by a court system that doesn’t take this possibility into account.
Incidents like this arouse emotions in the rest of us — of course. When people’s emotions are at high pitch is not always a great time to make major decisions, and it is DEFINITELY not a great time to analyze government spending. SOMEONE’s money is going to transfer hands, on the basis of these things. Some grants are going to get funded, adn for sure a few print newspapers were sold on the backs of those two kids, as well as the on-line search ratings.
Since I began this blog, I noticed that by the time I had one incident up, or narrated/commented on, another one had hit the news. It was impossible to intelligently keep up commentary with all of them, let alone analysis:
Search Results
-
Brian Philcox Inquest: Killed Children Amy And Owen In Llanryst …
Feb 20, 2009 … A father “unlawfully killed” his two young children and rigged up a makeshift bomb at his house before committing suicide, an inquest has …
news.sky.com/…/Brian–Philcox…Lyn–McAuliffe/…/200902315226750 – Similar – -
Man who killed himself and his two children left ‘Bitch’ note …
Feb 21, 2009 … Lyn McAuliffe is helped into the inquest into the deaths of her two … Mr Gittins told Miss McAuliffe: ‘When Brian Philcox took Amy and …
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Man-killed-children-left-Bitch-note-rigged- homemade-bomb-wife.html – Similar – -
Lyn McAuliffe: Birthday visit for tragic mum – Liverpool Echo.co.uk
Feb 10, 2009 … Brian Philcox 320. A WOMAN whose two children were gassed to death by her … Lyn McAuliffe, 38, said she would go to the graveside of her …
http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/…/lyn–mcauliffe-birthday-visit-for-tragic-mum- 100252-22893336/ –Similar – -
Daily Post North Wales – News – North Wales News – Mum of children …
Feb 21, 2009 … Karate expert Brian Philcox drugged his two children, Amy, seven, …Philcox’s then wife Lyn McAuliffe had begun divorce proceedings …
http://www.dailypost.co.uk/…/mum-of-children-killed-in-north-wales-will-not- forgive-dad-55578-22975841/ – Cached – Similar – -
Brian Philcox: Philox killed kids and planned to kill 2 more …
Brian Philcox, 53, of UK, devised a homemade bomb to kill his wife and mother of his 2 children. … Philcox later called McAuliffe to ask her to enter his home. … India News, Jade Goody, Jamie Hince, Jamie Lynn Spears, Janet Jackson …
celebgalz.com/brian–philcox-philox-killed-kids-and-planned-to-kill-2-more- photos/ –Cached – Similar – -
Mama Liberty
-
26 February 2009 – Local Runcorn & Widnes news …
Feb 26, 2009 … Lyn McAuliffe describes Amy and Owen Philcox’s killer as evil and … Child killer Brian Philcox had glittering career in world of karate …
http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn…/26/
Now, the United States, and I believe other countries, are in the grip of a nationalized religion, but one that still hasn’t — other major world ones, stood the test of time — I mean, thousands, or at least hundreds, of years.
We have a nationalized public educational system, and it has to get organized around SOMETHING, as far as schedule. Ironically –according to at least one of my readings on the history of this system — it was pushed and promoted in part as a RE-action by Protestant Christians against an influx of Catholic immigrants from Southern Europe, and/or Ireland. I don’t think Jews or Muslims made honorable mention in this, let alone Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else. There were also the Harvard Unitarians versus the mainline Trinitarians. It was basically fear-mongering about the incoming religions (plus economic and sometimes military, force) backing it up. A land grab was involved of church properties. If you’re really interested, submit a comment, and I’ll submit some bibliography.
So what do we have now, in the school schedules, and reflected in the family court visitation orders (schedules) as well? Ironically, we have some of the most Catholic in origin holiday schedules: Christmas, Easter, Halloween. Google these, and you’ll get somewhere back to the time of Constantine, Rome, and recognize that they, too, had a national religion, and had to sort of, er, do a melting pot. Polytheism was patriotic, monotheism was, well, unnatural.
Jews, and later, Christians, protested, refusing to sacrifice and well, this was entertainment and gladiator fodder. They were made examples of, and you can read history on your own times for a better version of the word “holiday.”
I’m working on this theme, but it seems to me that any national religion pushed down the national throat — is going to produce a reaction, and reactionary elements, and they will kill. There will be war.
What I see right now is Male Supremacists versus “Ms.” and I see LGBT vs. Healthy Marriage enshrined, and I do mean that.
I also see — and if you follow my blog, or others linked to it (see the buttons), or if you simply are motivated enough — how with ONE side of the mouth, our government is taking advice from “faith-based initiatives” on how marriage is ALWAYS just so wonderful, that we should play matchmaker, federally speaking. What do do about cases like the young man in Tennessee, who had 21 children by 5 (or was it 15?) different women is a little unclear. And a moot point — he wasn’t earning much. A
And from another Department (of Education), same Branch (Executive) — there’s a battleground for conttrol of our children in the K-12 school system, i.e., “It’s Elementary” and “Days of Silence,” spawning all kinds of nonprofits justice groups to track this, and defend that. Generally speaking, the ACLU is probably going to come up the other side of, say, Pacific Justice Institute, who tend to defend the conservative Christian groups. WHICH (in case you wondered), I’m not. Primarly because they won’t stick up for women when their own are being beaten, nor was I raised thus anyhow.
So what we have here is:
So you have a built-in war between the EDUCATION system (if you’re rusty, EXECUTIVE Branch) and the COURT system (JUDICIAL BRANCH). One way to also conceptually phrase THAT war could be on the basis of sexuality (LGBT vs. Hetero, plus Dads Rule), OR, it could also be considered, Religion versus no religion.
THIS CREATES BUILT-IN CONFLICT AND POVERT – for some, and professions — for to.
See my (hopefully) upcoming post(s) on Responsible Citizenhood (Parts III, IV and V) and
“Survival of the Fittest: Study and Prosper, or Be Broke and Be Studied” a.k.a.,
“Multiple (Life) Choices in a New Brave World: (1) Etymologist or (2) the Bug on the Plate”
NOW – I have a recommendation (See top of post):
Can we reduce our specialty days, in the courts, and in the educational systems to perhaps FIVE? or SEVEN?
And no two in the same month:
- One for atheism.
- One (or you say how many) for polytheism.
- One, or at most 3, for each of the three monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam (In chrono order). Or, Christianity, Islam, Judaism (in alpha order). Or . . . . .
(Kind of like mono and poly unsaturated fats, right?)
Or, extend the school year, and shorten the work week, as Friday, Saturday and Sunday characterize these weekly holy days, right?
(The naming, versus numbering, of the days of the week is itself a pagan concept.)
And teachers, you will have to find some other “themes” (such as skills development?) around which to build the school year, not, respectively, (Sept.-June):
Labor, Halloween (DV awareness), Thanksgiving, Hannukah-Kwanzaa-Christmas, Presidents, Martin Luther King, Jr., St. Patrick, Easter (SA/CA/PAS awareness), Veterans & Mothers ((although the parallel seems appropriate in some contexts…), Fathers, and Hallelujah, summer vacation — or school, depending on how well your children concentrated the above in one piece).
No WONDER pharmaceuticals are needed to keep kids focused.
Independence Day (July 4th, US), is coming up. Now, I know the above is ludicrous — but I hope I showed at least that these federally-sponsored (that’s your tax dollars, USA) institutions:
- National Holidays
- PUBLIC School
- Courts
- Government Institutions (at least a few of them)
- Religions
are all intertwined. These institutions also affect the workforce.
WHAT LEVEL OF ATTRITION (translation: Crime, death, waste) IS ACCEPTABLE? IN ORDER TO JAM A NUMBER OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO SEVERAL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, CAUSING “WARS” AMONG THEM, AND WITHIN SOME OF THEM, MEANWHILE PROCLAIMING THAT CONGRESS IS NOT, IN FACT, MAKING A LAW ESTABLISHING A RELIGION?
Let’s talk profession — remember the joke: What is the “oldest profession in the world”? (Put one of two possible answers). Now you just saw the oldest religion too.
Sex, for money. So who is being sold what?
I note that Mr. Philcox, having been booted out of the house (guess that was HIS religion) opted –quickly– to kill his entire family and himself, and partially succeeded. Guess we know what religion THAT was. He picked up a single mother (who had a son at around age 20), about 15 years his junior, and quickly made some babies, was aggressive towards the son NOT of his gene pool, and when those who WERE of his gene pool were not allowed to live with him, apparently, he wiped them out. Possibly Darwinist?
Would you give up at LEAST: Mother’s and Father’s Day to save a few children’s lives?
Note: This might affect which Congressperson you elect next term. There is no “motherhood” initiative, but there sure as hell– and it’s been hell on Moms, and kids — a “Fatherhood” one! And I already posted who voted for it, in both Houses of the Legislature.
Or do you believe that female-headed households are dangerous and should be eliminated, by hook or by crook, or by pipe bomb?
You know, some prophesies are self-fulfilling, and at this rate, unless some major institutions are somewhat re-arranged (NO, I am NOT advocating the overthrow of anything United States — particularly not the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and due process in all 3 branches of government), it looks to be heading towards Armageddon.
PERHAPS — just PERHAPS — if we could dissolve some of the more monolithic aspects here, and allow a bit more fluidity and dynamic response to actual situations (within the scope of, of course, law), there would be fewer reactionary fundamentalist factions proclaiming, pronouncing, warring, and killing — or stealing. Kids, and dollars.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Keeping Uncle Sam Away from Toddlers (IWF article)
For once, I agree with “Independent Women’s Forum”
Brief #22
IWF Policy Brief
Cutting-edge analysis of the news of the day from the Independent Women’s Forum
June 11, 2009
Keep Uncle Sam Away from Toddlers:
The Case Against Government Funding for Preschool
By Carrie Lukas
Executive Summary
The President has suggested that greater federal
government support for early childhood education is an
important component of improving educational
opportunities in the United States and would be an
investment in our human capital. Yet there is little
evidence to support the case for greater federal
involvement in preschool.
While policymakers assume that an investment in public
preschool will lead to improved student outcomes, the
research on the effects of preschool is far from
conclusive. Some studies have linked preschool
attendance with short-term gains in student test scores
and other education-related outcomes, but those
improvements fade over time. Additionally, most studies
that have found significant gains associated with
preschool have focused on lower-income or at-risk
student populations. There is no reason to think that such gains would also occur among the general
student population, which is the target of most “universal” preschool proposals. Still, other studies
have linked increased time in preschool with negative social behavior, which would suggest that
encouraging greater use of preschool could contribute to as many problems as it solves.
LINK:
http://www.iwf.org/files/ccd51591aa7467a111d9f4437830ea9c.pdf
This is better viewed as PDF than on here.
However, as a reminder:
The words School, Education, and Learning are not synonymous, if you think about them.
The attempt of the present (and past) administrations to equate the U.S. Public School Educational system with either Education, or Public, is linguistically and financially ridiculous.
Language is not math. For example, anyone declaring, openly, that
10+10 =/= 20
would probably not become President, Governor, or a U.S. Senator or Assemblyperson. It lacks a certain credibility. It creates a certain cognitive dissonance, until the missing data shows up, such as, perhaps:
10(-15+5)+10=/=20
EVEN a US public school 4th grader PROBABLY (wish I could say this for sure) would recognize that something was amiss with that equation. If they knew the symbol “=/=,” which is unlikely, come to think of it. It is simply my intent — in this blog — to show some of the missing math behind the Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance of Government Proclamations that are getting people killed, or raped, or keeping them artificially on welfare. This is NOT rocket science, it simply takes — like the best most effective kind of learning will — being highly motivated to know, and being willing to remove a few blinders and sunglasses that have made the glaring facts a little less difficult to handle.
Unfortunately, we have had Presidents (plural), and U.S. Senators AND Representatives (I haven’t checked all the “governors” yet) pronouncing a similar epidemic and supposed problem without substantial questioning of it — from the general public. Now, that simply lacks credibility. I posted, after Mother’s Day, the data that “fatherhood” was NOT woefully, federally underfunded in 2009, 2008, or at any identifiable time since about 1995.
There’s perhaps more than one reason it’s sad that “religion” (supposedly) was deleted from the public school system. Now, as a person who has taken some serious hits — literally — under the guise of “wives submit” as from the Bible, I have seen its underbelly. But there are SOME upsides to some of the wisdom in some of these holy writs of the major religions. For example, how sad that all women about to engage in a sexual — let alone marital — relationship, didn’t understand this simplicity:
(I’ll give a version I have no respect for — it even comes across in this one):
GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
A gullible person believes anything, but a sensible person watches his step.
Now, when nearly an entire nation is this gullible, on one of the FIRST places I would look is at the educational system.
“misogyny”
What motivated me to find out WHY Family Court AND the child support system uniformly didn’t do their assigned and proclaimed jobs was being slapped in the face (while minding my own business) when they didn’t. It bounced me out of work and back onto dependence. The LAST thing I wanted after leaving domestic violence, and the last lesson I wanted my smart children to absorb: Sell your soul to the highest bidder, and cast your lot with whichever parent is NOT under prolonger, personal fire.
Language is NOT math, yet it does have a FEW logical rules attached, for example as a thesaurus would show, NOT all nouns are synomymous.
When the same President (and Administration) that tells us, an epidemic of fatherlessness just rained down from heaven, and female-headed households are doomed for disaster (Say, what? Are you or are you NOT President?) because struggle and hard times (or emotions) were involved, now says that:
Education = Public School Education only
Head Start actually helps long-term
(and this same President has virtually deleted the concept of ‘motherhood” and the word “mother” from public dialogue)
(and the concept of “educational choice” as allowing charter schools (which are also government-funded) ignoring that “homeschooling” DOES exist (and many times works better), and other such propaganda,
Then we have not only a linguistic, but also a financial crisis in credibility. We have a cognitive crisis becoming a mental health crisis. NOW, I have a question: Who stands to profit from an ongoing source of cognitive dissonance? (let alone “high-conflict” divorces). WHO is profiting from the womb-to-tomb, paid for by the people involved in it (and even others without children) cognitively dissonant proclamation that “Big Brother Knows Best” when it comes to “education.” The more correct word is mass-indoctrination.
Sound analysis of ANY problem comes from looking at the history of it, and linguistics are a GREAT clue.
And as it relates to family court matters — mine — as a single mother, I did not have time to waste, and as a mother (period), I didn’t appreciate having my daughters’ education slowed down while fighting my ex (who did not graduate from college, and at the time was not even working steadily, nor had he an exactly stellar track record as to lawful lifestyle — see prior domestic violence) and a member of my family with whom he’d had a male-bonding moment (who had not himself had children, nor taught extensively as I had, nor for that matter, bothered to report, refer, intervene, or acknowledge that when I filed that restraining order with kickout, there was a collection of weapons in the home, often used to intimidate me out of Independent Woman actions (such as participating in music events without ex present), and talk of suicidality. Which, incidentally, didn’t go away with the piece of paper.
On the pronouncement that I “couldn’t” do what I at the time both had been, and was, I was forced (by a family law judge) BACK into a lifestyle that had already been tried, and found VERY wanting, by my household — not the person driving the situation, which was not even a parent and had no legal standing to do so. When reminded of the “no legal standing” in a firm manner, I was then harrassed by mail repeatedly, and (being busy) was on the verge of taking legal action on this (simultaneously with attempting to renew a restraining order, which that mail in fact was enabling the father to break), only to find myself suddenly in a full-blown custody suit by the person who had attempted to offer his own daughters’ visitation time to this particular couple.
I thus believe that the basic problem in some of these discussions is simply that of common literacy.
The picture below is ONE usage of the word SCHOOL
If you want to understand the public school educational system in this country, in a paradigm, look at this picture:
5-
ot.
NOW: You are the parents of a beautiful child, or several children. You have to work a job (not own a business, learn to handle investments, inherited wealth, were raised in a Senator’s household, are not an attorney as is at least one prominent father’s rights advocate, Mr. Leving (very cozy with President Obama, and hailing from the same state), and because your job doesn’t pay too well, you and/or the partner (spouse) living with you, are going to MISS the most formative years and hours of your beautiful children’s upbringing. Every day, someone else is going to be their “prime-time” trainer and values assigner, and you will get the leftover of YOUR day and of THEIR day to remediate, inculcate, supplement, or HUG them — hopefully. YOu have been taught that this is how life is, and always will be. It isn’t for everyone, but right now, it is for you, and people you associate with you.
In the above picture, would you want your child to grow up to be a little fish in a pack of fish at the bottom of the food chain (almost), or would you want to teach him to be a shark (given only those two options?), and at least swim free for a while, and have some teeth, and respect. Heck, even have a blockbuster movie named after you ‘Jaws.”
Would you want to toss the dice and hope the shark doesn’t get YOUR kid (or rely on prayer), but understand that part of the deal is, darting this way or that IF a shark comes near during school hours (and certain types of personalities ARE attracted to crowds of children, it’s true), while one of their classmates is eaten up instead?
Would you want your child, for reasons of simple survival, to learn by example how to act like the shark and consider other human beings as part of his food chain (whereas, when it comes to humans, they ARE the same species, if not personalities).
This shark was designed to use its teeth, and swim, act, and behave in certain manners. PEOPLE do not have to.
