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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘IPV

A Toxic Mixture – Survival Instinct diluted by Submission to Custody Orders (UK/Australia)

with one comment

Cassandra Hasonovic...convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.          

Cassandra Hasonovic…convinced she was going to die at the hands of her husband.




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:

What Policy Makers are Saying

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:

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN)

“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.  



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).

Posted by Janet Langjahr. Filed under Domestic Violence & AbuseChild Custody,Hague Convention Kidnapping International Child Custody.
  • 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.)

Read more in this Brisbane [Australia] Times article: Young mother fled to Sydney to save her life.


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.”


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.


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”.



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.

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? 

Christine Rosen

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.


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.





(Dis)Order in the Courts — get a perspective!

with one comment


Actually, I’m not totally sure what went down with The Hon.Judge Henriod, (Utah), in his jailing a woman for texting in court. She did 2 days of 30 assigned, with the rest hovering.  Was it about Order in the Court?  Was it about her attempting to help her ex hide assets, and so protecting the case?  It APPEARS to include some violations of due process.  

But this is as good an excuse as any to note that “Disorder in the Courts” (2002), while not as old as the VAWA act, which I HOPE your Senator supports full funding for this time round, is still relevant.


Humor me, here are the lead-ins: 

(1)  Texting and Driving — Crash & Jail


There are laws against texting and driving for good reasons:  the distraction can be fatal to others.  When it does, jail seems appropriate.


“Texting death crash woman” jailed

{{I’ve been through family court, and one gets called names in there frequently.  Can you imagine writing the by-line for this item:  “texting death crash woman?”  What a handle, what a claim to fame.}}

A motorist who sent and received more than 20 text messages before she crashed into another car killing its driver has been jailed for 21 months.

Philippa Curtis, 21, from Suffolk, was texting before she hit the back of a stationary car at 70mph on the A40 near Wheatley in Oxfordshire.

Victoria McBryde from Northamptonshire, who was dealing with a burst tyre, was killed in the crash in November 2007.

Curtis, of Bury St Edmunds, was also given a three-year driving ban.

Judge Julian Hall said it had been “folly and madness” to use a phone while driving and it had been “disastrous” for Curtis, Ms McBryde and her family.

‘Various calls’

Curtis, who was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving in December, had told Oxford Crown Court she felt there were times when using a phone while driving was acceptable...


~ ~ ~ ~ ~


(2)  Texting in court – Citation and jail


Now, on reading the articles, I am not fully of one opinion or the other.  It raises a few issues…  If I wanted to lambast judicial irresponsibility, this judge might not be the textbook case or poster boy, there are worse for sure.  Also, some said this woman was texting AFTER the hearing….

Woman jailed for texting is released

TOOELE — A young mother who was sentenced to 30 days in jail for text messaging inside a courtroom — sparking an uproar that reached national media outlets — was released Wednesday after two days behind bars.

However, the judge who imposed the sentence for contempt of court defended his actions Wednesday and said he believed the woman was helping her husband hide assets in a complicated debt collection case before creditors could claim them.

I have an affidavit from a woman who was sitting behind her who heard her and her mother-in-law talk about hiding assets,” 3rd District Judge Stephen Henriod said Wednesday.

Henriod had found Susan Henwood in contempt of court for text messaging her husband, Josh, during an earlier court hearing in which the judge believed the woman was tipping her husband off about collection measures for debts. Josh Henwood had said he was sick and could not attend the court hearing.

At issue is a legal battle involving a plaintiff, Bob Wisdom, who is seeking financial compensation from Josh Henwood. Wisdom’s attorney, Gary Buhler, said all his client wants to do is get paid and make the case go away.

Buhler decried media attention that focused on Susan Henwood’s youth and four young children, which he suggested painted her as a victim, while ignoring efforts that he said have been made to conceal or transfer ownership of a long list of assets that should be used to pay off debts.

The witness who sat by Susan Henwood said in her affidavit that she observed Henwood continuously texting someone during the hearing and remarking to an older female seated nearby that “Buhler is not getting that” and “we will just move it, they are not getting it.

Other quotes on this case:


But Susan Henwood’s attorney, Alan Stewart, said she has no experience with courts and was simply reporting what was happening to her ill husband using a method she thought would be the least disruptive in the courtroom. Stewart also noted that Susan Henwood is not a party to the debt collection case.

“You’re using his wife as collateral,” Stewart told the judge. “You’re saying, ‘We’ll take your wife as hostage.’ A judgment debtor has rights, too.”

Hilder said individuals can be held in contempt if they willfully defy a court order, or if they assist someone else to defy a court order. Judges also are charged with maintaining order in the court, which does not mean simply the physical environment.


And from worldnet daily, a different viewpoint of the arrest process:

Judge reviews case of texting courtroom spectator
Woman freed although contempt ‘conviction’ remains

Posted: April 30, 2009
12:30 am Eastern





By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

It was at some point subsequent to the hearings on her husband’s case a woman notified the judge there had been text messages sent.

Susan Henwood said she never would knowingly violate the law but was startled when she was cited. Then when she went to court Monday on the contempt citation, she said she was refused permission to testify on her own behalf.  


Susan and Josh Henwood


The complainant, instead, was allowed to testify unchallenged that Susan Henwood had been texting more or less constantly through the hearing, which apparently had gone unnoticed by the judge, the lawyers and the bailiffs at the time.  {{alert:  Hearsay??  Violation of due process, much??}}

Then the judge announced the 30-day jail sentence for her actions.  {A transcript of this matter would settle what happened}

She thanked the news agencies that reported on her predicament and that of her husband, left at home with four children under the age of 10.

. . .Just a quick refresher (and I am no lawyer):

14th Amendment:

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

“Josh Henwood’s stepfather and Susan’s father-in-law, Dennis Jackson, reported there were no notices or warnings posted about the use of texting, a statement contradicted by the clerk’s office spokeswoman, who told WND that visitors to court were told of the judge’s ban on text messages. However, when asked how the warning was delivered, by sign or verbal statement, she said, “I have no idea.”

Conversely, in another case, Henriod gave a former teacher probation for having sex nearly 50 times with a 16-year-old boy.

“What is of primary importance to me is that [the boy] is doing well,” the judge ruled.” 


(3) Sex and School  — Probation Only

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (It was felt that the woman did not fit the profile of a pedophile.  Interesting, someone else said that about the Huckaby case in Tracy, California also — but that has a gag order, now that she’s on death row for “special circumstances.”)  (“equal” protection under the law?)

It appears to me that at least WNDaily is following up on this, and that possibly the Judge had some cause for concern, HOWEVER, before jailing, a person should be allowed to testify.  I will not pronounce on all this (hearsay).

By the way, the “teacher” above was a woman (hover cursor over link for short comment on the story)

Another Perspective on No Child Left Behind?

{{I know, I’m kind of merciless on the NCLB theme.  Sorry, but I think the mentality that drives that thinking was related to why I lost my kids.  Ignore the DV, target the oddball parent who doesn’t support the federal almost-monopoly (give it time….) on “education.”  ALSO, that mentality and dialogue (dare you to find it on Whitehouse.gov….) ignores cases like this: }

Former Utah Teacher Gets Probation For Student Sex

Written by: Doug G. Ware 
Email: dware@kutv2.com 
Last Update: 10/19/2007 12:57 pm

SALT LAKE CITY – A former Utah high school teacher avoided jail time on Friday, instead being sentenced to serve three years of probation for having sex nearly 50 times with a 16-year-old boy.

Christy Anne Brown, 33, had pleaded guilty to having sex with one of her students while she was an English teacher at Cyprus High School in Magna.  But despite a recommendation for some jail time by Adult Probation and Parole officials, the judge decided that a probationary term was enough…(the boy’s parents didn’t want her jailed, particularly, either, it goes on to say…)

(What IS it about Utah, eh??)

(Maybe this is a commentary that we ought to go back to attempting to have young people become reasonably morally, character-wise, and behavior-wise a little more mature by the time the hormones and this drive start pumping through them. . . But again, this is a family court blog, not a  schools blog, I will restrain myself here). 


(4) Due Process, DOJ and the U.S., holding tanks:

(according to Glen Greenwald — and all I did was search “habeas corpus,” which thought was provoked by the Henwood case, above….):

The Obama DOJ is now squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions.  Leave aside for the moment the issue of whether you believe that the U.S. Government should have the right to abduct people anywhere in the world, ship them to faraway prisons and hold them there indefinitely without charges or any rights at all.  The Bush DOJ — and now the Obama DOJ — maintain the President does and should have that right, and that’s an issue that has been extensively debated.  It was, after all, one of the centerpieces of the Bush regime of radicalism, lawlessness and extremism.

Can I argue this case coherently, and have I been following loss of habeas corpus in these matters?  Not really — I’ve been much more concerned much closer to home — in re:  men, women, children, and the family law courts.  My daughters’ habeas corpus was violated — they were falsely imprisoned for a month, and no enforcement of any penal code against this.  As minors, the purpose of my prior attempt to get all parties in involved (and there were far more PEOPLE involved in this, both in my family and throught the courts, than literal “parties” in the actions at hand.  Only TWO parties were in the action at hand, involving custody in a divorce and domestic violence dynamic.  Those two parties were the parents of the children.).  Therefore, to my pea-sized brain, if I were to put some ORDER into my personal life — including work life, associations, weekly schedule, and what not — the most sensible way would to insist that the court ORDERS be enforced, consistently (perhaps it was the teacher in me that wanted this order), so that something profitable and practical could actually get accomplished in our lives.  In my case, that entailed making a living (despite repeated interruptions to that process) and raising children, which if you’ve done this, you understand has certain requirements attached, and takes both time, energy, and also money (food, housing, clothes, transportation, what not).

Which brings me to:


(5) DIS-order in the Courts

The title I sought was a publication by CANOW which addresses the topics I, and many on the blogroll, have been.  It is now such a commonplace google term, that we get hits such as this:





Jim Kouri, CPP October 13, 2005 NewsWithViews.com

New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stephen W. Thompson, who traveled to Russia to have sex with a teenage boy, was convicted by a federal jury last week on a charge of sexual exploitation of children. The judge also produced a videotape of sex with a minor and then transported that videotape back to the United States. Judge Thompson is associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group which promotes sexual relations between adult men and children. NAMBLA is currently represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

After merely 10 hours of deliberations, the jury convicted Judge Thompson, 59, of one count of traveling in interstate and foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in sexual conduct with a minor for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of the sexual conduct. The jury found the defendant not guilty only by reason of insanity on count two, charging possession of child pornography.


This one got caught.  Finally.  Kind of undermines confidence in the judiciary, eh?  SUPERIOR court judge?  

When I taught music, it was a commitment/ a round the clock type of thinking.  I thought about it when not actually teaching or performing, although it is most certainly possible to dwell on other things, do other things, etc.  But for central passions in life, they influence you.  They are not just mindless occupations you pick up for some hours and put down.  I will say this for being a mother as well.  It’s not something a judge can rule that I have to cease being, and I can readily comply with that — internally.  It’s built-in, and a part of me, just like music.  Taking both of them out, that’s a rough call.  