Here’s another type of No Child Left Behind behavior, named after a different animal: Google (images for) “Goose-step. Even the phrase “No Child Left Behind” indicates none are excelling (which is on many levels also a lie, as it only refers to this one system). What a narcissistic mindset. If the government doesn’t do it, it can’t be done, or doesn’t matter. It doesn’t count.
FOLKS:
It’s not about “education” it’s about “Schooling.”
(Primary book dates back to 1990, “Dumbing Us Down.” Still true today).
AH WELL, Independent Women’s Forum is MUCH more moderate in its proclamations. Perhaps they are all still married, or have not lost children in the mix somewhere. I’ll stop. . . . No more comments from me below (I think one short interjection, that’s all). See the original site, above.
(BELOW HERE IS QUOTATION:)
2
“There is also reason for concern that greater government involvement in preschool could actually reduce the quality of
education available to and received by many children, and discourage parents from enrolling children in programs that
reflect their values.”
Depending on how programs are structured, government preschool programs could encourage parents
to switch from private preschool providers to subsidized public programs. The often dismal record of
our public school system in providing children with a quality education in kindergarten through 12th
grade should caution policymakers about the potential quality of public programs for three- and four-
year-olds.
It’s also worth noting that there is nothing in the Constitution that would suggest that providing early
educational opportunities {{LetsGetHonest comment: or any other education…}} is a proper use of federal power.
The care and education of children,
particularly children as young as three and four, should the responsibility of parents, not Uncle Sam.
Introduction
Among President Obama’s campaign promises was to
increase the federal government’s commitment to early
childhood education. Specifically, on their campaign
website, candidates Obama and Biden describe their
“Zero to Five Plan,” which would emphasize not only
expanding educational opportunities to three- and four
year-olds, who are typically not yet eligible for public
kindergarten, but “early care and education for infants.”
Specifically, President Obama pledged to create “Early
Learning Challenge Grants” that would be given to
states to support their efforts providing educational
opportunities for those under age five and to help move
states toward “voluntary, universal preschool.”1
The President and Democratic Congress have already begun to expand federal government support for early learning initiatives. The $787 billion economic
stimulus package (officially entitled the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act) included more than $1 billion over two years for the federal Head Start program, which supports educational opportunities for three- and four-year-olds from low-income families, and $1.1 billion over two years for the Early
Head Start program, which supports initiatives for infants, toddlers, and pregnant women. Other money included in the stimulus package for education programs (such as funding for the Individual with Disabilities Education Act and Title I) will also be used by states to bolster early learning
programs.2 (footnotes below)
Individual states are also increasingly creating programs to subsidize or provide preschool opportunities
for parents. For example, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Florida already offer universal preschool, and
numerous other states (Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, South Carolina, Virginia, and West
Virginia) have all considered proposals that would move in that direction.3
3
Supporters of these programs believe they will better prepare young children for school, improve
student’s education, and lead to better life outcomes. For example, during a speech to the Hispanic
Chamber of Commerce, President Obama argued:
Studies show that children in early childhood education programs are more likely to score
higher in reading and math, more likely to graduate from high school and attend college, more
likely to hold a job, and more likely to earn more in that job. For every dollar we invest in these
programs, we get nearly $10 back in reduced welfare rolls, fewer health care costs, and less
crime.4
Yet as this policy brief highlights, policymakers shouldn’t assume that such results will come expanded
government support of preschool, especially as government’s support expands beyond the low-income
or “at risk” student population.
Does Preschool Improve Student Outcomes?
Those supporting increased government provision of preschool typically suggest that the money
invested in such programs pays off by creating much larger benefits for individuals and society at large.
They claim that high quality preschool programs lead to improved student outcomes and ultimately a
more educated, productive workforce and expanded tax base. Yet a balanced look at the available
research on the effects of preschool should give policymakers pause.
Most evaluations of preschool programs which are cited as evidence of their great potential benefits
have analyzed programs that serve low-income children and those considered at risk of failing to thrive
in traditional public school. And even when studies are focused on disadvantaged populations, the
research is far from a slam dunk in proving preschools’ long-term efficacy. As Darcy Olsen, an
education analyst and president of the Goldwater Institute, writes:
Taken as a whole, a review of the research shows that some early interventions have had
meaningful short-term effects on disadvantaged students’ cognitive ability, grade-level retention,
and special education placement. However, most research also indicates that the effects of early
interventions disappear after children leave the programs.5
The program that is most frequently touted as evidence of the great potential benefits of universal
preschool is the High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. And indeed, this study, which began in the
1960s and has followed an experimental and control group for 40 years, has found meaningful benefits
enjoyed by those who participated in the program on a range of outcomes, including high-school
graduation rates, adult crime, and earnings. Yet researchers caution against assuming that the impact of
this program would be replicated by a universal preschool program serving the general population. As
education analysts from the Lexington Institute explain:
It’s important to note that there were only 58 preschoolers in the experimental group (and 123
in all, including the control group), and all were not only disadvantaged but deemed at risk for
“retarded intellectual functioning and eventual school failure.” They received one or two years
4
“Several states have
implemented aggressive
preschool programs and
there is little to suggest that
it is paying off in terms of
improving the states’ overall
education climate.”
of half-day preschool and home visitations. This was certainly not a large or representative
group, not even of the disadvantaged populations, and it is a real stretch to generalize results
into a rationale for pouring billions of dollars into public pre-K for all, including the children of
affluent families.6
Evaluations done on Head Start, the federal program
dedicated to providing preschool opportunities for low-
income families, are also not encouraging. Generally,
studies show initial modest gains in terms of student
abilities and outcomes, but those gains quickly dissipate.
By early elementary school, researchers could find no
differences between the test scores of those who had
participated in Head Start and peers who hadn’t
participated in a preschool program.7
Even many proponents of preschool programs for those in the low-income or at risk population have
cautioned against assuming that the benefits enjoyed by that population would translate into similar
benefits for the general population. James Heckman, a Nobel prize winning economist, makes the case
for increased investment in early education programs for disadvantaged populations because of his
belief in its potential for significant payoffs. However, when asked about universal preschool
programs, he reiterated the case for targeted programs, explaining “Functioning middle-class homes are
producing healthy, productive kids. …It is foolish to try to substitute for what the middle-class and
upper-middle-class parents are already doing.”8
And indeed, if more preschool was a surefire way to improve student outcomes among the general
population, one would expect to find ample evidence of that dynamic already occurring. Several states
have implemented aggressive preschool programs and there is little to suggest that it is paying off in
terms of improving the states’ overall education climate. As education analysts from the Reason
Foundation wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
[T]he results from Oklahoma and Georgia—both of which implemented universal preschool a
decade or more ago—paint an equally dismal picture. A 2006 analysis by Education Week
found the Oklahoma and Georgia were among the 10 states that had made the least progress on
NAEP. Oklahoma, in fact, lost ground after it embraced universal preschool: In 1992 its
fourth and eighth graders tested one point above the national average in math. Now they are
several points below. Ditto for reading. Georgia’s universal preschool program has made
virtually no difference to its fourth-grade reading scores.9
Rates of preschool attendance have soared during recent decades. The Department of Education
estimated that, in 1965, five percent of three-year-olds and 16 percent of four-year-olds attended
preschool. By the beginning of this decade, 42 percent of three-year-olds and 68 percent of four-year-
olds were enrolled in preschool.10 Yet the data on important educational outcomes—from
5
“There is significant
evidence to suggest that
there is a link between the
amount of time young
children spend outside of
their parents’ care and
behavioral problems.”
performance on nationalized tests to graduation rates—has shown no significant gains during this
period, and in some cases have declined.11
There is also cause for concern that encouraging greater enrollment in preschool may not just fail to
produce positive results, but it could lead to some adverse outcomes. Some researchers have found
evidence suggesting that increased enrollment in preschool programs could lead to problem behaviors.
For example, one study conducted by researchers at Stanford
University and University of California, Berkeley concluded
kindergartners who had attended more than fifteen hours of
preschool each week were more likely to exhibit aggressive
behavior in class.12
Negative behavioral effects would likely be particularly
pronounced if the government moves in the direction of
President Obama’s “Zero to 5” proposal to encourage the
enrollment of babies and young toddlers. There is significant
evidence to suggest that there is a link between the amount of
time young children spend outside of their parents’ care and
behavioral problems. The National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, for example,
conducted a study of children in ten geographic sites who were followed from birth to kindergarten and
found an association between greater amount of non-maternal care and behavioral problems:
The more time children spend in any of a variety of non-maternal care arrangements across the
first 4.5 years of life, the more externalizing problems and conflict with adults they manifest at
54 months of age and in kindergarten, as reported by mothers, caregivers, and teachers…more
time in care not only predicts problem behavior measured on a continuous scale but at-risk
(though not clinical) levels of problem behavior, as well as assertiveness, disobedience, and
aggression. It should also be noted that these correctional finding also imply that lower levels
of problems were associated with less time in child care.13
In summary, the evidence simply does not support the claims of universal preschool proponents that
an investment in early education will pay off in terms of improving the educational and life prospects of
the general population.
Crowding Out Private Preschool Providers
Another reason for concern about the potential for greater government involvement in preschool is the
potential that, as government expands its support for early learning opportunities, parents could end up
having fewer options for their children’s education instead of more. To the extent that the government
creates specific center-based programs or focuses its support on programs provided through the public
school system, policymakers would be putting private schools and early learning centers at a
disadvantage. Parents committed to enrolling their children in a preschool would face the choice of
paying for private preschool or sending their children to a subsidized public option. As a result, many
6
“Lawmakers would be
better off focusing on
identifying why the
public school system
regularly fails so many
of its charges instead
of expanding its
mandate in education.”
parents who currently pay for private early learning opportunities may switch to enrolling their child in
a public school. This dynamic could result in the elimination of private options, and fewer choices for
parents.
The potential crowding out of private preschool providers in favor of government-run options should
be of particular concern to those who see early education opportunities as critical not just for skill
development, but for children’s socialization and moral development. Given the reticence of so many
advocates of increased educational funding to allow any dollars to reach any organization that isn’t fully
secular (for example, through a voucher or other school choice program), it is likely that many states
would exclude preschools with a religious affiliation from participating in any government supported
preschool program. This means that many parent who currently choose a facility in part to support
their values and provide additional moral education will find themselves with a difficult choice of
forgoing the subsidized service (supported with their tax dollars) or forgoing the moral environment
they had hoped to provide to their children.
Problems with Existing Government Run Schools
Before lawmakers extend the responsibilities of the public
education system to include three- and four–year-olds, it would
be prudent to examine how it is performing its existing duties
in serving students eligible for kindergarten through twelfth
grade.
President Obama himself has been critical of the performance
of many public schools:
And yet, despite resources that are unmatched
anywhere in the world, we’ve let our grades slip, our
schools crumble, our teacher quality fall short, and other nations outpace us. …The relative
decline of American education is untenable for our economy, it’s unsustainable for our
democracy, it’s unacceptable for our children — and we can’t afford to let it continue.14
And indeed, a look at the statistics about our public school system’s performance is sobering. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress, a standardized test designed to assess the overall
performance of American students, regularly shows that the system is failing too many of its students:
in 2007, one third of 4th graders and one quarter of 8th graders scored “below basic” in reading, and
nearly twenty percent of 4th graders and 30 percent of 8th graders scored “below basic” in math. More
than one-quarter of American children don’t graduate from high school. And, as President Obama
noted, the United States often lags behind other developed nations on academic tests despite spending
more on education.15
The disheartening performance of the public school system should caution those who would believe
that greater government involvement in the lives and education of our youngest children will necessary
7
“Government programs
that support preschool
also fail on the measure
of fairness: they
support the choices
made by some parents
over others.”
improve their prospects. Lawmakers would be better off focusing on identifying why the public school
system regularly fails so many of its charges instead of expanding its mandate in education.
There Are Better Ways to Support Parents with Young Children
Government programs that support preschool also fail on the measure of fairness: they support the
choices made by some parents over others. For example, many parents believe that they are their
children’s best teacher and would prefer to keep a parent at home with their three- or four-year-old.
And, even if preschool were generally associated with benefiting most four-year-olds, certainly there are
some who would do better with another year at home. Parents are
best positioned to determine if preschool, and what kind of
preschool, will benefit their children. Government programs that
subsidize specific services, instead of children, would discourage
parents from making decisions based on their children’s unique
needs.
If the real goal is to support the educational development of young
children, lawmakers would do better by providing a refundable tax
credit to families with children of an eligible age, which could be
used to pay for preschool, other educational services, educational
materials, such as books and age-appropriate curriculum, or even to compensate for the reduced
earnings enjoyed by families that opt to keep a parent at home. Such a tax credit would give parents
more latitude to make decisions based on their personal beliefs and situation, and would be superior to
merely expanding government services to provide for a select group of children.
Conclusion
While lawmakers rarely seem concerned about the founders’ intentions, it is worth noting that there is
nothing in the Constitution to suggest that using taxpayer money to support preschool programs in a
proper role for the federal government. Policymakers claim that using taxpayer money to fund more
access to preschool enhances the greater good, but there is little evidence to suggest that this holds true
for the general population. There is also reason for concern that there would be unintended
consequences to pushing greater enrollment in publicly-supported preschool programs, both for
individual students and for the education system as a whole.
Lawmakers would do better by focusing on improving the existing K-12 education system, instead of
seeking to expand it, and to helping families provide for their children by reducing their tax burden.
About the Author
Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy and economics at the Independent Women’s Forum and
author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.
{{I said above, I do not swim in the same direction on ALL the issues here, particularly domestic violence and feminism. The thing about feminism is the backlash, My goodness. . . . }}
8
Endnotes
1
Available at: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/index.php#early-childhood.
2
Christina A. Samuels, “Stimulus Providing Big Funding Boost for Early Childhood,” Education Week, March 27,
2009.
3
Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell, “Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for
Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 344, May 2006, p. I.
4
“President Obama’s Remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,” New York Times, March 10, 2009.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3.
5
Darcy Olsen and Jennifer Martin, “Assessing Proposals for Preschools and Kindergarten: Essential
Information for Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Goldwater Institute, Policy Report No. 201, February 8,
2005, p. 4.
6
Robert Holland and Don Soifer, “How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten
Proposals,” Lexington Institute, March 2008, p.10.
7
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Universal Preschool Hasn’t Delivered Results,” San Francisco Chronicle, October
17, 2008.
8
Robert Holland and Don Soifer, “How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten
Proposals,” Lexington Institute, March 2008, p.9-10.
9
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Protect Our Kids from Preschool,” The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2008.
10
Darcy Olsen and Lisa Snell, “Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for
Parents, Taxpayers, and Policymakers,” Reason Foundation, Policy Study No. 344, May 2006, p. 6.
11
Dan Lips, Shanea Watkins, Ph.D. and John Fleming, Does Spending More on Education Improve Academic
Achievement?,”, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2179, September 8, 2008. Available at:
http://www.heritage.org/research/Education/bg2179.cfm.
12
Shikha Dalmia and Lisa Snell, “Protect Our Kids from Preschool,” The Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2008.
13
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network, “Does
Amount of Time Spent in Child Care Predict Socioemotional Adjustment During the Transition to
Kindergarten,” Child Development, July/August 2003, Volume 74, Number 4, 989.
14
“President Obama’s Remarks to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce,” New York Times, March 10, 2009.
Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/10/us/politics/10text-obama.html?_r=1&pagewanted=3.
15
Dan Lips, Jennifer Marshall, and Lindsey Burke, “A Parent’s Guide to Education Reform,” The Heritage
Foundation, September 2, 2008.
SHARE THIS POST on...
USA: “Fathers, Return!” UK: “Mothers, Give us your Children!”
Some posts virtually write themselves from the news articles. These two from the TIMES UK reflect the current dismissive attitude towards women in particular, and non-court-experts in general.
Another insane event in the serial, unfortunately NON-fiction, documentary of
Designer-Families by Family Court Fiat:
What are we human beings, giving birth, being biologically related to each other, an affront to the state on that basis? Are we clay to be manipulated emotionally, psychologically, and geographically — particularly if we don’t fit a certain IQ limit, household construction, or actually, as MOMs, want to see & hug our own children, and not get governmental permission to do so after producing them through conception, 9 months or so gestation, labor (which IS work!), and delivery?
There was an older book in the US for women called “Our Bodies, Our Selves”
It must be obsolete, I guess. Now, ladies, you are channels for the adoption industry, your religion (or his), you are surrogate mothers, and fatherhood enablers. Unless you maintain rigorous adherence to stipulations that are, well, not exactly published openly, by your local government, apparently whatever your country of origin. Or, remain off the radar by staying married (no matter what the cost), and not complaining if your offspring is strip-searched at the local school (Samantha Redding), and not getting cancer and hoping for an alternative treatment (many parents), by not openly declining a public education system known to be inferior (me), and not reporting domestic violence, child abuse, or attempting to collect child support when Dad don’t want to pay. In short, if we lay down FLAT after giving birth to children, perhaps no one will notice, and our maternal bond may survive — however, this may not be the best role model for sons or daughters.
These articles would be entertaining if they were, in fact, fictional. Allegedly, they are not.
“Mother too “stupid” to keep child” and “Court takes child of “stupid” mother, were mis-filed under women & families in the Times, and should be, I believe either under politics or under:
“Totalitarianism: A User’s Manual”
How to Promote Responsible Fatherhood?