So how about this judge having what clearly was a central passion (others, it’s money, others, I’m sure it’s “justice”)  – – this is going to cloud judgment.  Good thing he got caught.  How many were hurt, en route?  



“CA NOW recognizes that there is a crisis in the family courts.”  http://www.canow.org/ca_now_family_law/








Do you??

(Direct quote from the above page):

We have had hundreds of complaints from mothers whose divorce, custody and child support cases denied them their right to due process and failed to consider the best interests of the child.  CA NOW documented the results of analysis of 300 family law cases in our 2002 Family Court Report

About 40% of custody cases are contested today due to allegations of child abuse, molestation and domestic violence. Tragically, in some of these cases perfectly fit mothers are losing custody of their children to abusers. Pseudoscientific psychological theories are used as legal strategies to switch custody from or deny visitation rights to mothers of abused children.   In cases where fathers contest custody, they win sole or joint custody 40 to 70 percent of the time.


CA NOW published an e-book, Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and their Allies Take on the Family Court System, which is a collection of essays by mothers and their advocates addressing different aspects of the problems with the courts. 

Purchase your download of this e-book online, or contact CA NOW at 916.442.3414 x101.

We have lobbied for legislation that protects mothers and children, and against legislation that is harmful.  We have worked in coalition with other organizations to address the systemic problem of court injustice.  We have demanded accountability from officials, and utilized the media to bring attention to the issue. We have created and gathered resources for mothers, advocates and attorneys that you will find on the side bars of this page. 

CANOW does not provide legal advice, referrals, or funding for litigation. We are taking action for family court reform through political pressure and exposure, legislation, public education and working in coalition with other organizations. We encourage individuals to find others in their communities who can organize grassroots efforts to do court watches and to use public forums (speak outs, protests, media, etc.) to bring attention to the corruption in their courts.


So Does NOW NYS:


(From a link on this page:  This section refers to cronyism, misuse of taxpayer dollars, slowness to prosecute ethical violations, and it SPEAKS to the character of those who make crucial decisions in family’s lives.  Some of these cases (of judicial misconduct) do not just show one form, but multiple forms of horrible behavior, if not felony.  It BOTHERS me that people of this character still populate courts that I know (see post on “therapeutic jurisprudence?”) are an institution seeking to itself teaach and “reform” those on the lower spectrum of the socioeconomic radar, and make no bones about it either, with parenting classes, marriage promotion, batterer intervention programs of dubious efficacy, psychological analyses  as a short-cut to fact-finding, or at times even reading the court record/evidence already on it.  ):

The commission began probing Robin Garson four years ago after she told a grand jury that Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson – her husband’s cousin – confessed to improperly taking $100,000 from his elderly aunt.

Michael Garson, who resigned in December, has been indicted on grand larceny charges for allegedly looting the nearly $1 million fortune his Aunt Sarah Gershenoff saved over 50 years as a legal secretary.

His trial is expected in October.

Robin Garson, Gershenoff’s personal guardian, also testified that the power of attorney Michael and Gerald Garson used to pilfer Gershenoff’s money was forged.

Ethical rules require judges to report criminal acts. She did not at the time.

Gerald Garson is now serving three to 10 years for taking cash, cigars, free drinks and meals from crooked lawyer Paul Siminovsky in exchange for awarding lucrative appointments and fixing cases.

Last April, NOW complained that Robin Garson “exploited her official status to obtain special privilege” during her husband’s trial, passing notes to defense lawyers and entering the courtroom through special doors reserved for officials.

In the Aug. 1 letter, NOW exhorted the commission to pursue Siminovsky’s testimony that Gerald Garson asked him to help Robin Garson’s election campaign as part of their corrupt relationship. {{NOTE:  Simonovsky is testifying because he was caught himself; part of the plea bargain was helping to catch this crooked, divorce-fixing-for-pay judge!!  The crooked relationship in question was the Simonovsky/Gerson one, let alone any Garson to Garson ones}

“Please be transparent in your investigation,” Pappas wrote. “Judicial canons require that judges maintain ethical standards and avoid any appearance of impropriety. Please help us rebuild our public faith and trust in the state judiciary.”


I ask you to visit the link above.  I am going to put most of it as a separate post, and underscore personally:

Here’s SOME of it:

When women come to court because of abuse they need help, not harassment
by Tracy S. Simmons and Mary Frost, edited by Gloria Jacobs, Esq.
Stop Shooting the Messenger:  When women come to court because of abuse they need help, not harassment.
A. Women are often afraid to report incidents of violence and abuse to the police as the law is often not upheld properly at that level.  The consequence of this action at the court level is it often gets treated as either a false allegation when she finally musters up the courage to seek help in court, or she is blamed for not seeking help sooner.  The Court punishes the victim for not handling the matter as they see fit rather than offer support up front. 
B. Guilt, trauma and fear are often misinterpreted as weakness, hysteria, overly emotional, overly protective and out of control.  Women are punished by the courts for being protective and nurturing.  It is often used as the litmus test to their credibility whereas men are not judged by the same standard. 
C. Even when there is evidence of physical abuse, the court uses a psychological smokescreen/syndrome/theory to vilify the protective parent.  The courts responsibility is to uphold the law and not to make decisions on what new theory will be medically acceptable.  That job is for the AMA, who does not accept Parental Alienation Syndrome.  Therefore it must not be acceptable for any court to allow any non medically accepted theories/syndromes and other non medical legal tactics, which only serves to fuel the multi million dollar cottage industry it has created by removing children from their mothers while rewarding the abusive party.  

D. Judges need to meet with the children during an on-going custody suit prior to making any custody decision.  Further, there should be a periodic review.  Children need a venue to be heard that will be safe.  The meeting should be recorded and not sealed.  It should be noted that contrary to the position LG/GAL’s often hold, children are often empowered by the ability to communicate and will do so willing and honestly to a Judge, given the chance. 

I (blogger) wish to qualify this:  children who are coming out from abuse understand, quite often, that there is retaliation for reporting it.  I have had my kids tell me, “no way” were they going to open up to a (mediator) who is to them a stranger.  Conversely, our mediator expressed to me the concept that I had (per se) that the children would much more readily confide in him (note:  they were girls) than me, their mother, or their father.  That’s narcissistic and shows no awareness of either the dynamics of abuse.  This particular mediator already knew of the original restraining order, too.  Trust me, the children read the adults better than the adults read the children, in general.

It needs to be understood that the children’s safety OUTSIDE the courtroom is paramount. 

E. Stop using discriminatory processes against women in court.  We can not choose to isolate and punish one specific group of people and not another for the same thing.  So called Parental Alienation Syndrome, and its many incarnations, is not used in criminal cases nor is it used against the angry neighbor screaming nasty comments over the fence in front of children.  It’s not used where intact families berate each other in front of the kids.  Its ONLY purpose is as a legal tactic used against divorcing woman, to diminish the legal consequences of abusive behavior and up the ante on an already unleveled playing field.   
F. Equal protection under the law….That includes women and children.

Orders of Protection (OP)

A. Grant orders of Protection for the abused NOT for the abuser:  Train judges so they are not issuing retaliatory OP’s to angry abusive husbands who receive an OP against them. 

Grant permanent OP’s where necessary.  We’re not seeing any permanent OP’s, even for the most dangerous offenders. {{IF I’d known such were available…}}

C. Orders of Protection  must be strictly enforced  {{If-Only….}}
D. Battery , assault and sexual abuse is a crime and must be treated as such.  These matters should not only be heard in the family or supreme courts, and women should be informed that criminal court is available to them.    {{When I found it — a few years into the family court process.  When it was driven home — after the child-stealing.}}}  Hold abusers criminally responsible even if there is a custody or divorce matter before the court, criminal matters need to be directed to the correct authority.


I am not, FYI, a member of NOW, and not about to become one.  There are some issues and priorities on which I differ.  But i question why it takes a feminist group to state the issues so clearly?    Thank God for them, and their groundwork!


Feminists have been targeted and namecalled in many sectors, but some forget where they came from to start with, responding to some very real, and very outrageous discrimination and civil rights violation.  I remind the fathers viewing this, that women got the vote ONLY in the last century.  Talk about “equal parenting time” coming up in a decade or so only is simply not credible.  

If you think you have “identity” problems — or are tired of participating in the rat race society that, I would just about bet, women (if they’d been making decisions) — I mean, ordinary women, not foundation owning women — we would have understood to allow for some time with our children, but not having this be our sole identity or talent.  Our corpus callosus” is thicker than yours; we naturally multi-task (perforce, also!), and the place your kids belong, when they are young, is in our arms, primarily, assuming we are decent.  Our hips are generally speaking set to have a kid on them.  We live longer.  We have more body fat in general.  We are designed for this, and a lot of smarts are developed in these categories.  Give us a _____-ing break in express-pumping milk for two-year olds (Toronto judge) so you can get equal time with your former wild oats.  

I’ve been a professional, including teacher, and worked many fields.  I was a Mom, and instantly (late 30s) I was supposed to drop that identity and STOP what i was doing.  But also, bring home the bacon.  But, stay home, barefoot, kind of, and car-less.  Then that didn’t satisfy my confused mate, and towards the end, I was told to work nights, but this didn’t produce any more household cooperation, either in house OR child care.  When I didn’t come up with enough $$ to compensate, I was lectured.  helpers were flown in to lecture me, in front of my daughters, on how to be a wife (this was shortly before I threw him out).  I later did a background check on the particular individual flown in to do this, and it wasn’t pretty.  


I then (mid-40s) took legal action to protect myself (himself, given the context) and our children.  I began repairing and rebuilding, and taking care of the children AND working.  Child support was finally ordered.  I moved for a fresh start, and then the hounding me, advising, lecturing, and attempting to direct me (not how to be a wife, but how to be a single Mom), came in, from another male (who had never raised kids), the same one that wasn’t smart enough to help us get a restraining order, or intervene in the wife-beating.  When I deterred from this enforced “advice,” the punishments resumed – out of court, in the courts, and economically.  I therefore had to restructure HOW to provide for us, and I had only two hands, not three.  Work, household, children was enough.  Fending off intruders and learning legalese was not on the map.

It is now.

I was told, then (approaching 50s here…) I was TOO enmeshed with the kids, then (as child support was withheld and jobs were lost, around the family law system) I was “abandoning them at home alone” (approximate quote), which, apart from being untrue, referred to at most, perhaps 4 hours a week of evening work, in my profession, necessitated by the prior reversal of schedules brought on by the court actions.  This is called knee-jerk co-parenting. It’s impossible, and not good for kids.