The man in Tennessee (last night’s post) has 21 children to choose from, none of which he plans to support, and he will be hard put to comply with “national fathers’ return” policy without violating other laws against polygamy. As a low-income father, he would be for whom the child-support arrears abatement programs (as run through the family law system via the US Dept. of Health & Human Services), he would be a prime candidate.
How to Eliminate Loving Motherhood:
This 24-year-old woman in England was stamped, judged, labeled, and ordered to give up a 3- year old daughter she loves because she’s not “smart” enough, despite having been found smart enough to understand the court process!
(note: When I first heard the article, I thought I might have found a legal standing for getting my kids back, until I remembered which genders were involved….)
Apparently the adoption market is slow?, and so this woman was simply declared unable, and thus, forbidden to represent herself (with her choice of solicitor) in court in this matter, given a government solicitor who then ignored her instructions to protest the forced adoption.
Later, a psychiatrist declared her competent enough, but the (family) court still replied “we are not impressed.”
She couldn’t be too stupid, because this case is going up a notch to the international level.
Nor were her parents (too old) or her 27 year old brother allowed to assist her with her own daughter, on which he comments:
Rachel’s brother Andrew and their parents all offered their services but were rejected for reasons varying from being too old to having played truant from school.
Andrew, an articulate 27-year-old, said: “The guardian that the court appointed for K even said that I have learning difficulties, although she had never met me. These people are ridiculous. What’s worse, the judges overlook it and still think they are credible professionals.”
I am concerned about copyright compliance and hope readers will themselves check out these two articles.
And in the related article:
Court takes child of “stupid” mother
Rachel protested and secured a solicitor to give her a voice in the family court. But by the time of the crucial placement hearing her pleas had been silenced. This was because her “stupidity” had been used as a means to deny her something else: the right to instruct a lawyer.
Instead, the official solicitor was brought in to speak for Rachel. Alastair Pitblado, the government-funded official, is appointed by the courts to represent the interests of those who cannot make their own case, such as mentally incapacitated people.
. . . .
Rachel’s protests over her treatment were dismissed. The official solicitor had acted “entirely properly” in capitulating to the council since Rachel’s case was “unarguable”, the Court of Appeal ruled.
The decisions of the family court and the appeal court relied upon reports drawn up by a psychologist
However, according to a new report by a leading psychiatrist, Rachel is far from deficient. He said she had “demonstrated that she has more than an adequate knowledge of court proceedings”.
“She has good literacy and numeracy and her general intellectual abilities appear to be within normal range,” he wrote in a report.
“She has no previous history of learning disability or mental illness and did not receive special or remedial education.
“Rachel fully understands the nature of the current court proceedings, can retain them, weigh the information and can communicate both verbally and in writing.”
Actions Concerned Women (potential mothers) might take:
I have been considering this for a while, as a woman who did education and professional work first, and had something to offer our children as well as husband, I had children around 40 years old. The abuse began almost immediately, and lasted about 10 years, til I finally figured out where was the legal advocate to help it stop. Apart from two daughters, intentional, not accidental, those years were a nightmare, a danger, and an eye-opener. They also just about trashed my ability to work in this profession, and DID close down my credit. I kept, energetically, reforming and resourcefully creating myself in work to survive — while negotiating down and working off arts and other classes for growing daughters, keeping at least THEM in music, languages, art, etc., and from this point, meeting a variety of interesting professionals and other intact families, including some professional women, some stay-at-home Moms, and others. I was allowed to do this “for the children,” but attempts to engage myself were strongly resisted, and sometimes punished for, or threatened out of.
Two years off Food Stamps post-marriage, the case was re-directed into Family Court. Not knowing, I didn’t protest and seek how to get it back into the point at hand: Renewing a standing restraining order.
After Five Years of that, and escalations, I have become unemployed, lost both kids, dis-illusioned, alienated, still without credit (and now, car) and back on Food Stamps — I again, hope, temporarily. My attempt to separate from abuse (without separating the children from my abuser, who was their father) in effect separated me 100% from my family of origin, profession, faith communities (for the most part) and very much alienated from the institutions I formerly took for granted.
I encouraged the non-alienated mainstream to also no longer take these for granted in ANY aspect.
I became more and more radical feminist in views, understanding more fully now how this was simply a response to insulting degradation of women throughout the world. ln the USA, women went to work to replace men who went to war. Then they came back and we were to go back also and become the idealized “nuclear” family, warm, fuzzy, nostalgic, and prosperous (see Norman Rockwell). The GI Bill and other government initiativesi (plus some of our parents’ hard work) made possible college educations.
We got our college educations and did the logical thing with them — went to work. Some of us also sought meaning in other communities, including religion (propserity is not a ‘religion’) and/or service within our fields of study. Others I know did Peace Corps. I conversed regularly and on many topics and in many venues, with men and women from other continents, and who had been raised in them. Zaire, Ethiopia, Belize, Nigeria, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Spain, Mexico, Kenya. USA: East Coast, Midwest, Southerners, West Coast. Educational levels: GED through Ph.D. Faiths: Christian (several brands), Catholic, Atheist/Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Unitarian, undeclared. For the most part, these were not problematic. We worked or studied and hung out, period.
Then I married someone who looked like me and whose family appeared to have a similar background. I loved him and married in good faith and with honest intents, expecting that our marriage would be a mutual work in progress, not that I would become this person’s “project” as soon as vows were exchanged. I did not do a criminal background check, and probably might have explored medical family history as well. No one was mentoring or watching in these matters. I married someone who came from similar religious background, and seemed articulate. My family of origin were not Christians or significant points of reference, and never really had been, the majority of my life. We all just went and did what we did, period, in different parts of the country and for different reasons. Asking advice and sharing insight was never really on the family menu, and communication was scant in general.
And shortly after marriage, all hell broke loose. The main theme of the marriage became “domination,” “reformation” and “assume the position!, (doormat)” particularly after I was pregnant with second daughter. This theme was carried out in front of many of the similar types of associates, as I was able to reach them by either employment, or daughters’ school contacts, or within reason family.
We spiraled through a series of pastors and churches, most if not all of who knew that physical abuse was happening in the home, and did not know or refer me to law, and did not intervene, though plenty of strong young men were associated and, had that been in their vocabulary, certainly could’ve. It was also commonly known that my husband was attempting to keep me without transportation or access to a bank account, that I had to beg for necessities and struggle at times for clothes. No one felt it appropriate to transgress the castle in the home as to, how we were doing things within it.
It was known that we were often uninsured by choice, after which an accident happened at his work, requiring surgery. I dashed from my home job (a rare music lesson) at his phone call, to help, literally, pick up the pieces, followed him to the hospital (DNR exact location) to have a slice of his bone put into another place for health. For a month, I helped this injured man use the restroom and dress [[wrists being hurt]] after this accident, and thereafter, when the people that had operated on him called, wanting their cash, I negotiated with them a reduction in the bills, which was accepted, and but not respected by the same father who had at this time control of our cash flow. . . . . As I had small children, and other responsibilities at home, it was becoming irritating interrupting my business to handle his, but without follow-through, and in the context when I’d already urged that actual health/accident insurance be gotten for him, AND us, an idea rejected like many others. An expensive “cost-savings” it turned out to be, too.
I helped him through tax season and we all helped with tools, sometimes the extensive laundry, and occasionally on the job (construction).
I also worked, trying not to provoke anger by being too highly recognized at any particular type of work, and for several years sought permission (!) to enroll in a University extension to learn a different skill, as mine was “tabu.” Finally, I asked a relative to provide the first tuition, took the emotional retaliation for this, and proceded to complete three courses in this field, with a good grade average, and get job referrals from the professor. Attempts were made to sabotage my participation (through withholding transportation, or delaying child care even in the home). The same techniques that worked earlier getting me out of my chosen profession worked also in jeopardizing other types of work. Mail was intercepted and some of it tossed; I got a private PO box: not acceptable. I started a business from home on a dime: not acceptable. Finally I was ordered to work FT nights, and write in my salary on his applicatino for credit (not to be shared). By this time, I was in compliance mode, and thereafter attempted to separately contact the credit company as to the “coercion” factor in my signaure they’d just seen. It was too late, and one of the major mistakes of this marriage.
Things continued to escalate, including weapons, physical injury and in general, I was getting more and more frightened, and the house more and more dysfunctional (utilities-wise). The safest place for my children and me to be appeared to be NOT at home, which is a crazy half-lifestyle. I couldn’t fully “exhale” at home, for the most part, except while engaged in acivities with the girls. Routines were not respected, or schedules, and the constant interruptions kept one off-balance.
Due to attempts to keep me carless we spent lots of time on public transportation, which is great for teaching children to read (so many signs with large letters, all CAPS: Stop, Door, Exit, Open, and so forth), but lousy for efficiency, and very frustrating. Little distances, such as even as few as 3-4 miles, sometimes took hours to go, with stroller and bags and two toddlers.
After such difficulty for those years, it was important and unbelievably empowering to have operational control over my own life. Results began to be tied again to effort, and not consistently sabotaged to create failures. Even moderate successes provided their own incentive and energies. Some momentum was built up during these years while the restraining order was on.
To be institutionally forced and emotionally blackmailed into a state of taking arbitrary orders again grates on the soul. The concept of moving forward in life and expecting to take 5 steps in a row has basically left my thinking — at some point, the psyche won’t stick its neck out again. I am currently working on this, and on ways to remove my exposure to sudden sabotage again, because by now the stakes (and debt) seem higher, there is less reservoir of good will in the general community (based on work performed for them) and there is this energy/age factor.
It’s been a good exercise, but my brain is tired indeed, and what I had been working for — children, and profession – are out of the picture for now, and I can’t see yet that progress or results even happened. This is how it goes trying to leave a controlling personality who is able to locate other controlling personalities to work with him, and find institutions to support the same premise. Many things get sloughed off in the process, and lots of “idols” bite the dust (which is good, obviously). Hope gets detached from the immediate and hinged onto the more philosophical. If that explanation is helpful.
Trying to put some themes to all of this, and in the larger historical (last few decades in my country) context, the clearest one I can see is male backlash to feminism, as expressed through a variety of male-designed institutions. Women are quite as much involved in hating and oppressing themselves, or others, and this is hard to take and see.
We get this situation where a woman is too “stupid,” supposedly, to raise her own child that she loves, and where family members who also love her and would like to support the situation (handling the “safety” concern) were automatically discredited. However, in cases (USA, Sheila Riggs) where a separating mother seeks to protect her four children from TWO generations of abusers who ARE relatives, she is jailed, and an inter-state battle develops (California/Texas) on the issue. Another woman has to flee the U.S. to protect her children. Yet in the UK, a woman with supportive family is still going to have her daughter forced out for adoption, unless she can win in court.
It appears, on networking and reading, that my situation is common after abuse in marriage:
IN the marriage, we were suddenly hated for being too independent, too educated, and too “uppity.” Our bodies, including sensitive parts of them, including neck, nipples, womb, face, teeth, buttocks, are targeted for assault as well as many times personal property (symbolic destruction of valued things), relationships with outsiders, and engagement with the world outside the home. If we try to lie down flat enough, we are hated for being too passive. If we stand up tall, we are hated for standing up tall. Finding no safe way to “be,” let alone be ourSELVES, fully human, we then get help and evict the batterer to protect our bodies and (many women, this becomes the thing that saved THEM, because after a point, they don’t care about themselves so much), we wanted to protect our CHILDREN.
So we go to court, becoming single, and separate, getting a restraining order.
For a while, this functions, sort of, and lives are stabilized and rebuilt. Perhaps we seek child support, perhaps we seek a 2nd relationship, perhaps we simply seek to grow more independent — and we are then in family court fighting AGAIN for independence. We again seek help and sanctuary elsewhere.
In many faith communities, we are again hated or treated suspiciously for being SINGLE, having divorced our man. Sometimes the families that didn’t protect (or teach boundaries to start with) dismiss us again for being single (this was my case), which is translated in the communal mind as “reverting to infantile,” when the fact of th ematter is, we had a fast course in growing up, and wise to the evils and dangers in this world, AND doing something mature — fight back, seek protection, or flee. Those are adult-level survival skills, and no sign of being infantile.
Nonprofits direct such women here, there, and so and so. Not knowing the full scope of the politics, the courts, or our legal rights yet, we sometimes sign away portions of them. We compromise the Full Stop NO!! unintentionally. We still thing that the basic institutions represent us and will help, and, mentally, do not suspect THEM of being as dishonest, volatile, and abusive as our ex (or, extended family, Or, extended community) was. Surely he was the abnormality and the exception.
We go instead of to nonprofits, to law, to law enforcement, and to refusing to bargain away any more rights, and find THAT system hostile to women.
Researching, in stunned distress (and many years later), WHY, we (I speak for myself and others I have dealt with), manage to get infrastructure enough going, process a LOT of dialogue, and find out that it’s coming from our FEderal government, and has been going on for over a decade, Presidents Republican and Democrat alike and fueled in great part by some of our own religions.
We follow the news, noticing what indicators preceded the latest family wipeout, foster care disgrace, or failed situation. We follow (I have) research institutes dedicated to “violence against women” and absorb adn believe their statistics, only to learn that equally powerful and widespread associations, well-positioned, are spreading doctrines, year after year, and with far more funding than we have, that DIRECTLY oppose what we just read in a reputable source (I refer to NCJRS justice database in the US, and other sites listed on my blogroll). The truth is out, but few are interested.
I also strategically examined WHY is it that each time I go to court, I lose something significant, no matter how ridiculous the accusation, and how easily available evidence to the contrary is. I learned a strategic principle: It seems the courts / judges don’t like women who appear to be informed; and they DO apparently sense a kinship with men who commit crimes. They do not respect compliance with their own court orders, or see it as a character indicator, although disobedience by a woman can be severely and quickly punished.
I analyze the fact that I have been in analysis mode too much, although that happens to be still safer for me than in action mode, which typically provokes a retaliation. In this Dizzy DMZ manner of life, time moves on.
I hope that that “stupid” British woman can outsmart the court that labeled her, hire a psychologist to evaluate their behavior(s), and get them to give up more kids trapped in spheres of influence. A spiderweb comes to mind.
Other means I have considered: A female moratorium of about six months (worldwide if possible) not just on sex, but also on child-bearing. It’s clear that to enforce the moratorium on sex, we’d have to find a safe place for all the minor children, boys and girls. We would inform the gentlemen that (for a change) if THEY would be good boys, they will be rewarded, physically and emotionally.
That is, of course, the message women have been given, century after century.
This of course is impossible, but it would seem that if auto workers can strike, or other laborers, well, why not US? Why should we as a gender be colonized? That “sucks,” if you pardon the colloquialism.
I’m sure this would be gladly espoused by the healthy marriage folks (like the pun?), and probably resisted with open “arms.” Yes, this is obviously hypothetical, temporary in nature, and probably not possible.
But at least it might be a break from Designer Family by Court Decree, which is a recipe for women, as well as now men, becoming emotionally detached from the “Fruit of the Womb”
With the word “Islam” meaning submission, and the other religions placing a premium on this, and with the federal governments, courts, schools, etc., across the world also demanding submission in the name of (whatever the current greater good is), I am not hopeful for any worldwide solution.
It’s not the pay, it’s the ability to retain a relationship with the fruits of our labor, that is at stake here.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Irresponsible Behavior in Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
I was ALMOST done for today, when I saw again another site of a man protesting the DV laws.
Being the snoop that I have become (bloodhound when I smell a rat?), I went from this link back through “Equal Justice Foundation” (which has automatic contributions from Federal Employees, but promotes known fatherhood shucksters, hucksters, lawyers, and media experts, including this one):
Barack Obama on the Jeffrey Leving Radio Show
It even has captions for the audio-impaired, which my PC currently is.
Here’s another resounding promotion of FATHERHOOD a few days before MOTHER’s Days, from these same two. At first I thought it was related directly to the “fatherhood woes” MSNBC article I recently commented on.
“Obama and Leving To Endorse Responsible Fatherhood on Soul 106”
Chicago May 9. PR/Newswire: Attorney Jeff Leving’s Exclusive interview with Presidential Hopeful Senator Barack Obama will appear on the Jeffrey Leving Father’s Legal Rights Radio Show on (what appears to be close to Mother’s Day 2008, again……).
The Focus of the Inteview will be on Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act that he re-introduced. As President, Obama will sign this family-strengthening act into law. (after him here comes Senator Evan Bayh, same deal). Fatherhood woes, MY EYE!
Less than a year later, in the same Land of Lincoln, a Governor was arrested for attempting to sell Obama’s Senate seat.
(Link is the 12/08/08 Times online.UK report,)
The Governor of Illinois was arrested yesterday for allegedly trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated US Senate seat to the highest bidder.
The arrest of Rod Blagojevich and John Harris, his chief of staff, cast a light on the home state of the President-elect, which has a history of endemic corruption.
The charges include allegations that the Democratic governor, who has served two-terms, conspired with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a former friend and political donor of Mr Obama, in schemes requiring individuals and companies to pay kickbacks in return for state contracts.
This appears to be business as usual. (The Oldest Profession — Salesmanship). (AND the 2nd oldest, in a sense….)
Here is the SENATE Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood (Bear in mind — this task force is at least 10 years old)
http://www.fatherhood.org/tf_senate.asp
Members are invited to speak at NFI events held throughout the country, including Congressional briefings and the annual Fatherhood Awards Gala, and are regularly updated on any developments and new research findings relevant to the fatherhood movement.