Women, sirs, are generally short of time, and frequently finances also.  If you want something done right the first time, perhaps you ought to ask us.  I believe that, generally speaking, we know the value of our time, our $$ (and yours) and I find it hard to believe that a growing being that spent +/- 9 months inside us is just a piece of property, or a meal ticket.  When and where that has happened, whose institutions has that young mother come through to start with?

Individually, and collectively,

we are personally unavailable for scapegoating from here on out.


For a counterbalancing view, see Chesler’s “Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman.”  It happens.


Does IPV, DV talk stop it? 2 Australians Talk about this.

leave a comment »

Actually, “speak” would be more accurate than”talk.”  I have put together two links on this topic.  The 2nd was a referral, the 1st inspired today’s blog to which I, a U.S. Citizen, respond.

“Shining a light into the murky depths of partner violence”

An update on IPV in Australia that came to my attention.  The article is posted in full below.

My next blog is my viewpoint on the migration of ideas from afar, also pointing out that foggy vocabulary can be intentional, or careless, but either way, transmigration of bad ideas “happens.”  


Katie Dunlop [credits below article] talks like me, which is why I posted her whole article here.  With feedback interspersed.  I do not share her optimism in the general public’s will to do something about it, if only they realized what IPV really was, if only the media would get it straight.

BUT She notices the discrepancy between what “IPV” represents, visually, in real-time injuries and deaths.  She is THINKING about the topic with a view to addressing it.  

When “IPV” (yes, that’s a euphemism) becomes “IV” (intravenously injected into your life, either directly or vicariously association) there are only two options:  ACTING or NOT ACTING.  The only way I can guess how people choose NOT ACT is that they have become adept at NOT THINKING, possibly as a survival skill.


When a known batterer not only has, but has been given, one’s children (case in point) (was I “gender-neutral enough” in that statement?) this not thinking about it is somewhat harder.  I have also watched my family figure out (with apparent grace & ease) how to “not think about it.”  They refuse to interact with me (probably because in most contacts, I focus on some version of “where are my daughters?” or “Why are you continuing to support someone who refuses to comply with any court order, give any account of seeking work, let alone who used to smack me around in front of them?“).  These are not pleasant topics for any of us, naturally, and I feel that polite small talk is inappropriate for what are to me heinous (and insulting) crimes. In my family circle, any interaction using the words properly (legally) identifying the situation are tabu.  This was how I determined my particular family of origin’s religion (if its secret, whatever belief sustains this practice of “we won’t talk about it.”), by tabulating the tabus, and taking note of who was sacrificed for what cause.  Like many other religions, the sacrificees include women, elderly, and small children.

Another analogy that came to my mind in this matter, and in these societies, are simple packs of dogs.  Once pecking order** is established, fighting and posturing are reduced.  And face it, laws against domestic violence (IPV), or “hitting [primarily women] in the home” challenged the pecking order (**YES, I realize I have mixed-animal metaphors here; like any good bird dog, I cast about for words that smell right).

I have all along had irreconciliable differences with being hit in my home, and since then, irreconciliable differences with historical revisionism on the same.  It’s also occurred to me that batterer fathers sometimes snatch the kids partly in order just to retain an stray female in the extended circle of influence, which certainly must be gratifying to the ego, I suppose.  She’s not going to run TOO far if he has her kids.

Transcontinental Evolution of Ideas?  

I feel for Ms. Dunlop, a certain innocence in thinking that the process of reporting and assuming that all parties, or the majority of the populace WANTS it to stop.  Perhaps Australia has not yet gone through the shut-up or lose-your-kids process as thoroughly as here in the USA, where it is a war for proprietary use of the words Parent, Family, Child, and Abuse.  I know the process happens, I have been reading.

This post on talking about IPV seems an appropriate time to reference “offourbacks.org,” and its classic “The Grammar of Male Violence.”  Grammatic preference for indefinite concept nouns over actual actors shifts the focus from what happened to the theoretical air.  For example: 

“Domestic dispute costs 5 lives, again.”  

Oh, really?  No it didn’t.  “Domestic dispute” is a word-label, and words do not directly shoot, stab, kill, behead its 3rd wife, or drop a 4 year old (female) child off a bridge to her death.  A dispute doesn’t stalk.  A dispute doesn’t cause one parent to adhere to court orders and another to break them.  Or to issue orders that ignore safety issues.  As hate-talk can incite violence, generic-noun descriptors for awful, graphically bloody or emotionally devastating, cash-flow-freezing, household switching, community-disrupting, taxpayer funds wasting events.  

Generic nouns are the crime scene cleanup crew, on air.  Now, a lot of us use words carelessly, but I DOUBT this is the case with either politicians, major news media [many of which are monopolies in the U.S.], or policymakers — i.e., anyone who has something that must sell.

So, Let’s Get Honest:  Do not get caught with your pants down depersonalizing domestic violence or shielding an offence with the language of mutuality, at least when conversing with me, or within range of my blogs.   

Thank you Ms. Dunlop, for speaking up, though.  

[My comments inside brackets]

“Shining a light into the murky depths of partner violence”

Katie Dunlop

March 20, 2009

DOMESTIC violence, family violence, violence against women, intimate partner violence: we definitely have a range of phrases for the abuse men inflict on women and children within what ought to be relationships of trust and love. [Indeed, that is the real travesty, and very disturbing  and disorienting once it begins] Pity we don’t use them to describe the murders we often see on our front pages — the kids driven into the dam or gassed in the car, the wife or girlfriend stabbed in her kitchen, thrown off a cliff or shot in scrubland.

[Well, I do!  But yes, these terms are much more graphic, vivid and telling.  And this is one reason I posted your article…It tells this.]