The Senate Task Force is co-chaired by Senator Evan Bayh (D – IN) and Senator John Thune (R-SD).
The Members of the Senate Task Force:
Lisa Murkowski – AK
John McCain – AZ
Christopher Dodd – CT
Michael Crapo – ID
Sam Brownback – KS
Barbara Mikulski – MD
Arlen Specter – PA
Robert Bennett – UT
Jeff Sessions – AL
Jon Kyl – AZ
Tom Harkin – IA
Pat Roberts – KS
Mitch McConnell – KY
Mary Landrieu – LA
Edward Kennedy – MA
Susan Collins – ME
Olympia Snowe – ME
James Inhofe – OK
Jim DeMint – SC
Tim Johnson – SD
Kay Bailey Hutchison – TX
Orrin Hatch – UT
Mike Enzi – WY
Here is the “Congressional” One (i..e, House of Reps, I gather):
Being a member of the Congressional Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood signifies a commitment to the responsible fatherhood movement and a devotion to supporting legislation that promotes and fosters responsible fatherhood. Members are invited to speak at NFI events that are held throughout the country, including Congressional briefings and the Annual Fatherhood Awards Gala, and are regularly updated on any developments and new research findings relevant to the fatherhood movement.
WAIT A MINUTE! AREN’T THERE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES?
ARE THEY NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO ALSO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE MOTHERS IN THEIR CONSTITUENCIES, AND INFORM THOSE MOTHERS AS WELL AS THOSE FATHERS, WHAT’S UP? ARE NOT WOMEN APPROXIMATELY HALF THE POPULATION IN THESE STATES AND MOST LIKELY DISTRICTS? THEN WHY ARE THESE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SIGNING ON, CARTE-BLANCHE, TO A “MOVEMENT”??
The Congressional Task Force is chaired by
Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Mike McIntyre (D-NC),
Robert Aderholt (R-AL), John Sullivan (R-OK), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).
The Members of the Congressional Task Force:
Dennis Cardoza – CA-18
Bob Filner – CA-51
Jack Kingston – GA-1
David Scott – GA-13
Sanford Bishop – GA-2
Luis Gutierrez – IL-4
Donald Manzullo – IL-16
Daniel Lipinski – IL-3
Mark Souder – IN-3
Mike Pence – IN-6
John Sarbanes – MD-3
Elijah Cummings – MD-7
Chris Van Hollen – MD-8
Roy Blunt – MO-7
Bob Etheridge – NC-2
Walter Jones – NC-3
Sue Myrick – NC-9
Lee Terry – NE-2
Donald Payne – NJ-10
Peter King – NY-3
Todd Platts – PA-19
Joe Wilson – SC-2
John Duncan – TN-2
Zach Wamp – TN-3
Kay Granger – TX-12
Chet Edwards – TX-17
Solomon Ortiz – TX-27
Frank Wolf – VA-10
J. Randy Forbes – VA-4
What IS this, a perpetual motion machine, administration to administration?
http://www.responsiblefatherhood.com/aboutthecouncil.html
The Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood is a state commission established by the Illinois State Legislature to promote the positive involvement of both parents in the lives of their children.
It’s very name indicates the truth. It has assumed that women are most normally the caretakers of the children, and because of this, and ONLY because of this, has chosen to try to equal the balance by representing the interests of fathers. Across the board.
Our Mission
The mission of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood is to significantly increase the number of children in Illinois that grow up with a responsible father in their lives. We seek to do this through:1) Raising public awareness of the impact of father absence on children
2) Assisting state agencies and other service providers the resources they need to promote responsible fatherhood
3) Reforming perceptions within state agencies and other service providers regarding the role of fathers as parents
4) Advocating for programs, policies and legislation that will encourage the positive involvement of fathers
The Responsible Fatherhood Act
Signed into law – Aug. 5, 2003Judge Stuttley – February 16th, 2008 Symposium on Parental Alienation Syndrome
{{The American Prosecutors Research Institute discredited this as far back as 2003. Didn’t deter Judge Stuttley, I suppose….}}
Alex Roseborough – March 1st, 2008 Symposium on Psychology and the Law and Its Affects on Fatherhood
{{that’s “Effects,” . . .. }}
Jeffery Leving – March 1st, 2008 Symposium on Psychology and the Law and Its Affects on Fatherhood
Annual Reports
2008 – 2007 – 2006 – 2005 – 2004In ILLINOIS Dept. of Health and Human Services alone:
Administered by: Bureau of Child and Adolescent Health
The mission of the Illinois Fatherhood Initiative is to end father absence by connecting children and fathers and promoting responsible fatherhood by equipping men to be father and father figures. The Illinois Fatherhood Initiative has developed the “Boot Camp for New Dads” program to address this issue. This is a national hospital-based program for expectant and new dads to prepare them to be actively involved fathers. The Boot Camp curriculum is a half-day workshop for expectant fathers held at local hospitals or community-based organizations. Each expectant father is taught the basics of being a new dad: how to hold a baby, change a diaper, what to expect in the first months and much more. This unique community education program for first-time fathers has Boot Camp veterans (together with their two to three-month-old babies) show the ropes to soon-to-be dads. These new dads return as veterans, continuing the cycle and offering their best advice to the next class.
Its target population is “First time fathers”. Illinois Fatherhood Initiative is currently involved with 20 hospitals located in high-risk communities in Illinois. During the last year, over 1,000 men attended Boot Camp for New Dads in Illinois.
Founder’s Message
Illinois Fatherhood Initiative (IFI) was created in February 1997 (3 years after VAWA passed. 1 yr before the US Senate posted the National Return to Fathers’ day, etc….) to address the increasing problem of father absence in society. Research indicates that some 24,000,000 children – 1.1 million in Illinois alone – are growing up today in homes without their father.
David is founder of Illinois Fatherhood Initiative, the country’s first state wide non-profit fatherhood organization, whose mission is connecting children and fathers by promoting responsible fathering and helping to equip men to become better fathers and father-figures. IFI has programs in schools, hospital, and workplaces across Illinois.
Are we DONE yet? It’s been 12 years! I find the concept that this is NEW a little odd. Why are there continual re-introductions of this act, and who is monitoring its success? Are fewer families getting annihilated? Are more Dads paying child support? Are women who left their men getting back with them, with POSITIVE results? Are fewer boys sowing their wild oats, and fewer girls deciding to have babies without a man in the home?
No, I did not notice that in May 2008 (see distant reference above, on this post), Presidential Hopeful then-Senator Barack Obama was adding to my uncollectable child support woes by signing on, AGAIN, to MORE fatherhood initiatives, which were woefully unattended to, not noticed in the US Senate or House of Representatives, and woefully underfunded as well:
However THIS one was a year earlier 2008. Why I didn’t notice in 2008? I was attempting to chase down EDD after the DV order having been overturned, and the DCSS (translation: OCSE) having refused to enforce child support OR standing custody orders, I became job-less. As I worked in a NON-state-funded Nonprofit (a.k.a., the Catholic Church), I got zero unemployment. Serves me right for not having known better than to, female, work in a church that for centuries wouldn’t let young girls (only boys) sing some of the most beautiful choral music around. And had to settle out of court on child abuse cases. However, at that time I DID, until just previously. All contact with my kids had been erased under what I NOW realize to be an out-come based, federally-funded policy to reduce child support arrears for fathers by granting them more access to their kids, no matter why such access was restrained to start with (say, prison, anyone?).
While I was unaware of THIS:
OMB Control No: 0970-0204
Expiration Date: 11/30/2008
(OMB = Office of Mgmt & Budget)
State Child Access Program Survey
Program Reporting Requirements
For Participation in the
Grants to States for Access and
Visitation Program –
Description of Projects & Participant Data
Purpose
The purpose of this survey is to provide information to Congress on the progress of services
provided under the Child Access and Visitation Grant, the goal of which is to “…support and
facilitate a noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.”
As part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, states
are required to monitor, evaluate, and report on programs funded through this grant program in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. A final rule delineating the program
data reporting requirements was published by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in
the Federal Register (64 FR 15132) on March 30, 1999, and specifies the collection of data as
follows:
“Section 303.109(c) REPORTING. The state must:
(1) Report a detailed description of each program funded, providing the following
information as appropriate: service providers and administrators, service area
(rural/urban), population served (income, race, marital status{{WHY NOT GENDER??}}), program goals, application
or referral process (including referral sources), voluntary or mandatory nature of the
programs, types of activities and length and features of a completed program; and
(2) Report data including: the number of applicants/referrals for each program, the total
number of participating individuals, and the number of persons who have completed
program requirements by authorized activities (mediation—voluntary and mandatory,
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement—
including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of
guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.”
The local service provider is:
…responsible for completing the “Local Service Provider Survey” for clients served and
submitting this information to the state who, in turn, will submit it to OCSE . {{OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT}} A new
feature of the survey (see Section D: Local Service Provider Worksheet) requires that grantees report on the following:
REQUIRED OUTCOME:
#1. Increased NCP parenting time with children.
(NCP = non custodial parent)
DEFINITION of Required Outcome:
“An increase in the number of hours, days, weekends, and/or holidays as compared to
parenting time prior to the provision of access and visitation services.”
HERE is from 2006 — ALONE:
Nationwide, States Deliver a Range of Access/Visitation Services
States determine services to be provided which include those defined in authorizing legislation (i.e., mediation, counseling, parent education, development of parenting plans, and visitation enforcement, including supervised visitation and/or neutral drop-off and pick-up). All services must be related to the overall goal of the AV program which is to “…enable states to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children….”
The majority of States provide more than one service, and in many instances, parents are the recipients of more than one service. Listed below are the number of parents that received each service type and the number of States that provided these services in FY 2006.
| Service Type | Number of States | Number of Parents |
|---|---|---|
| Mediation | 40 | 17,654 |
| Counseling | 31 | 4,529 |
| Parent Education | 36 | 47,994 |
| Parenting Plans | 38 | 15,340 |
| Visitation Enforcement: Supervised Visitation | 46 | 16,089 |
| Visitation Enforcement: Neutral Drop-Off/Pick-Up | 32 | 5,025 |
EVERY ONE of these ASPECTS HAS BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION IN RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS. EVERY ONE OF THEM IS ALSO ITSELF A RICH SOURCE OF JOB-REFERRALS WITHIN THE COURT COMMUNITY AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER KICKBACKS AND ABUSE. A WOMAN IN CALIFORNIA HAD A DAUGHTER IN SUPERVISED VISITATION, AND MADE WAVES WHEN THE SUPERVISOR HAD A SLAVE/MASTER RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING BESTIALITY (ETC.) AND INFECTED HER DAUGHTER. MOM HIT THE ROOF, CALLED WASHINGTON, WHO CALLED BACK, AND ATTEMPTED TO GET THE JUDGE RECUSED. THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN, SAID JUDGE WAS MERELY SWITCHED. MOREOVER, THERE IS THE ASPECT OF DOUBLE-DIPPING OF FUNDS, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. WHO IS SUPERVISING THE SUPERVISORS, AND TRAINING THE PEOPLE TO DO SO? WHO IS DESIGNING THE PARENTING PLANS, AND ALSO PROFITING FROM WRITING AND SPEAKING ABOUT THEM? SAME COURT PERSONNEL, MANY TIMES, ASSIGNING THE PARENTS TO THEM. WHAT A JOBS BANK . . . . .
(I just added a link to the “Blogroll” for this pdf, which is recommended reading, and was found at “stopfamilyviolence.org” it is reporting troublesome matters as of 2002 regarding these programs (co. “MIINCAVA”).
I.The Growing Call for Supervised Visitation Programs
For years, judges have asked parties litigating custody cases to find “neutral third parties,” generally
a family member or close friend, to supervise visitation. {{AND NOW YOU KNOW WHY THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING THIS — FEDERAL GRANTS REQUIRE THIS}} This can be a daunting task for a volunteer,
however, given the time and energy required of a visitation supervisor. Even if a family member
or friend agrees to supervise visits, he or she may be vulnerable to the noncustodial parent’s demands
and threats, rendering the supervision ineffective.4There is also a risk that the volunteer may simply
not believe the allegations made about the visiting parent and may decide to only loosely monitor
the visit, further endangering the child.5 Supervised visitation programs6 address this problem by
providing ongoing contact between a child and his or her noncustodial7 parent in the presence of
a neutral third party in cases where physical or sexual abuse, neglect, parental dysfunction, or do-
mestic violence has been alleged.8These programs often include a variety of services9 ranging
from one-on-one supervision with a monitor continuously in the room, to visits in large rooms
monitored by several supervisors.10 Expertise of staff also varies; because of limited resources,
many programs must rely heavily on volunteers, students, and paid community members to provide
monitoring of visits.11The level of security present at programs also varies, with only some programs
offering on-site private security officers or law enforcement personnel.12
I.The Growing Call for Supervised Visitation Programs
For years, judges have asked parties litigating custody cases to find “neutral third parties,” generally
a family member or close friend, to supervise visitation. This can be a daunting task for a volunteer,
however, given the time and energy required of a visitation supervisor. Even if a family member
or friend agrees to supervise visits, he or she may be vulnerable to the noncustodial parent’s demands
and threats, rendering the supervision ineffective.4There is also a risk that the volunteer may simply
not believe the allegations made about the visiting parent and may decide to only loosely monitor
the visit, further endangering the child.5 Supervised visitation programs6 address this problem by
providing ongoing contact between a child and his or her noncustodial7 parent in the presence of
a neutral third party in cases where physical or sexual abuse, neglect, parental dysfunction, or do-
mestic violence has been alleged.8These programs often include a variety of services9 ranging
from one-on-one supervision with a monitor continuously in the room, to visits in large rooms
monitored by several supervisors.10 Expertise of staff also varies; because of limited resources,
many programs must rely heavily on volunteers, students, and paid community members to provide
monitoring of visits.11The level of security present at programs also varies, with only some programs
offering on-site private security officers or law enforcement personnel.12
FOR MORE ON THIS, SEE THE LINK TO RIGHT OF THIS PAGE. . .. NB: The word “high-conflict” is code for “we don’t really believe it was domestic violence or child abuse.”
BACK TO THE ACCESS/VISITATION GRANTS PAGE, FY 2006:
It is important to note that parents are counted once per service and that the amount of time or service hours devoted to each parent is not collected. As a result, parent education yields high numbers of parents served because it usually entails a one-time-only participation in a 2-4 hour seminar. Supervised visitation, on the other hand, is considered a time-intensive service that a noncustodial parent (NCP) utilizes over a period of time usually determined by the court. States do not report on the development of their service guidelines.
Access Services Result in Increased Parenting Time with Children
In FY 2006, approximately 34,212 fathers and 36,830 mothers received access and visitation services. In addition, 25,667 NCPs increased parenting time with their children. ((This can be misleading, because for a single exchange to take place, typically both parents are going to be involved. the point is, they need supervised visitation because someone was abusive! or, someone reported abuse, and supervised visitation was ordered in retaliation!)(see my earlier post today, Jack Straton, Ph.D. talks about this). “Supervised Visitation Time” is PAID-FOR TIME, and is a performance. It lacks the quality of the spontaneous, SAFE relationship that would otherwise exist. It is a concept that arises from a wish to overcome the sole custody, or no-contact situation requested when there has been either violence towards a parent, or abuse of a child to start with! ! !
Parent Referral Sources to Access Services
Courts continue to be the primary source of parent referrals (50%) to AV services. Child support agencies completed 22% of parent referrals in FY 2006, a slight drop from 24% in FY 2005.
Local Service Providers
In FY 2006, States contracted with 327 court and/or community-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services.
Funding by State
Access and Visitation Grants:
Federal Allocation and State Match
Total
| State | Federal Allocation | State Match | Total Funding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $142,610 | $15,846 | $158,456 |
| Alaska | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Arizona | $179,474 | $19,942 | $199,415 |
| Arkansas | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| California | $988,710 | $109,857 | $1,098,567 |
| Colorado | $130,679 | $14,520 | $145,199 |
| Connecticut | $101,505 | $11,278 | $112,783 |
| Delaware | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| District of Columbia | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Florida | $519,757 | $57,751 | $577,508 |
| Georgia | $272,041 | $30,227 | $302,267 |
| Guam | $100,000 | $0 | $100,000 |
| Hawaii | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Idaho | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Illinois | $329,141 | $36,571 | $365,712 |
| Indiana | $164,289 | $18,254 | $182,544 |
| Iowa | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Kansas | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Kentucky | $115,835 | $12,871 | $128,706 |
| Louisiana | $175,073 | $19,453 | $194,525 |
| Maine | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Maryland | $176,152 | $19,572 | $195,724 |
| Massachusetts | $171,937 | $19,104 | $191,041 |
| Michigan | $289,707 | $32,190 | $321,897 |
| Minnesota | $123,675 | $13,742 | $137,417 |
| Mississippi | $113,215 | $12,579 | $125,795 |
| Missouri | $171,130 | $19,014 | $190,144 |
| Montana | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Nebraska | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Nevada | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New Hampshire | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New Jersey | $217,628 | $24,181 | $241,809 |
| New Mexico | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New York | $605,368 | $67,263 | $672,631 |
| North Carolina | $272,566 | $30,285 | $302,851 |
| North Dakota | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Ohio | $334,160 | $37,129 | $371,288 |
| Oklahoma | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Oregon | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Pennsylvania | $341,055 | $37,895 | $378,950 |
| Puerto Rico | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Rhode Island | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| South Carolina | $142,481 | $15,831 | $158,312 |
| South Dakota | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Tennessee | $178,061 | $19,785 | $197,845 |
| Texas | $646,627 | $71,847 | $718,474 |
| Utah | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Vermont | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Virgin Islands | $100,000 | $0 | $100,000 |
| Virginia | $192,500 | $21,389 | $213,889 |
| Washington | $171,388 | $19,043 | $190,431 |
| West Virginia | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Wisconsin | $133,236 | $14,804 | $148,040 |
| Wyoming | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| $10,000,000 | $1,088,889 | $11,088,888 |
Background Information
Designated State Agencies
In 1996, governors designated the State agency responsible for administering the Access and Visitation Grant program. To date, the majority of State access and visitation programs are managed by either the State Administrative Offices of the Court or State Child Support Enforcement Agencies.
Designated Federal Agency
The Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is officially responsible for managing this grant program.
I told you above, it’s not about the kids, it’s about money — and the transfer of it.
Staff Contact:
Tracie Pogue, Program Specialist Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families HHS 370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W. 4th Floor Washington, DC 20447 Email: Tracie.Pogue@acf.hhs.gov
Enabling Legislation
The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
The goal of the program is to:
“…enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ {{TRANSLATION AT THAT TIME — FATHER”S!! }} access to and visitation of their children….”
States are directed to accomplish this goal through the provision of services including, but not limited to:
- mediation (mandatory and voluntary);
- counseling;
- education (e.g., parent education);
- development of parenting plans;
- visitation enforcement (including monitored supervision and neutral drop-off/pick-up); and
- development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
Important Note
This is a formula grant program. States have the discretion to decide what services to provide, organizations to be funded, geographic areas to be covered, and persons to be served.
Annual Funding
$10 million appropriated each year by Congress.
Here is a less recent link regarding VAWA, complete with a lot of tables.
I am not able to take more time today to make sense of it. I KNOW that when I went for help, and searcheed high and low for it, it was not found, to be able to protect as a single-by-choice, competent, working mother, to continue safely engaged in my work, which otherwise would’ve been able to support this household. The DAD had been contributing less and less, with little to no enforcement. Violent style incidents (including stalking) continued to escalatel adn expand in scope and quantity up to, and beyond the point my daughters were finally (and in some exasperation on their part, continuing to be unwilling participants in this), they were stolen on an overnight visitaiton. I could not get them back or prevent that action. After that, I still could not, yet, enforce child support arrears, or stop the FURTHER stalking that took place.
From my perspective, it certainlyo seems that the decks were stacked against me. I believe these two movements : “Fatherhood” (in name at least) and “Violence Against Women” are working contrary to each other, both of them soaking up tons of federal, state, local, and nonprofit community $$.
In my about 18 years of involement in the abuse (enduring, the attempting to leave), I have ONE and one ONLY positive experience of intervention by any police officer in any community in which I have lived. After our case went to family law, it appears to me that I became an “enemy” of the officers I sought help from, with a single exceptin or two of neutrality. Simulataneously, as finances got worse (and worse), the car was increasingly ticketed and cited, including once at 3am in front of my own house (where no garage was available, or off-street parking) and after I’d already been to court to get an extension on registration. Before this deadline had expired, the car was towed, and later sold, making it nearly impossible to get to work around here, certainly work that would sustain a livelihood.
Here’s a link:
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-4130:1
You can attempt to decipher it yourself. I was Googling “2006 Funding of VAWA act.”
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Toxic Mixture – Survival Instinct diluted by Submission to Custody Orders (UK/Australia)
Cassandra Hasonovic…convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.
WHAT FATHERS’ RIGHTS PEOPLE DON’T TELL ABOUT WHY “MOTHER-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS” CAN BE SUCH A RISKY BUSINESS. . .
AND IT’S NOT THE MOTHERS….
I pause from mocking the “Fatherhood” resolutions of the US Congress to demonstrate that while they are laughable in premises, these resolutions are no laughing matter; to demonstrate again that men in positions of power worshipping abstract theories/myths/idols (or their images of themselves as a class) can put a woman face down dead and bloody on a slab of concrete, and just did. Again.
Another myth is that deadly consequences like this will cause deter the same men in power (I’m talking governmental representatives) from initiating, more, similar, and more costly mythology at a governmental level from continuing along the same path, gaining momentum and funding as they go:
NFI asked some** of our nation’s elected leaders about their views on the future of fatherhood in public policy.
(**more specificaly, The National Fatherhood Instititute (ca. 1994) chose to interview select policy makers who just happened also to be members of the “National Fatherhood Initiative’s Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood” (origins at least pre-1998) what they thought of Fatherhood. Calling this “policymakers” is both true — they are PUSHing this policy through — and deceptive, as though it was representative of the entire Congress, prior to being pushed by these folks on this initiative. At least I HOPE there are some in Congress still that can see that this is costing women’s lives, and children’s in the long run….) Perhaps these fathers are upstanding in their own marriages and have a family life to be envied (although it could hardly be called a representative lifestyle, being a Congressperson).
What about the carte blanche, the clear endorsement such proclamations are giving men at the bottom of the economic spectrum, or of the behavioral spectrum, who may already have a chip on their shoulders and be looking for an excuse to dominate another woman?
We already have religions that do this. There are already honor killings, beheadings, in our country (USA). There are already family wipeouts in this country. There are horrific practices upon women in certain countries, still — stonings, genital circumcison, retaliation for attending school, rapes as a form of warfare, or when leaving a refugee camp to seek firewood. I am sorry to say this, but do we REALLY need a Congress of primarily (but not only) white men to say, with other (primarily) men of other color, and a woman or two, that it’s time to go back and reclaim your biological property, eradicate single motherhood that happened because a woman chose to leave abuse, or, you failed to use a condom or proper protection?
I would love to see a survey of every Congressperson, and see which marriage they are on, and how faithful they have been to their wives or, as it may be, husbands. If women, I would like to see how their grown children are behaving in THEIR marriages. When they divorce, do they pay child support? Do they engage in bankrupting and badmouthing a former partner?
To me, this is nothing less than Congress choosing to violate the First Amendment, in the U.S. It is the establishment of a state religion. How it relates to other continents and cultures? Similar doctrines, similar family law theories and practice.
Here is what some policymakers** are saying:
“The American family is the foundation of our society, and we must do all we can to help fathers do the right thing for their children. Today, too many men leave mothers to bear the brunt of being both mom and dad**, forcing them to face the challenges of raising a child and providing for the family on their own. I know President Obama shares my commitment to helping fathers become the best dads they can be; we worked together on these initiatives in the Senate. With the new administration on our side, we can make healthy families and responsible fatherhood a priority together.”
– Senator Evan Bayh*** (D-IN); co-chair of National Fatherhood Initiative’s Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood
**Hypocrite!! The entire thrust of this movement (pun intended), as far as I can see in hindsight, was to prevent women from throwing abusive men (not ALL men) out on their asses for their abuse. The premise behind it, and the practices, and some of the groups, show the reality — allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are false, mostly, and highly exaggerated. Women do not have a right to leave with their children, and so must be re-programmed how to get along with fathers. The organizations funded, and subsidized (federally / state/ local) then go into prisons and other places where substantially suspect fathers may be found, and — in order to reduce the welfare tax load, and by reducing child support arrears in exchange for more contact with their kids, thereby burden the rest of society with the results. The NFI (this initiative) almost exactly coincides with the VAWA (Violence Against Women Act) and was heavily funded from the start.
Did I know this before working closely a few years with the local child support agency and finding out how “opaque” they truly were? No. Not til I started actually reading the programs, and comparing the programs with the rhetoric.
***Of note: Senator Bayh’s personal acquaintance with fatherhood includes having a father who was a U.S. Senator
From the time he was about 8 through majority, his Dad was a Senator.
Evan Bayh graduated with honors in business, economics and public policy from the Indiana University Kelley School of Business in 1978, where he was a member of Phi Kappa Psi, and received his Juris Doctor (J.D.) degree from the University of Virginia in 1981. After clerking for a federal court judge and entering private law practice in Indianapolis, he was elected Indiana’s Secretary of State in 1986.
Bayh was elected Governor of Indiana in 1988 and re-elected in 1992 with the highest percentage of the vote in a statewide election in modern Indiana history.
While this stellar college performance and work history is commendable, I do not think it provides an experiential understanding of the situations that lower-income brackets face in their families. I think that a little failure would have perhaps been helpful (Lincoln had some, right?) along the way, perhaps.
As Such, What THESE Policy Makers are Saying. . .
. . . is kind of like the Foxes quoting other Foxes (from the Fox Initiative) on how “difficult’ the Hens must find life without a resident Fox in the house. I am not referring to all men — I personally like men, and am heterosexual, and don’t think they all think like this. At least, I know at least one or two who do not, and hope to find more, as they are good company.
FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING A FAMILY IS ONE OF THE LEAST WORRIES TO SOME SINGLE MOTHERS…
Here’s the summary, and the story is below:
Despite History and Threats of Further Domestic Violence, British Wife Who Fled to Australia Seeking Safety is Ordered to Return Children to England for Custody Determination
(NOTE: This is why I like Jack Straton’s article on Custody Rights to Men Who Batter).
- Husband is convicted of sexually assaulting Wife.
- Wife is terrified that Husband will kill her.
- Husband allegedly threatens to dismember her.
- Wife flees to Australia with their two Children.
- But the Australian courts rule that England has child custody jurisdiction under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.
- Wife returns to England with Children.
- Police are summoned to intervene in domestic clashes several times.
- Police give Wife a “panic alarm”. {{SHE’s ALREADY Panicked & Alarmed? How about Pepper Spray? A self-defense course? A “right to carry?” (I guess UK doesn’t do that). Or a KNIFE , and training in how to use it?– he killed her with a knife…}}{{So much for “panic alarms.” Oh, she was just exaggerating, the police will protect her. TELL ME — has practice changed since THIS murder?}}
- About a year after Wife’s return, Husband allegedly drags her from a car and stabs her to death … in front of her own mother and their Children.
- Just a few hours after she begged British police for protection.
- While she was in the midst of trying to flee from Husband again.
- Husband is convicted of murder.
- He will serve at least eighteen years in confinement.
- (I add: Her sons will serve a lifetime, with this memory, plus their grandmother, plus all acquaintances.)
WHATEVER PRINCIPLES AND PREMISES LED TO THESE COURT DECISIONS — FOR WHOSE GOOD?
THEY WERE Speculation. That’s a Risky Business, and I feel that the indicators that this is straight mythology, at some level. This type of decision is driven by “fatherhood” as an ideal, and premises that a man without his children is a man without an identity, as is a woman telling the truth — this is a dangerous situation. A man’s rights, even if he’s already been proven criminal, are more important than a woman’s rights — to self-defense by fleeing. A mother’s words are less valid than a father’s. Women as a class are to obey. Men as a class, if forced to subject themselves to the same laws, are prone to killing for the humiliation, and yet still, the NEXT set of women (with kids) are also told, they must obey or go to jail.
In the last post (U.S. Congress Resolution of 1999, a National Fathers Return Day) it was said that “mother-headed-households” fare worse, as a class. Whether or not the data was true, THIS is partly why, and was not reported. Because they are taking heat already for being single. Perhaps a second husband (Women, would YOU remarry quickly after her experience? Men, would YOU marry a woman with kids who was in the process of fleeing her first one? Unless this answer is YES, and some man is brave enough to step in the gap (and being armed, probably), that is going to be a mother-headed household. Put this in your pipe and smoke it when you read the NEXT proclamation I post, US House of Reps, saying the same thing, and voting unanimously as to its truth. Yeah, well, some truths are created, others are self-evident without that extra self-propagating “creation” of a risky, dangerous situation, that of being a single mother when the climate is globally cooling towards permission of this state of affairs. And in ONE country from which some of the laws in the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave.
That’s ridiculous. I am so at a loss for words, I would like to quote some scripture here, but I’m talking about Family Law, if you will bear with me:
(Bible: Eccles. 3, ERV)
This, from the same guy that said, “Vanity, vanity, all is vanity…, and the same one who, one time, when judging between two women who argued over one baby, after one had just been rolled over and smothered to death, was able to discern by a simple test – and his test, though with a sword, has some resemblances to the co-parenting, 50/50 talk of today. The woman who did NOT want her kid chopped in half (this time, physically) was the true one. Nowadays, this dude (who went down the tube, eventually, the record states) ain’t around, or anyone with close to the amount of discernment shown below:
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 a time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; {{like a dangerous marriage…}}
3 a time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down{{ibid}}, and a time to build up;
4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 a time to seek, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7. a time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
{{This woman saw fit to “rend” her marriage. She was not permitted to. Why??}}
8 a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace.
Human sacrifice has ALWAYS been the trademark of religion. Some faiths would say, a false religion. True adherents of any religion are typically willing to kill others, not just themselves, for its sake.
It is right to hate placing onesself and one’s offspring (and others) in the path of danger. That’s a “time to hate.” Not people, but the situation. Sacrificing others may come easily, but sacrificing one’s own offspring is NOT a natural act. Forcing someone to do this is to do violence against her integrity, and one of the primary functions of “MOTHERHOOD” in the name of “FATHERS HAVE RIGHTS TOO!” – — yes they do, but this one, in particular, should not have. You will say, but what about due process?
What about due haste when life is at risk?
Young Mother Fled to Sydney to Save Her Life. UK forces her back, where she is stabbed to death in front of her two boys, and mother, by the man she fled.
Paola Totaro Herald Correspondent in London
Source: The Sydney Morning Herald
May 2, 2009
CASSANDRA HASANOVIC was convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband but her pleas for help – in Australia and Britain – fell on deaf ears.
“He said he was going to chop me up in little pieces and post me piece by piece to my family,” she told police more than a year before her death.
The nightmare tale of the mother, 24, who was dragged out of a car and stabbed to death by her husband in front of her mother and two young sons in July, neared its climax in a British court yesterday.
Mrs Hasanovic died hours after begging British police to drive her to a safe house: “I live in fear for my safety. I am so scared of him.”
{{THERE IS A MORAL TO THIS STORY, IN ASKING POLICE FOR PROTECTION….}}
Her story was recounted this week during the trial of Hajrudin Hasanovic, 33, who was last night found guilty of murder and sentenced to a minimum of 18 years in jail.
The jury learned how he was to have been deported to his native Serbia after losing custody of his children, following his conviction for sexually assaulting his wife.
They heard a damning story of a woman whose fears were ignored by authorities in two hemispheres for more than 12 months.
The five-year marriage ended in May 2007 after the sexual assault and Mrs Hasanovic fled to Australia, where she had relatives. She lived in the safety of Sydney’s western suburbs in the fervent hope of seeking custody of her sons.
But Lewes Crown Court, in West Sussex, heard that Australian authorities insisted she return to Britain, arguing the case had to be pursued there.
Philippa McAtasney, QC, who opened the case for the prosecution, told the court that she returned to Britain at the cost of her life.
In the months that followed her return, police were called to several violent confrontations between the couple, and officers equipped the young mother with a panic alarm.
{{Why didn’t they arrest and incarcerate the attacker?? ??? ???? She was already panicked and had already sounded the alarm, by fleeing the continent — but was not heard…..}}
Mrs Hasanovic’s mother, Sharon De Souza, broke down as she described the terror inside the car on July 29, when her son-in-law appeared from nowhere and lunged at the car as she prepared to drive her daughter and grandsons to a refuge.
{{WHEN WILL WE — WORLDWIDE – – STOP FOCUSING ON REFORMING BATTERERS (WHICH DOES NOT HAVE A TRACK RECORD OF SUCCESS — AND TEACH WOMEN TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, FOR A DETERRENT? IT TAKES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COWARDICE TO ATTACK AN UNARMED WOMEN, WITH KIDS NEARBY. PERHAPS THESE COWARDS HOW PICK ON THEIR WIVES, IN FRONT OF THEIR SONS AND DAUGHTERS, CAN BE DETERRED WHEN THEY REALIZE, THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET AWAY WITH EVEN THE 2ND SUCH ASSAULT. THERE IS NOTHING UN-FEMININE, REALLY, ABOUT SELF-DEFENSE. WE HAVE TO TEACH WOMEN THIS. NOT GANG-STYLE, BUT INDIVIDUALLY, TEACHING US TO DEFEND OUR PERSONAL BOUNDARIES, PHYSICALLY IF NECESSARY.}}
In the panic, the car’s central locking was de-activated, allowing Hasanovic to reach into the back seat, where his wife was sitting between the boys.
“I just remember trying to start the car and the alarm went off and I could not get the car started … I could see a figure coming towards me in the shade …” Mrs De Souza said.
“I looked up again and he was staring towards me. … I just thought: ‘Oh, my God.”‘
She then saw Hasanovic drag her daughter from the car, leaving her face down on the pavement.
“She was lying on the ground. Her eyes were open and she was not moving at all.
“I didn’t realise she was dead. I said: ‘Come on, hold on, you’re going to be OK.’ I could see the blood [but] I could not take it in and I remember hearing the boys screaming.”
“Cassie was devastated when under the Hague convention she was ordered to return the boys to England,” Mrs De Souza said.
“This brutal, cruel and senseless act has torn our lives apart”.
AND — IT WAS NEEDLESS.