Aberrations? Love gone wrong? No. These instances of violence are just the tip of the iceberg. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is everywhere, even if you don’t know it. It seems the subject of IPV is taboo, so those who experience it assume the abuse is their problem [I’m glad you have qualified “it seems.”  Speaking personally, I never assumed I caused “the abuse” (my ex to assault me), but because I lived with it, it became “my” problem.] and not the social and public health issue it really is. We need to start talking about IPV and we need to do it now. [Who, exactly is the “we”?  These people already are.  I just googled “Intimate Partner Violence in Australia” and 38,500 results arose, 3 of them scholarly articles.]  I have long known that relationships could be abusive, but it had never occurred to me that IPV was a common experience for so many Australian women. […”until I – – – – – .”  Thank you for the refreshing honesty.  But I’m curious what pivotal factor got you involved? Was it a friend?  Was it you?  A relative?  A poster somewhere?  A news article.  I would have liked to see the end of that sentence, giving more detail.]

Well, I didn’t know either, til it hit me, in the face.  Not even until after I got out, years almost later, and read, and networked, did I realize the extent of it.  This is because (#1) one facet of abuse is isolation.  Like mold, it grows in the damp & dark privacy. It is NOT unnamed, it is simply called something else:  “obedience,” “submission” “leadership” etc..  A true dilemma exists, because generally speaking homes SHOULD be private, but still this happens.  Another reason (#2) may be that it’s simply not pleasant cocktail conversation.  

Therefore, people who get involved are usually intensely personally involved.  These typically fall into one of about three campaigns:  (1) Like you, stopping IPV, and discussing how to, or (2) Stopping the Discussion of IPV.  This cat is already out of the bag internationally; talk [more like clamor, debate, accusation and cross-accusation] IS happening, the general tactics of group#2, with whom I am unfortunately familiar, are to rename it, or divert the conversations on it into something less offensive and personal [to the abusers}, as in Richard Gardner, high-conflict (vs’ “violent’) and “alternate dispute resolution.”  In MY book, me flat on the floor, or that family just slaughtered is NOT a “dispute,” nor was it before it happened, either.  It was not a dispute, it was a battle.   FYI, (1)s don’t talk with (2)s, they flood each other’s blogs, report about each other’s activities and try to stop each other’s forward progress, as in any good (?) political campaign.  

And the (3)rd camp, alas, is simply opportunistic and recognizes a market niche when it sees one.  The hallmarks of this general camp are pride on “not taking a side” (while doing exactly like that).  Ships of state are indeed large, and although rudder sWILL steer a large ship, that rudder has to be properly placed.  The rudders involve such things as words, money, and political connections / policy.  Policy in the USA has to supposedly be based on something to help “the people” (that’s, for example, us poor suckers than need intervention of some sort from abuse, or homelessness in order to help fund these ships).  As such, studies MUST be done to justify the policies.  Here is where universities (Harvard et al), foundations, and nonprofits producing reports for the same come in.  This is far more complex than saying “IPV is wrong  and costs lives.”].  More than a third of Australian women who have had a boyfriend or husband experience abuse. Most shockingly, IPV is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women aged between 15 and 44.

[Where’s the citation?  Mine is http://www.acestudy.org (to the right on this blog) and many, many other sources confirm.] 

Since I began working with women who have experienced abuse, the reality of IPV has become even starker. Rather than numbers on a page, these are real women with faces and histories. Each of them has a unique but common story: of living with control, fear and abuse, and courageously doing all they can to look after themselves and their children who, as IPV witnesses and victims, also suffer devastating effects.

[The operative word here is “them.”  Please produce their stories — and perhaps pay them something for it as well, once facts are checked.  Now that would indeed help directly, as well as crisis intervention.]

If you are surprised at the extent of IPV, you are not alone. Our awareness of IPV in Australia is very poor. According to a recent Victorian study, many [many who? many women, many men?] think that women abuse their partners as much as men (false: men are the perpetrators 98 per cent of the time) or that IPV is excusable if it represents a “temporary loss of control”, or if the abuser subsequently apologises (false: many IPV incidents, especially murders, are premeditated).

How can we work together to solve a national crisis if a significant portion of the nation is unaware of the crisis in the first place? [According to your report, assuming women are perhaps half the population (DNK about Down Under), approximately 1/6th of them, not including children, already are, by virtue of experiencing it.  However, to name it is one step, to leave it quite another.] In an atmosphere where IPV is shrouded in silence and myth, asking for help involves the risk of being judged or misunderstood.

We must aim for a society in which women can ask for help, secure in the knowledge they will be supported and respected.  [I would like to change this paradigm and  address the absent noun — the men who hit (not all men do).  Why “women”?  ????? [hint — the question marks are a link, also see blogroll…”The Grammar of Male Violence” has been on this “offourbacks.org” site since 2004.  It still applies.  Let’s help keep each other honest.  Get off MY back and, in the discussions, grammatically, REFUSE to use generic nouns, passive verbs and an abundance of references to women followed by the verbs such as “need, are, become,” and other things which are reminiscent of panhandling which is what we get reduced for when we must go too many rounds asking for ‘intervention,” without the full data on who is doing this and with what agenda.]

Why not aim instead for a society in which such men fear and hate to beat a woman, because there are SOCIAL consequences, and/or possibly PHYSICAL, including that he might suddenly find himself on the receiving end of a return defensive volley?  or FINANCIAL — institute and enforce IMMEDIATE financial penalties. upon conviction.**]  [I know a lot of women (I’m 50+) and barely a one of them qualifies as helpless and waiting for it.  The term “women can ask for help” is not specific enough.]  [**This may not be wise, as we have seen that some abusers will die rather than stick around to take the consequences of an escalation in abuse, especially when it goes lethal.] 