I hope, pray, blog, and ask people who are in “intact” marriages (not marked by violence, or even bitter divorce) to wake up and participate, not in indignation that women are indignant, or fleeing, but in studying WHAT your governments are doing (worldwide) and the NGOs that are running the place. Thank you. Take time off from barbecuing, or soccer teams for a month, or a season. I’m talking to what remains of “middle class” people, who perhaps are employed and housed, and panicked about losing work or housing. How does that compare with women like this one, above? Your governments, at least I can speak for mine, ARE wasting money and time in policies that kill.
IN HER PURSUIT OF LIFE (LET ALONE, LIBERTY AND PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS), THIS WOMAN FLED TO AUSTRALIA, LISTENING TO THE OBVIOUS, AND HER INSTINCTS. BEING A MOTHER, AND HAVING HAD CHILDREN (a.k.a. property), SHE WAS SPIT OUT FROM AUSTRALIA BACK TO UK, AND THERE MURDERED. IN FRONT OF HER SONS, AND HER MOTHER, WHILE FLEEING.
More Sardonic Commentary
Meanwhile, in family courts around the world, women (and some men) are told that expressing outrage at indignation and crime is itself a crime, and should be punished by paying for “parenting classes” until they (as adults) realize that the police, the judge, the psychologist, the evaluator, the Guardian at Litem, the Child Protective Services worker, the District Attorney, the Mediators, the educators, and the government know more ab out their own lives, and what’s best for them, than they themselves do.
This is called the Artificial Womb.
(GOOD GRIEF — I just Googled that term, and found this:
Why Not Artificial Wombs?
In 1924, the British scientist {{PROBABLY MALE!!}} J. B. S. Haldane coined the term “ectogenesis” to describe how human pregnancy would one day give way to artificial wombs. “It was in 1951 that Dupont and Schwarz produced the first ectogenic child,” Haldane wrote, imagining how an earnest college student of the future would describe the phenomenon. “Now that the technique is fully developed, we can take an ovary from a woman, and keep it growing in a suitable fluid for as long as twenty years, producing a fresh ovum each month, of which 90 percent can be fertilized, and the embryos grown successfully for nine months, and then brought out into the air.”
I mean this METAPHORICALLY, and I guess now have another post….THIS one is about how worshipping fatherhood has cost real mothers their lives. I had not realized (yet) how long ago it entered into men’s imagination to eliminate pregnancy and childbirth, which I suppose interrupts for nine months some of their other wished-for biological functions, that is in men not mature enough to understand what the whole wonder, relationship, and process is actually about. I predict, that if this becomes successful — that motherhood as a relationship reality is eradicated, AND as a biological one — that the entirety of the human race will become so theoretically smart, and practially stupid, that we (so to speak — count me out!) will destroy ALL of each other, sooner, rather than later. Which of course, some of the human race is currently engaged in, and at least two world religions I am aware of predict. That’s probably less “myth” than an accurate reading of human nature, which this “fatherhood” stuff is not. It’s an “ism” not a reality. The REALITY is that men and women vary in behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, and levels of responsibility to which they have risen.
BACK TO THIS POST:
Good “parenting” teaches one’s children’ how to recognize danger (and when to flee it), that it’s OK to express indignation and anger in order to protect personal boundaries (i.e., send a warning message to whoever is violating them), and if necessary after that, fight back.
Parenting classes, as I understand them, exist to prevent fathers and mothers from doing this, and to create a numbed down (or, bipolar) set of behaviors — one for the teachers, and one when the teachers are not watching. This is a recipe for destruction.
Men around the world are whining, publically and in on-line groups, and promoting studies, that women are just as violent and dangerous as they are. Well, if that WERE so, it appears to me that nonviolent self-preservation techniques (like FLIGHT) aren’t working, so what shall we then do?
Where are all the men killed by angry ex-wives? They aren’t there because our cultures (exception: TV media, popular films), and primary institutions coach women to be passive and submissive — or they will be punished. We are told to obey rules, and we do.
Perhaps it would be better if it was understood that it IS dangerous to confront a woman physically. Perhaps this might be a deterrent. If men are going to reject, as partners, women who stand up to them, then let them propagate with the passive ones, and perhaps — just perhaps, some of the non-passive surviving women may be a role model, should this get to the point of violence.
The last time I had personal contact with a woman who lost a child to a man she’d divorced who had already been convicted of molesting her other child, was only yesterday. This is distressing. As is typical, she has to pay for supervised visitation to see the pre-adolescent son that was removed from her custody for reporting child abuse.
It’s also an unfair choice to any woman –become a criminal and fugitive, or risk your life,
and your children’s lives and sense of sanity and safety in this world, til they mature.
SHARE THIS POST on...
If Obama had been born after Promoting Responsible Fatherhood…
(TYPICAL of what Promoting Responsible Fatherhood can do to already Responsible Mothers. . . . )
(after switching custody, without due process, in order to achieve this out-come based, presidentially-desired population profile:)
MOST responsible mothers will test and attempt to find justice in the family law system, not always knowing that the case was decided from a Top-Down federal initiative, and that while they may NOT get competent free legal help in family courts (as they did in obtaining, perhaps an initial restraining order), many fathers, deserving and undeserving // incarcerated or free // low-income OR high-income too — may have been receiving referrals, coaching, and pro bono legal advice, or forms preparation, to oppose them before they hit the courtroom. If this doesn’t work, then mediation will be forced, as it’s far easier to persuade a single mediator than actually compile the facts and evidence actually required, by law, to switch custody)….
Where I was last week:
For approximately a week I’ve been struggling with Internet down, and negotiating with service providers, etc. Living hand to mouth, I received an unexpected gift of $60 which would repair a simple power cord. My used laptop, which itself was charity and took me 11 months (after my last employment) to get to (another adventure) has a power cord that, thankfully, was sold in a city a short commute away only. The round trip commute “only” cost $10 (which I didn’t have).
Coming to my local haunt to figure things out (brought by someone who is familiar with me by side of road and gave a lift again, saving $2.00 bus fare), there was another local Mom I know in similar situation (though her details varied) who gave me $20 and some paper goods (knowing that Food Stamps don’t buy these, FYI). There is indeed a host of information not possible to personally understand unless you spend a long time marginalized. I did not grow up marginalized, there was help getting me to this state (again).
For example, the importance of cash flow, and split-second timing sometimes.) A little compassion — not to be often found in the larger institutions, where children are commodities, as is our prolonged distress, in fact it’s a business — goes so far, is so fantastic! I do not think people who haven’t been through a little hell (if there be such folk) can appreciate this.
Also today, inexplicably, $XX.cc of the $XXX.cc (of multiple $XX,XXX.cc’s total child support arrears) due each month appeared without warning on a little debit card connected to the great child support enforcement system that has (I have come ot learn) bargained away justice for MOms in support of Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. FYI, grants show clearly that where our government LOOKS for some of these responsible fathers is in prisons and by communicating with parole officers, etc.
Now I have to decided whether that $xx.cc goes to (a) keeping home phone/internet on (b) a bus pass or (c) keeping, for safety reasons, a cell phone on. SIt will pay ONLY one of the above. This is the type of situation, I suppose, all those multiplce choice questions in elementary school (if you went public) prepared us for. What do you think? To me, safety seems paramount, which means cell phone. But I’m hungry. Thus, it’s most likely, however, that I will go have something to eat, and put a bit on the phone (paying twice as much per minute), which goes off at 3:30pm today, I’m told. that $xx.cc amount WOULD pay for an entire month of unlimited cell use (one relief for sure!), however stomach counts, and so does the ability not to have to hitchhike, at my age, and with the amount of STUFF I bring along daily, including papers, laptop, and sometimes a change of clothes. Can we say, “Infrastructure of the Individual?”
This is another thing that forays through one or, worse, more, of a federally-mandated, top-down, and guns-toting officers enforced policy with a few layers of administrative personnel as gatekeepers (between you and who’s funding it and why) is likely to dismantle: INdividual Infrastructures. If it’s stable, it’s a threat to the system, and something must be shifted around — take from Peter to prop up Paul, by way of Phillip, whose idea this was (actually SOME of the prime movers, not just enablers, in these systems, originating them, are women).
While I do that, here’s another self-report of a trip through the “Family” “Law” system, and how what appears to be a competent mother gets dumped on in order to satisfy the state-endorsed religion that “a kid without a father involved — ANY quality father” is like a fish out of water, not “a fish without a bicycle.”
I also had a close call, this week, with Fathers’ Rights in the Making (generation 3?) by getting thrown out of a church I’d fled to, for some company, for — yes, you heard this — speaking up. The problem was, my plumbing. I was almost physically ejected after the 2nd minute. Unbelievable, and this was in a home, not even a large formal setting. I am entirely too curious about reporting from the front lines about groups of people who seem angry that women got the vote, laws were passed to restrict PUBLICALLY beating us, and so compensate by as much as possible publically humiliating intelligent ones who actually speak.
Silly folks, don’t they realize this is where feminists came from to start with? They got pissed off, that’s all. I’m beginning to think this at least. The only people who actually think second class citizenship, or for that matter, abject poverty and slavery, are good ideas, are those profiting from it. And for THAT, you will have to research who is getting the grant money to generate study after study justifying the kind of results you read about below here:
What I’m trying to say here is, my uneven reporting and prose is a direct factor of having to deal with the situation, while also attempting to report on it. As a general principle, I’d say, if you probe deeply to any website which is EXTREMELY polished and professional, they probably haven’t gone through it themselves, only dealt with families who have. The situation never seems to end, so we have to publish on the fly, kind of like some of the men who had the audacity to translate the Bible into the common language (whether German, English, or Spanish). Going up against the Spanish Inquisition takes courage, for sure. The capacity of man to crucify man (and women, and children) never seems to end, and generally, it has to do with exposing some nonsense.
NEVER show up smarter than someone else who has control over your kids.
NOTE: taking hostages is a characteristic of war. Why is the US Government waging war on mothers? (sorry folks, the statistics do NOT support it as a war on fathers, based on $$ allocated at Federal level). Then again, there
Her story is here. The link above has a few more links also:
If what happened to my kids had happened to young Barry Obama, he would have been stripped from the primary care of his mother and turned over to the father who left him, likely changing the course of his life.
Like the President’s mother, I was blinded by youthful idealism to the extreme dangers of entering a mixed marriage. While I knew the judicial system historically opposed mixed marriages, I was naïve to the fact that U.S courts have historically treated non-black women who marry outside their race worse than black men and women themselves. Until 1931, such women would be stripped of citizenship. Such marriages continued to be illegal until the late 1960s.
MOTHERS SOMETIMES LOSE
Since then, such women often lose custody of their “black” looking children. Such was the case for me when Judge Thomas Koehler of Iowa City, IA ordered that “physical characteristics can be a determiner in awarding custody.”
Although I was the primary caregiver of my two young children, and the sole breadwinner when I filed for custody from my estranged ex, the Court awarded physically custody to my children’s father. He is black African. I am Colombian-American.
The court did not question that my ex had no known employer (and hasn’t for over six years) or that “money works differently” for him. Nor was the court interested in my ex’s arrest at the nation’s Capitol for appearing dressed as a suicide bomber (in the name of ‘art’) or other threats and assaults made towards various individuals throughout the country.
In this era, people wrongly assume mothers only lose custody of their children if they have a drug problem or police record of some sort. However, in contested cases, the man gets custody an overwhelming 70% of the time – and often these men are the most violent.
WEDDED THEN LEFT
In March of 1997, I married Nigerian artist Olabayo Olaniyi in Santa Fe. Our son, Oba, was born in December of that year. The following year, we moved to Iowa where our marriage disintegrated. When our second child, Aluna, was a month old, we officially separated.My ex left Iowa (green card in hand) and traveled to be an artist-in-residence at the University of Michigan. I remained in Iowa, moved into my own home, and continued to run my bilingual home daycare.
HONEY, I FORGOT THE KIDS
Aside from my ex’s philandering and financial irresponsibility toward our children, my life remained relatively peaceful and joyous for a full year-and-a-half…until I filed for divorce.
“YOU WILL FLY NO MORE…I AM WARNIG YOU, CHRISTINE!”
At first, my ex played the game of hide-and-seek. When found, and served with divorce papers, death threats rolled in and my ex filed for sole custody of our children.
Despite recorded threats, 50/50 custody was ordered. Devastated, I moved to Michigan to facilitate the temporary order. Twice over the next few years, I tried to move the case to Michigan where we all lived. Iowa refused to give up this case.
In the meantime, the family member who kept us from living on the streets had her home shot at. My daughter returned from a visit with a visible mark. My son confirmed that their dad got mad when she wouldn’t stop crying and asking for me. Photographs of this incident went ignored.
Fortunately I was offered a full-time job after one day of work and moved into my own home six months later. Bones and moldy gourds were left on my doorstep (courtesy of my ex.) In addition, my ex and his former student were arrested in D.C.
The Iowa court could care less. As far as Judge Koehler was concerned, my concerns over the aforementioned actions were all proof that I “hated” my ex.
After a bizarre seven day trial, where my ex was allowed to sing in Yoruba and admitted to asking me for two abortions, the court awarded him primary custody and a substantial amount of child support (more than his reported income).
POLICING THE INSANITY
A blue book will tell you about any vehicle, but nothing exists to warn you about our lemon-of-a-court system. Now, that I’ve learned of the systemic problems within our judiciary, I would say you’d be insane to trust the court to determine custody.
No accountability exists for family courts. A former prosecuting attorney admitted to me that “Judge Koehler had his mind up” and the present prosecuting attorney made clear that she won’t prosecute the provable perjury in my case because it’s a “civil matter.” The media is no better-–refusing to expose corruption unless it happens to involve a movie star or morph into a criminal case.
HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS
Attorney Diane Post is the leading attorney for this case against the U.S government for its human rights abuses in the Civil Courts of America. My case will represent the state of Iowa in her action which is supported by several organizations, including the ACLU. Like men in the main cases cited, my ex has a record of violence that went ignored. Unlike people in those cases, my and I children remain alive and manage to thrive in our work, education and allotted time together. My children have never wavered in wanting to come home and I will spend the summer in court fighting for their return.
Unlike before, now I know such action holds danger. Yet, like my hometown hero – Sojourner Truth – I intend to fight for the just return of my children. Like Sojourner’s son Peter, my children never would have been stripped from me if it weren’t for the color of their skin
SHARE THIS POST on...
In the Best Interests of Suffering the Little Children – to survive Childhood (alive)…
(From “WAtoday.com.au”)
Suffer the little children
- Jen Jewel Brown
- May 2, 2009
IT WAS 3am on Anzac Day when Dionne Fehring woke in fear. She was in her mother and stepfather’s Tallebudgera house on the Gold Coast, the house she’d fled to after her marriage turned irrevocably violent. “I felt that there was something wrong. Just had that natural mother’s instinct,” she says now.
There’s a quiet dignity holding the tremor in Fehring’s voice these days.
“I just had a feeling from the moment that I woke up that something wasn’t right. Everyone around me was very excited about the kids coming,” she says.
“There was something inside me that would not let me get my hopes up. I had a feeling that he wouldn’t make it that easy. But I never thought that he’d actually kill them … I thought he might kill me, but never them.”
Fehring, whose surname was Dalton back in 2004, was right to be afraid. At 3am precisely, her two children, 17-month-old daughter Jessie and baby Patrick, 12 weeks, were being murdered by their father, Jayson Dalton.
“They know when it happened,” says Fehring, “because when the police broke in, they broke in to find the kids lying dead on the bed, and he’s actually put down the time that he had killed them and written it above their heads.
He had suffocated them with plastic bags. Then he killed himself the same way.
Moving to Seymour in country Victoria, Fehring has mercifully had two more young children she rejoices in. She now works as a patron with the Gold Coast Domestic Violence Prevention Centre.
She sees herself as a survivor rather than a victim. Yet a growing sense of frustration and bafflement has led her to speak out publicly for the first time since 2004.
“In five years, I have seen no changes in the way we deal with the deaths of women and children who come through the Family Court,” she says. “We continue to lose these beautiful little children. It rocks me to the core. I have waves of sadness, then anger, that the deaths of my children were in vain.”
The story of the Dalton family is just one of many domestic tragedies that have played out in Australia over recent years.
According to Australian Institute of Criminology research, an average of 25 children were killed by their parents each year between July 1989 and June 2002. Beyond this worst-case scenario is a hidden epidemic of child harm that the welfare system struggles to control.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reports that there were 317,526 reports of suspected child abuse and neglect made to state and territory authorities in 2007-08, continuing a trend of increased notifications — up more than 250 per cent on a decade ago.
Children at risk of such harm are likely to end up being processed by a family law system that critics, including Fehring, believe is not well-designed to protect them.
In 2006, the Family Law Act was substantially amended to reflect a greater emphasis on shared parental responsibility. One of the changes required the court to look at two primary considerations when deciding what is in the child’s best interests. The first is the desire for children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents; the second the need to protect them.
But some experts believe that in cases of family violence, the principles conflict with one another.
Sarah Vessali, principal lawyer at the Women’s Legal Service Victoria for almost eight years and now in private practice, deals daily with family law matters. “There is a contradiction between the two fundamental principles — they cannot work together where there is family violence,” she says.
THE Dalton marriage had bloomed gently at first from an internet romance. “He had moments when he was loving and tender,” recalls Fehring. But a punch that cracked their car windscreen also produced the first cracks in the marriage.
Dalton became verbally abusive. He insisted his wife go back to work three days after giving birth to Jessie, their firstborn. Then the beatings began.
In the 2½ years of their marriage, Dalton threw a microwave at his heavily pregnant wife and toddler, shattered French doors and bashed Fehring repeatedly. Multiple assaults were on police record. In fact, police were so concerned for her safety, they applied for (and were granted) a domestic violence order on her behalf, as she was too frightened to take one out herself.
By March 10, 2004, the marriage was in a state of collapse. Dalton, so much bigger than his wife, told her: “Tonight’s the night. It’s on. It’s going to happen tonight.”
Fehring was left in a state of intense fear. As she drove to her mother’s with the kids, Dalton gave chase. He rang her mobile 76 times in that 90-minute drive.
When he hit her mother on arrival, he broke his latest domestic violence order for the second time. Arrested and jailed overnight, and released at midday the next day, Dalton was in a savage mental state.
Fehring began to panic. She had given birth to Patrick (who, although much loved, was conceived, she says, when Dalton raped her), only about six weeks earlier. She didn’t last the five-hour drive with her mother and the kids to a relative’s home. Exhausted and at breaking point, she was hospitalised in the acute mental health unit at Toowoomba Hospital for 10 days. That was Dalton’s chance.
On March 17, 2004, in a 14-minute hearing, the Brisbane Family Court gave interim custody of the infant Patrick and his sister Jessie to Jayson Dalton, former One Nation candidate and long-term batterer.
Fehring’s solicitor, Ros Byrne, had less than 24 hours warning of Dalton’s bid for custody. She told the judge: “There are domestic violence issues.” That was it.
Fehring, ill, could not be there. “I have no idea why they gave him custody,” she says. “And I don’t think I’ll ever understand it. They were in no danger, they’d been with mum, she was taking care of them with my sister.
“My solicitor knew I was petrified. She told the court there were domestic violence issues and yet the children were handed over to a violent man.”
In the weeks that followed, Dalton’s dad helped his son care for the children. By April 23, Fehring was well enough to go back to court and be awarded custody, with Jayson to have the children every second weekend. On Anzac Day, Dalton was supposed to hand the children back.
Asked to turn her mind back to that Anzac Day afternoon, and the mad dash she made from the Gold Coast when Dalton did not arrive at the Southport police station with the children as arranged, Fehring clears her throat. Although she didn’t know it then, her mother had already found Dalton’s emailed suicide note.
“My mobile had gone dead and so no one could call and tell us what had happened, and by the time we got up there, just to the rise of where the actual house was at the bottom of the hill, um, we could see all the flashing lights, fire brigade and the ambulance and newsmen and everything else, and I just raced across the road,” she says.
“The police stopped me from going up the stairs into the house and I just said to them, ‘Cover me, I don’t want anyone to see me’, and I just collapsed in a heap. My stepfather nearly had a breakdown. He tried to climb the stairs and they pulled him back.”
She continues after a deep sigh. “We didn’t get to say goodbye to my babies until early the next morning. I had to go to the morgue and identify them. Their little bodies covered with a sheet.
“I just want something changed so that we can protect women and children so that these cases don’t continue to happen. No mother should ever be put through that experience.”
Child abuse expert emeritus professor Freda Briggs, of the education, arts and social sciences division of the University of South Australia, has firm views about changes needed to family law.
“The level of ignorance by judges and (Family Court) staff about child development, domestic violence and sexual abuse is inexcusable,” she says.
“Judges ignore DV (domestic violence) because (a) some psychologists tell them that men who bash their wives don’t necessarily bash their children and (b) they don’t seem to know that witnessing violence is as damaging to children as being a victim of it. Education is so badly needed.”
Sarah Vessali agrees that change is necessary. She suggests that Australia look to the New Zealand model, where the prima facie stance is that where allegations of abuse are raised, contact is disallowed until they are disproved.
In Australia, the legal system demands that the accusing parents prove such allegations, which can be difficult.
“If (the allegations) cannot satisfactorily be proven to the court … then (the accuser) runs the risk of having the court order costs against them,” Vessali says.
A petition calling for change has gathered close to 3000 signatures from affected families and professionals, women and men. One anonymous signatory summed up the concerns of many who work in the system: “As a community worker providing support to women and children escaping domestic violence, we have significant contact with the Family Court and access orders.
“It has been our organisational experience that the family orders often place the children at risk of emotional, if not physical, abuse.
“It is of upmost priority, for the children involved, to have a closer look at issues of domestic violence when deciding on residency issues.”
In Fehring’s view, the system is going backwards not forwards. “Why do women and children continue to lose their lives?” she asks. “What I want is a more in-depth look into the Family Court. We need to get to the root of a problem and not just make a snap decision based on two minutes worth of information.
“I want us as a society to be able to see this openly.” The media, she says, should not be prevented from reporting important cases. “If we are not made aware of these problems, then we blindly go about our day totally unaware of what is going on behind closed doors.
“The women who might be sitting at home contemplating leaving a domestic violence situation may get the strength to leave her relationship. We need to become proactive before any more of these problems occur and we lose more of our precious children.”
As part of a campaign by concerned Australians to improve the way the Family Court system deals with cases such as Fehring’s, national rallies, run by the Safer Family Law Campaign, are planned for this morning.
At the Mayday! rallies, affected parents wearing red scarves and masks to hide their identities (family law curtails free speech) will speak alongside child rights representatives, academics, lawyers and members of various groups.
Clotheslines strung with children’s red clothes will be raised at rallies in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth.
Jen Jewel Brown is a Melbourne writer and Victorian co-ordinator of the Mayday! Safer Family Law Campaign rally, which will be held in Carlton Gardens, Rathdowne Street, 11am-12.15pm
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
“Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout.” Maybe–MAYBE, Forget the Restraining Orders, Remember 2nd Amendment? Or, toss a coin…
with 2 comments
Part II of II on “Responsible Citizenhood” is in labor.
The waters have broken, and there is a flood of information and synthesis of concepts gushing forth on many topics, and my brain is dialating. They will have to be posted in stages.
Translation: I am being a Responsible Citizen (see prior posts) and exploring who is my Congress, the Constitution, who is funding whom, and finding all kinds of juicy information on whose idea was it to reinstitute a national religion called Fatherhood, funded by all of us. I have also located a few new (to me at least) search tools How many thoughts have been provoked!
But, this (relatively) recent news alert reminded me, that Part of Responsible Citizenhood might entail learning how to handle a gun, and being willing to use it during a home invasion. Even a home invasion by an estranged husband:
Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout
by Michael Rubinkam
Let’s look at this headline again. This woman fought him off, and neither she, nor any of her offspring got killed. If you look up the articles and read the details, she made a mistake, which, if you read below and see how WIGGLY Pa considers the “PFAs” when it comes to what they mean, is almost understandable. But once the situation became clear, she took QUICK action to protect her children, get free, and call for help.
This is not, folks, how it often plays out. Who knows whether, God, fortune, or luck played a role, but we DO know this woman didn’t stop to debate, and she also didn’t panic and go dysfunctional. May I propose that this woman listening to her INSTINCTS and acting on them may have prevented a higher body count. LESSON ONE: Don’t jerk around with someone who has just crossed a boundary. Don’t second guess instinct. And (next time) don’t compromise one INCH on an existing protective or restraining order — it sends a mixed message, and could lead to this.
May I propose something else? I suggest that lawmakers and courts consider that women are people too, and smarten up to having us believe the fiction and play the slot games with any intimate partner who has been battering us in the home, or threatening to, etc. May I suggest that instead of — or in addition to — DISarming him, they somehow ARM her, and if she’s not trained how to do so, get her some professional responsible training. It could be mace, it could be pepper spray, but constitutionally, it could be a gun, too, at least in the home.
Given the options, she has hope, luck, prayer, and walking around the neighborhood with her instincts on alert, her antennae up, and then trying to also rebuild a life. “LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” Now what was that first one again?
Detriment: May give a whole new picture of “motherhood” to “fatherhood” people who don’t believe women should be allowed to separate, do not have equal rights, and VAWA should go back to where it came from.
In this above statement, I omitted the comma between “fatherhood” people and who don’t believe. This is generous on my part, because I am conceding that there could be people all excited about and promoting fatherhood who DON’T believe these things. In fact, I don’t really believe this. I think that what the “fatherhood” movement is about is that the genetic / gender / biological composition of a family and household (one man, one woman, both married) is more important than the character or behavior of such families. I am not the only person who believes this. Some data is here (hover cursor for my comment. Note: This dates to 2002, almost 7 years ago. .http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf.
Now, when I married, I picked someone of the opposite gender, rather than someone of the same gender and, when it came to wanting children, either adoption or a sperm donor. This is probably because of how I like my sex, and the other versions didn’t concern me.
However, when I realized that my opposite-gender person’s main concern was my gender and household function ONLY, and not me as a person — and began physically punishing me for showing up as a person like him, and expecting to pursue some personal goals, not only the laundry/cleaning/nursing/f____ing role (in addition to supporting him in his business, and — if I wanted necessities — also working myself in and/or outside the home for pay) — I made a determination that behavior was the determinant, not gender, or a two-parent status. The MAIN reason I did this was because we had children, and it was a damn lousy role model they were being exposed to. The children were of my gender, and they were being taught how this one was somehow inferior and equipped with fewer rights, if any, and no boundaries or ability to say NO without taking retaliation for it. THAT’s a lousy role model, and he got himself evicted, not after several warnings.
I suppose you would like me to get to the story here, how THIS woman saved her life, her children’s life, but alas, not the pursuing policeman’s life, or her husband’s (although I lay that one as his responsibility — no one forced him to threaten his wife with a gun or kidnap his child, or place himself above a clear law he knew was in place upon him).
YATESVILLE, Pa. (AP) — Hobbled by a broken ankle, the estranged wife of a man killed in a shootout with Pennsylvania state troopers managed to fight him off as he threatened her with a gun before he kidnapped their 9-year-old son, the woman’s friend said.
The order of events is a little jumbled in the paragraph. The AP wanted it out fast, I guess, and so we get this:
Having been through a FEW of the events above (not including the shootout), let me put it, I suspect, chrono.
First of all, let’s deal with the grammar dishonesty (gender bias?) with B. “She was estranged from her husband” which has an element of the truth, and distorts the actual context. This is such common press practice in domestic violence homicide (or incident) reporting:
LEGALLY, it appears he’d acted first, and she had responded with a “protection from abuse” order. Unless the news disagrees with the judge that is THE most relevant factor in the case, apart from this incident. It most certainly is prime factual, legal and emotional dynamic CONTEXT of the incident. “She was estranged” could’ve been, she got tired of his dirty socks around home, she wanted to pursue another affair, or he did; he refused to work OR was an alcoholic, she was bored, he was using drugs or alcohol, or they had other “irreconciliable differences.” “She was estranged” already must minimized the truth. If a protective order was in place, and these reporters are not aware enough yet that this produces LOTS of hot news leads in the form of crime reporting, they need to review the job descriptions — or their editors do. (To tell the truth, I didn’t notice this the first time through the story myself, although I have always thought it an odd phrase).
B. THEY were estranged. or, better,
B. “In _____ (date) (or how recent), she obtained a PFA (say it: “protection from abuse“) order (in what court, or county), forcing him to leave the family home.
It is so typical of abusers, abuser enablers, and for that matter, the bulk of the family law system, to IGNORE THE ACTIONS and TALK ABOUT WHO “WAS” WHAT RATHER THAN WHO “DID” WHAT. IT”S PSYCHOLOGY NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS NO ACCIDENT!
From the 2002 California Family Court Report (link above): (under “Loss of Due Process”)
A. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1992.
Alas (and the emphasis of other articles on this event) — – Mad Dad was not in a compromise mood, and shot at responding officers. Terribly, he got a cop, too. Again — and these officers WERE brave, and they DID stop a kidnapping in process.
That’s about a recipe for suicide by cop. Whether or not he had thought THIS far ahead, one thing is clear: He’d pre-meditated far enough ahead to bring a gun and point it at his wife.
I experienced a decade of being exceedingly afraid of my husband in the home, being traumatized, and eventually being sure enough (because he talked about it often enough, fantasizing about this, and telling me, so, or otherwise bringing it up casually in conversation: “I’ll just have to kill you.” At this time, both our children were under 8 years old.) This has caused economic devastation upon me, my daughters, and people associated with both him, and us. It has wasted taxpayer funds year after year (in family law, where our case shouldn’t have been at the time) and taken almost 20 years of the prime working years of my life and trashed them repeatedly, under threats, stalkings, intimidations, sudden appearances at my home, and in general, one hell of a mess. He is still only working part-time, if that, doesn’t pay taxes (I don’t because I don’t earn enough), he is not financially independent yet and, because of this and unfortunately, neither am I. Our state is broke (supposedly) which is headline news, and is getting people very short-tempered in general.
I wonder, and I DO reflect — SUPPOSE I HAD FOUGHT BACK, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THREATENED BACK: IF YOU EVER DO THIS AGAIN, YOU’LL BE MISSING A BODY PART. OR DEAD! And then dropped everything until I had learned self defense.
Or, I had told been less committed to my marriage vows, and dumped his ass out on the street — in other words, brought it to a head earlier. WHY did I not do that? (a number of reasons: #1. VAWA and awareness of DV laws was not commonplace. #2. I’d never had a similar experience where I had to set a boundary with a violent man before, and wasn’t acquainted personally with such situations. #3. self-defense and handling a gun is not a typical part of the public school education, and not exactly promoted, as in, exercising 2nd Amendment rights, in general. We are not hunting our food, but buying it, for the most part (or growing it). I was not raised in urban areas, where awareness of guns and gun violence was commonplace, but in more rural; people shot deer, or sometimes squirrels, not people! I also wasn’t raised on TV.
School rewards taking orders and obeying rules, at least theoretically.
And that’s not “feminine” behavior.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WHAT IF MEN UNDERSTOOD – – – REALLY UNDERSTOOD – – – THAT EVEN WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP, A SMACK WILL BE SMACKED, BACK, HARDER, BECAUSE IT’S SO OUT OF ORDER? WHAT IF WOMEN WEREN’T SO DESPERATE TO SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY, OR FOR SEXUAL ATTENTION, OR TO HAVE A MAN ON THE ARM, THAT NONE OF THEM COMPROMISED?
WOULD THERE STILL BE FAMILIES AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?
Maybe the fatherhood guys are “right.” Maybe (from that perspective) if men are not needed to provide for and protect women,and defend them from other suitors, stalkers, or rapists, or to help them, particularly when they are more vulnerable, pregnant and raising young kids, the differences between the sexes (as to functions in life) would so blur, that, well, the drive to achieve and provide would diminish, the wheels of the economy would crumble (and a lot of faith institutions also), and life just wouldn’t have that same glow, or afterglow.
Without the primal urge, there would be no skyscrapers (9/11?) or cathedrals, and no empires, multi-national or otherwise. Maybe. life just wouldn’t have that zest and drama. Newspapers would need to find other ways to sell the products, if there weren’t crises to report.
Well, that’s a larger topic. But it seems a natural question: If the nuclear family ain’t what protects, and provides for its young, the only alternative is for equality of income. NOW, Papa Obama and the majority of Head Start, Zero to Five, Administration for Families and Children, (sorry sir to pick on you, this wasn’t your idea to start with) might be out of work. ONLY if the ONLY way to produce income is a “job” that MUST be done outside the home, ONLY then is it essential to have the other functions of raising a family: care, daytime feeding, and education — to be done by someone else, institutionally.
However the people so vigorously promoting this solution ONLY (and highly suspicious of, say, the homeschooling option which is a lot more fluid, lets mothers network and find each other’s long suits, collaborate locally to find the best teachers (including some of each other, as well as hired professionals), and fire the lousy ones — now THAT’S a plus) and actually have a better understanding of who their children are, and possibly better relationships with them, not rigidly defined ones) — these people — and I coudl show you, or you could look for yourself — are THEMSELVES either inheriting wealth, or have sufficient assets to go fund ggovernment policy, publicize and drive various programs through and teach THEIR young how to own businesses and produce passive cash flow, themselves.
Then who would work in the businesses they own? There has to be a steady population — and the majority of the population — that does NOT know how to live independently from the government, or the “employee” situation — or life would, well, it just wouldn’t work right. Who would work the factories, produce the many, many terrific products we enjoy in this country, the material prosperity, the varities of fast foods (and agencies pronouncing that fast foods are bad for you), and all that?
(Along with the domestic violence kidnappings, suicides by cop, traumatized kids, and sometimes dead people, that go along with when this doesn’t work out so well…..).
Well, that dialogue is what I get for thinking. It’s Monday night quarterbacking, I guess, “what-if” scenarios. I cannot turn back the clock in my own case. The fact is, if I hadn’t been who I was, probably the genetic and particular DNA of my two wonderful daughters (who are probably not reading this, yet), and with whom I am NOT spending any more time, would not have been born. I have already determined (and she’s spoken with me recently) that woman number two was targeted for a certain gullibility and in a certain venue, for use to get the kids away from me. He’s out on the loose again, troubling me, because I’ve been contacted, and her, because of what that indicates.
HOWEVER, the rest of this post, below, shows how the local Women’s Resource Agency describes why women should keep coming, keep asking for “PFA” orders and keep playing the odds, because, it’s after all, only about ONE out of THREE cases that violates these orders, and “NOT ALL” do “WHAT HE DID.”