Re:  this phrase:

We must aim for a society in which women can ask for help, secure in the knowledge they will be supported and respected.  [This one phrase stood out as the most inappropriate, though it sounds great.  Who is “we”?  Do you not realize that what may appear to be a “we” actually includes a great many individuals in high authority who don’t necessarily agree that violence against women IS unacceptable (in private). ??   These exist in the exact same quarters that didn’t talk about it (when knowing it happened) to start with.  Is there a way in Australia to hold THOSE authorities accountable also?  How about the religious institutions, the courts, the schools, the law enforcement — there are many areas where men who batter women live.  Are they all going to undergo a housecleaning process?  

When I filed my restraining order (it took time and wasn’t easy), yes, temporarily, I was a women receiving respect and help.  There was a lot of repair and rebuilding, principally (but not only) profession!  BUT, when I then proceeded to go about my life peaceably, and at a safe distance– setting boundaries and refusing to take orders (after a point) that weren’t in backed up by a court order, the father of my daughters (who was seeing them weekly, when he chose to, a very generous arrangement granted to him via mediation) other entities came in, advised my husband to bounce the case to family court, and as I speak, I have been unemployed for over a year, and not seen my daughters, basically, for almost three ( glimpse here and there)  Seeing them is held in abeyance by two factors:  1.  STILL, a concern for physical safety, and 2.  STILL, economic duress. This is now close to 20 years of my adult, prime-time life when people are attempting to establish a livelihood that may support them now AND later, if not for children.  I had to stop and duke it out in a court system.  In retrospect, it MIGHT’ve been better to stay and duke it out with him in a different matter .]

Being equipped with the information and ability to talk about IPV also allows us to recognise and respond to the signs of abuse in our own relationships and in those of our friends and family. By transforming our silence — which implicitly accepts and condones IPV — into a loud and clear conversation, [Beautiful phrase, thank you.  One of the most telling books I read was called “Transforming Abuse” and it addressed this silence.] we create a society where IPV has few places to hide. We create a society that expresses zero tolerance for violence against women.

[I am so sorry.  This sounds great, but you LOST me at “create a society.”  No thank you.  I am not in that “we” and I wouldn’t be in the US either.  If you are going to “Create a society,” first you have to define who is the “creator”[and as I’m a Christian you just lost me] and who is the substance being created.  This kind of elitist thinking that started the compulsory school system in the US to counteract, it appears, influxes of Catholics from Europe.  President Obama declares this can be turned around if “we” just try harder and spend more, especially on pre-school education.  I have been looking for a way to tell him (and my local representative) that in my opinion, we need LESS school not MORE .  That any institution that is over 100 years old and has basically drained the populace of time and money, resulting in trailing the industrial nations in results does NOT need to expand.  That children’ don’t learn as well in herds as they do in smaller units, and those smaller units are FAMILIES that have time to network with each other, and so become integrated into their communities.  That, plus internet, plus taking them OUT of more school and INTO more arts, dance, science projects, and so forth, will get the job done IF the job you are actually intent on doing is “Education” (in its true sense), not behavioral modification.  I am an educator, and feel I have a right to say this.  

I believe as to THAT organization, the flaw is inherent in the design, and that intent to recreate a society instead of take care of your own folks, locally, is part of the problem.  

This would be off-topic were there not so many similarities in attitude, execution, and processes between our educational systems and our court systems, primary of which are who runs them and who funds them, as opposed to who they “serve.”

SO, [no offence taken, the terminology is in the air, so if you inhaled some, or envisioned a great society, I understand.]

FYI, I have been tracking these things, and yes, people are in some world views (and circles) viewed as substances to be manipulated, means-tested, and randomly sampled.  In others, they have God-given inalienable rights they will FIGHT for, one of them is NOT to be someone else’s creation, but their own.  If you want to “create” become and artist, architect, or maybe a mother, and please obtain prior permission from the subjects manipulated.]

[Question:  Is this possibly the paradigm such abusive men are also fighting against?  The concept of being formed and fashioned into something not of their choosing?  Or, was this just how they learned it growing up?]

The reality is that the creation of this type of society is within our capacity. [In other words, you’re a progressive who does not believe there are flaws inherent in human nature, for which laws exist and — I say — a Redeemer was needed…I realize this is thin ice publically, but even so, I find that the “our” almost never includes the primary stakeholders — the women leaving abue, the women going through the court system, and beyond that, children who MOST need protection and help and are being sexually abused by their fathers after divorce, AFTER reporting it, too.  Do you want to address the overlap between domestic violence and child molestation in the major media?  Good luck!]  Often the media contribute to the silence on IPV by failing to discuss it constructively or not discussing it at all. Rather than leaving us at an impasse, this points us to a valuable opportunity. Imagine the possibilities for socially responsible reporting that would arise out of a collaborative relationship between IPV experts, survivors and volunteers and journalists.