Well, in school, 66% is not a passing grade. Last I heard, 70% was. We are talking 66% success rate when the other 33% (add your decimal points later) might get killed and result in this. We’re not talking about graduating from high school, but living out a normal lifespan, and not in terror, trauma, or having to before a child is ten, witness a homicide. Or two. Or being kidnapped. About officers NOT having to make that sacrifice, and THEIR children lose a Daddy also. How is THAT “promoting responsible fatherhood.”
I think that the time of restraining orders may have passed, and that we probably need to focus on both attitudes, cultural values and self-defense techniques (including weapons if necessary) that make it ABSOLUTELY clear that any such violation of a personal boundary in the form of a HIT will be met with equal, and to make a point, slightly greater responding force to emphasize the unacceptability of it.
I think local communities will have to figure out processes, not “states” they wish to achieve. And this requires being realistic about restraining order and a valid understanding of what abuse IS.
I have one: ABUSE is violating personal boundaries (and, most time, state criminal laws) in order to establish a “giving orders” situation between what should be intimate partners. As such, it qualifies as “two-year-old” behavior and should result in the adult who has regressed to it, and thinks that 2009 is, in fact, closer to 1920 (when women finally got the vote) should be treated like the two-year-old mentality of, the world should conform to you when you don’t like it, without your submitting to some process of negotiation, compromise, or humility. I would like to add that, as I recall this, I always wondered why our daughters didn’t go through the famous “Terrible Twos” {is this an Americdan term only? I don’t know…} rebellious stages. I remember this at the time also. It could be that we weren’t dumping them off in daycare, where they needed more attention, oir it just possibly could’ve been that we had a much larger Terrible Two in the home, in the form of their father, and they knew this.
Only when it’s UNacceptable throughout society to beat women, and terrorize anyone, will this stop. The only acceptable reasons for doing anything like this in defense of life’s essentials — and these do not include maintaining a status quo in which the abuser’s world is perfect, and his ego cannot handle rejection, the need to apologize, or occasional value conflicts. The heart of any really good intimate relationship would do real well to closely resemble what’s written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which most of us (and our legislators) have apparently forgotten.
I happen to be a Christian, and my faith tells me about when this will, and will not happen. I have had to often re-evaluate the duality (us/them) and domination (Christ came once and was humbled/crucified voluntarily, but will return in authority as king and by force put down all rebellion, bringing in world peace), and I assure you, in the many, MANY years I have been around and working (through music) in several faith institutions, the music is terrific, but within white (in particular, but not only) Protestantism, nondenominational especially, equality of women is “anathema” and these places are producing wife-beaters and wife-killers. They do not communally or prominently acknowledge the laws of the land in their hearts, and many (those who do not ordain women, or and hate even the concept of them in leadership, let alone of gays, or lesbians) , despite sometimes sheltering a battered woman, or helping her (i’ve been helped a few times recently), they will NOT stop sheltering the doctines and attitudes that produce more batterred women, and more overentitled men. this is behind the “fatherhood” movement, and it produces a form of social schizophrenia, in which we have a public school system where “God” is not allowed, or prayer, yet public policy where “faith-based” advice and policies are promoted. Well, which is it, folks?
That’s all the psycho- social-analysis for this post. What’s below (written earlier) relates more directly to this particular domestic violence double-homicide, kidnapping, assault, and tragedy which began with “she was estranged,” and a look at the neighborhood response.
What probably kept that woman and her children alive was her willingness to fight back. What put her at risk was compromising the existing restraining order (including drop off at curb), and (possibly) her not having the means or intent to, at ALL times since it was issued, NEVER compromise it AT ALL. ONE means might be for her husband to have understand that she understood her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, and having it in the home, AND her willingness and intent to act on it, if even 3 yards of a restraining order was violated. This sends a clear message, and would put that man back in a place to reconsider whether he wants to test the limits, or can talk or plan, or manipulate his way out of obeying that order.
The courts need to do more to communicate this necessity to women who have just separated. They need to understand that NOW, it’s OK to take a personally aggressive stance and back it up with a willingness to act if boundaries are violated. That IS, after all, WHY the “United States of America” is no longer a British colony, or any other colony (so far), and we might do well to keep communicating this principle to our young, boy and girl alike. Not to belabor the point, but our schools absolutely do NOT, do this at this point, and I say, intentionally so. You can’t “manage” people so well who understand their self-worth.
However Susan Autenreith may have been raised, at the crucial time, she found something within herself to say No, and stand up to this. Having made a mistake, she didn’t condemn herself or try to talk out of the situation. Gun meant FIGHT BACK, YELL DIRECTIONS TO HE KIDS, & CALL FOR HELP.
How Logical Is This?
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About that MOM?
Let’s go chrono, OK?
Not all (female) readers have been through the process of, say,
(1) childbirth,
(2) being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, battered, and in short abused, or other situations which tell you “Danger! Danger!,”
(3) filing and getting a PFA (domestic violence restraining, or etc.) order with kickout, indicating “Danger! Danger!” to all and “STAY AWAY!” to Dad, (and, you can’t buy guns, either, or own them), and then
(4) IMMEDIATELY after these at least actions (applying for a temporary, filing with judge, getting it signed, serving the husband (which then in effect throws him out of the house in some manner), going to court for a hearing to have it made permanent, having it made “permanent” (i.e., facing the ex in that court hearing), and meanwhile attempting to explain this to one’s children in terms they can understand why he can’t live here anymore, then — with a restraining order in effect — typically the NEXT stop is the mediator who will then proceed to act as though there wasn’t really, any serious domestic violence (other than, meetings may be separate) and say, “OK, so long as it’s peaceful communications around the children” and then design some visitation plan any other divorcing couple might have, even the most amicable divorces. Which appears to have happened in this place.
In 1992, Jack Straton, Ph.D. (NOMAS: National Org. of Men Against Sexism) recommended a cooling off period.
So far, no one has figured this out, evidently.
(5) Agreeing, after this, to a custody/visitation exchange plan which basically has a split personality:
Hey, he was so dangerous, you had to get a judge to tell him to stay away, and order no weapons in the home, BUT . . . .. BUT . . . . . it’s OK to give this same, by now pretty distraught or indignant/upset man access to the fruit of his loins, regularly . . . . After all, what about a child’s right to bond with both parents?
This, I say, gives the man, the woman, and the children a mixed message. I have also learned (the hard way) since, the courts ALSO are getting contradictory messages (and funding) about these matters. IS domestic violence a crime, or not a crime?
And so we get cases like the Autenreiths, where Dad didn’t LIKE having that protective order in place, and made this clear with a 9mm. His girlfriend helped him get a gun. Again, his girlfriend.
WHICH BRINGS UP THIS POINT: Telling a man to not own weapons, and get rid of any he does own, doesn’t prevent him — in the least — from grabbing one from a friend who has one (or in this case, a girlfriend buying one for him. I believe this is called a straw purchase, and laws exist to address this, but still, it points out that generally there is a way around the law for those who intend to find one).
(How long were they separated? How hard is it for a man with a plan to get around a piece of paper?)
in order to STOP the cycle of abuse which, without intervention, generally does one thing — escalate, until someone is killed, or more than one,
WHAT ARE THE ODDS? HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THAT MAN? HOW WILL HE RESPOND TO THE PFA?
=======
HERE IS THE RESPONSE REGARDING “PFA’S” TO THIS PARTICULAR ASSAULT, BATTERY, CHILD-KIDNAPPING, THREATS, CAR CHASE AND DOUBLE-HOMICIDE. I HAVE EMPHASIZED ANY AREAS THAT SHOW UNCERTAINTY, LOOPHOLES FOR DANGER:
WOMEN’S RESOURCES OF MONROE COUNTY (PA): PFA’s WORK IN MOST CASES
By Andrew Scott
Pocono Record June 12, 2009
A protection-from-abuse order [“”PFA”] may be just a piece of paper unable to stop the likes of Daniel Autenrieth, the Northampton County man who threatened his wife at gunpoint, kidnapped their son and led police on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal shootout in Tobyhanna.
{To review: PFA, then:
The fact remains that most people with PFAs filed against them comply with those court orders and don’t do what Autenrieth did. So although PFAs aren’t absolutely guaranteed to stop someone who’s unbalanced or really intent on doing harm, people who are being physically abused or feel threatened with physical harm in relationships still should apply for PFAs.
{{Perhaps they should also buy a Lotto ticket?}}
That was the message at a Thursday press conference at Women’s Resources of Monroe County in Delaware Water Gap. Women’s Resources is part of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which provides a network of advocacy, legal, counseling, medical and other support services for domestic violence victims.
. . .
In Pennsylvania, PFA violators can face up to six months in county jail and fines of up to $1,000, depending on the severity of the violation, said Wendy Bentzoni, a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office.
If a woman requests a PFA against her husband and he consents to the order’s terms
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
Of the 450 PFAs granted in Monroe County last year, more than 125 were violated by defendants, Bentzoni said.
{{OK, Let’s look at that. Suppose it was 150. 150 violated out of 450 is 1 out of 3. That means for every 2 that WERE kept (as far as they know — by whether or not a violation was reported or not) 1 was not. How do you like them odds? Your PFA has a 33.33% of being violated (in which case, see above for potential risk/fallout).
In some cases, getting a PFA filed against an abuser can worsen the victim’s situation because the abuser sees it as the victim trying to take power away from the abuser{{WHICH IT IS INCIDENTALLY}}, she said. Desperate to retain that power over the victim, the abuser might become even more dangerous.
“Against someone with no fear of the law or jail, a PFA might not be the best action to take,” Kessler said. “In that case, we explore other options with the victim. The goal is to get the victim out of a vulnerable position.”
If the abuser is the sole breadwinner for the victim and their children, fear of losing the abuser’s financial support also might deter the victim from applying for a PFA, Kessler said.
Well, I know in my case it sure delayed getting one. Often economic abuse can precede physical.
Economic abuse can precedes and enables the physical AND IS PRE-MEDITATED. If the targeted person can’t afford to get away, or see how they could conceivably do so, they will take their chances staying, possibly. What a great choice — homelessness or increasing domestic abuse.
So, it seems to me if we want a less violent world, the most sensible thing would be focus on teaching children and young people how to become economically independent. In a wonderful contradiction of intent, we DON’T! The entire public schools system in the U.S.A., for the most part, consists of teaching children how to be submissive and take orders, leave the thinking up to the experts, who will grade them, and prepare them for this: College, and Jobs. Not, College and BUSINESSES. Or College, and understanding the economic principles that would help them become business owners, investors, cash-stream producers, foundation producers, and independent thinkers. How hypocritical.
And that includes independent thinking about how to survive financially should they choose to have children, or should they not choose to have children, but set up housekeeping (and sleeping) with a partner that might become sick, injured, or — face it – incarcerated. They should not have to go nurse off Dad, or Mom, or Big Brother the Welfare State, in this case. The goal should NOT be lifetime jobs, but lifetime progression towards financial independence. They cannot do this if they aren’t studying people who have accomplished this, and the basic principles of wealth.
We should also teach them not to let any partner or potential partner disarm them economically — whether it be job, or bank account, or credit, or access to transportation etc. That any such action is aggression, and dangerous to their welfare, creating an artificial co-dependence. They should know this going into relationships.
Now right there, we have a SERIOUS problems. Many world religions don’t accept this, and are not likely to.
Well, maybe they should, in the US, then lose their tax-exempt status. Believe me, I’ve thought of it. Because if they are contributing to the climate of “It’s OK to dominate a woman by any means (or weapon) that comes to hand, because it makes you more of a man,” then they should have to fork over the taxes that society might need to take care of the resulting mess.
And I’ll tell you another “secret” (not a real secret) — one I’ve been thinking about more recently. The majority of these institutions are in a co-dependent and domination relationship within their own ranks. If they didn’t dominate and under-educate them on their own sacred scripts (men and women alike), in the US, at least, many people would not be so dependent on spiritual, social, and emotional nourishment on the weekends and maybe ONE weekday. But that is another post, and probably, blog.
We ought to teach, besides, reading math writing, sport and the arts (to put it roughly) the PROCESSES and VALUES OF:
Self-sufficiency, Self-defense, and self-discipline, to the point of in-depth excellence and mastery in one primary area. With that I believe will come sufficient self-esteem not to enter into too many co-dependent relationships.
I recommend reading John Taylor Gatto’s short book called Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, in which he says, plainly, that the seven lessons he, as a teacher (and at the time NY State Teacher of the Year” actually is teaching is not “relevance” and “interrelationship” of subjects, but the exact opposite. Specifically, in order from the chapter: “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher,” they are:
The next chapter is called the “psychopathic school” after which he details his efforts of getting a little girl who read beautifully out of a class of bad readers. The girl (reading aloud beautifully) tells him how the administration had explained to her mother that she was, in reality, a “bad reader who had fantasies of being a better reader than she was.” Then, the author relates how the principal tried the same thing on him: how was he, a substitute to know whether or not this child could read.
MY EXPERIENCE: This actually is at the heart of the educational AND the family law system of “experts.” My “sin” was homeschooling the children, and having fantasies (as do many single mothers leaving abuse) that we could make a sound decision on behalf of our sons and daughter, after we’d made just about the soundest one around — LEAVING the situation!
Consider this:
There is more, but as I review those 7 lessons above, I can’t help thinking about the uncommon similarities between abuse — even it’s definitions — and the family law system, as well as the concept of using another abusive system to handle abuse by one person towards another in the presence of children.
Is ALL conflict bad? No, conflict involving true self-defense, or boundary violations.
Is marriage, or an “intimate partner relationship,” a person as property contract? A relationship as property contract? I believe the law calls it a FIDUCIARY relationship. As such, no one has a right to commit what in other context would be a crime, to protect loss of contact with this former sexual partner, parent of one’s children, children, or the breakdown of a relationship.
WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT OF PFAs and RESTRAINING ORDERS, the enforcement should be thorough, immediate, clear, and strong. The dialogue above illustrates why, in practice, it ain’t. SO the conflicts go on, and escalate.
I have taught lots of children (and adults) in lots of venues and classrooms, and non-class situations. There are always rules ,and in-progress negotiation about common standards, there is always a dynamic flexibility within the group, there is the matter of consensus and critical mass.
The superb choir that got me going into music was about 40 in number, and we stood in mixed quartets, holding our own parts, produced records, soloists, and in general moved mountains and kicked butt musically. It was powerful stuff. We rehearsed almost daily and worked to pay for some of our own needs (including uniforms, painting the room, and going to conferences). We associated after school (and sometimes before) and in other venues than school; we ate, played, and attended concerts together.
Since then, I have sung in (and sometimes directed) choirs numbering from approximately 12 up to over 100. The ideal size (and one of the best choirs I was in) was about 18, or very maximum 20, if they were professionals and unified. I have had a little choir of only 11 do amazing things, because it was small enough to be responsive.
I have always thought it odd that the top ensembles are generally smaller than a typical public school classroom, and many of them not much larger than a large family, with a cousin or two. It brings out the best when there is a unified goal that is reasonable (but still stretching limits) to the people involved. The best choirs also were VOLUNTARY, not compulsory. They chose challenging music (to keep the participants growing) but always taking into account that the audience might not feel so esoteric in general. They mixed and matched, but they HAD to set a fairly high standard technically and musically – or in portrayal.
How does this relate to the Wife who Fought Back?
The system they were ensared in was too large, and is ruling and prognosticating by “the odds.” MOST people (translation: men) do not violate the PFAs, after all, just over 125 out of 450 did in this particular area. Therefore, the women should keep on coming, because what else could they do? It MIGHT not result in this, after all, NOT ALL men do what Mr. Autenreith did.
And we have this growing crisis of “fatherlessness”? That’s a fatherless family, and it just made a peace officer’s kids fatherless, too. I wonder what kind of father the nine-year old will make, should he become one.
I think the doctrine is becoming a little self-defeating, if not downright dangerous. I mean, this is all about the children, right? It’s all because children in single-parent families are at risk.
Well, yeah, with some vigilantes running around the place . . . . . However, if she’d been armed and determined…
I think we (Responsible Citizens) need to take a serious look at the Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher and ask, is this what we are willing to be taught, as adults, by our elected officials? I mean, the same values ARE shared, it is the “Hidden Currriculum” overall, I’d say. And it’s downright un-American, including “parenting classes.” The government already had a shot at the majority of the children in this country, through the public school system. If it were my kids, and the teachers failed, I’d go find me a new teacher and system.
OH, I FORGOT TO MENTION — I DID. AND MY CHILDREN WERE STOLEN ON AN OVERNIGHT VISITATION (UNSUPERVISED) PRECISELY BECAUSE I DID. AND PUT BACK IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THEIR MAMA HAD ALREADY FIGURED OUT THAT THE 7 LESSONS WERE BOGUS.
This is a system that brooks no competitors. It allows some, but scoops up any stragglers, and family law is a great place to find them, and weaken them for the snatch.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
July 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM
Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, compulsory schooling, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, History of Family Court, Lethality Indicators - in News, public education, Split Personality Court Orders, Vocabulary Lessons, When Police Are Shot, When Police Shoot / Shoot Back
Tagged with 2nd Amendment, California NOW, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, Education, family law, Intimate partner violence, John Taylor Gatto, men's rights, murder-suicides, obfuscation, parental kidnapping, Self-Defense from DV, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., women's rights