[The IPV experts ARE the survivors and volunteers.  Some of the survivors and volunteers also journal.  The experts making a nice living off this subscribe to journals I myself cannot afford.  i do get abstracts of many of them from 

The IPV service community should provide journalists with training on IPV issues and support the media’s coverage of IPV incidents. It should offer information about IPV, advice on sensitive and educational reporting, and the opportunity for journalists to personalise each story by drawing on the perspectives of IPV survivors [DO they lack that opportunity?  They’re journalists.  They can ask questions, right?  They have access to Internet, and have likely heard of the term IPV before.  EVERY story has a spin.  The question is, which one?]  . Media collectives of this type would help smash the silence on intimate partner violence by ensuring that, where it is present in the fabric of society, IPV is also present on the pages of our newspapers. This is one small idea, one small step, but one that might make us a bit more aware of IPV and with that, a bit more eager to act on a phenomenon that is destroying the hearts and bodies of so many Australian women and children. No idea is a silver bullet: solutions happen when small ideas act in concert. If we take this idea of IPV media collectives, add some national, ongoing, school-based healthy relationships education and opportunities for adults to engage with the issue of IPV in a constructive and personal way, I have great faith that we will be taking our first steps in a society where IPV is taken out of the hiding place that to date has afforded it protection.

[Again, Ms. Dunlop, thank you for your outreach work in the Eastern DV Crisis Center.  Please LISTEN to the women not only in that crisis center, but also women like the one who designed “Anonymums” and many more.  Think about the family law issues.  I have been been, and my studies repeatedly show that damaging standards and paradigms in the US also exist and are thriving in Canada and also Australia.  Please learn from our mistakes and struggles, and maybe save some bloodshed down under, or simply reduce the trauma.

I will say it again, and I hope loudly enough.  I am NOT part of someone’s great society, or a willing participant in this dream.  I long for the day when I have the wherewithal to tell quite a few re-creators (of my lives and relationships) to take a hike, get a life, get real, and let me get back (with what’s left of my years, strength, stamina and nerve) to my own.  Perhaps after the crisis centers, you can speak with women a decade or two out of domestic violence and incorporate their wisdom into your ideas.  We are SICK, I believe, of being someone else’s market niche, professional career, and while I’m at it, publishing credentials.]

[Thank you for noting IPV, doing something about it, and envisioning a zero tolerance for Domestic violence.  I was just wondering where were the people who thought about self-defense for women as part of basic marriage counseling, or perhaps catching them further upstream — financial independence as a part and parcel of marriage.  Those TWO factors — can’t protect herself, and can’t support herself while fleeing the guy — are crucial.  I told people who didn’t want me to live separate from this man to Go Take  a Hike, and I went back to my business. They ignored me, went behind my back, and through (as it happens) the child support system in this country, helped him cut back on his support before I was in one place.  It was a multi-faceted attack on independence.  Right now, my mother (elderly & frail) is also involved, unwillingly, but she has no choice. I still don’t have (yet) a safe choice for her when i do not myself have this.  Many, many times, I have looked back on my marriage and wondered if I’d been stronger earlier, or taught as a woman that’ it’s OK and feminine to fight back; If I had NOT sought help from outside the home (at all), but made damn sure that there would not be a second assault.  

Instead, female-like, Christian-like, I went to someone in authority — consistently, for years — and asked for intervention.  This did not come, and about 7-8 years later, my teeth were knocked loose in an assault, by which time I’d stopped reporting and was focusing on exiting.   What DID help me out and survive was simply reading stories of other women who did and HOW they did.]

Katie Dunlop is an outreach worker with the Eastern Domestic Violence Crisis Service and is a contributing author of The Future by Us, published this week by Hardie Grant. If you are experiencing abuse, the Women’s Domestic Violence Crisis Service is a 24 hour/7 days a week telephone service providing support, information and accommodation. Call 9373 0123, or Country toll free 1800 015 188

NEXT TOPIC:  When there are kids:


The issue of IPV naturally entails the obvious fact that “intimacy” (a.k.a. sex) sometimes leads to pregnancy sometimes leads to children.  The links below, also from Australia, addresses the “mums” aspect of trying to LEAVE domestic violence, or worse (worse?), protect one’s children from it, or from (worse, although it overlaps), child sexual abuse.  Darn, another “tabu.”  Well, folks . . . . . 

On Anonymums links page, See “Leave them alone:  she is protecting her children.”

In the U.S. this can be cause for imprisonment.  Committing the acts which occasioned her to seek protection may or may NOT be cause for imprisonment. Again, enforcement is a gendered issue when it comes to child-stealing. If you don’t believe me, post a comment, and I’ll respond.  Here’s the “background” to the article.  The link (above) has a link to more background

Background (Preamble):
Swedish mother Ann-Louise Valette and her two sons Frank Oliver Valette, 11, and Andre Nicholas Valette, 9 have been plastered all over the newspapers as being “abducted”. A revealing article states that she was concerned about child sexual abuse that had not been substantiated.                

Anyone who has gone through the courts and worked in this area knows that most cases of child sexual abuse are underreported and the chances of getting help to substantiate it in the middle of a family court battle are minimal – The police won’t even go near it and child protection passes the buck saying that its family courts area. 

Lawyers filter these things because they know legal aid finds protecting children “expensive”. The facts are:

False Allegations of child abuse in the family court are as low as 5%

For years the Family Court has been systematically ignoring substantiated child abuse and domestic violence.

Family Violence and Child Sexual abuse are underreported.

Australia is one of the highest rate male dominated police force in the world. Since the “No Fault divorce”, it is mainly mothers who are running with their children, Since the shared parenting bill, homicides increased by 14% in 2006.


There is no domestic violence homicide review team in Australia. Most mothers run with their children because of family violence and child abuse.















In the US, there are, and have been for years.  Lethality indicators have been studied.  Laws have been passed.  Rebuttable presumptions against custodies going to the abuser exist in many states.  Custody still goes to abusers, and new categories of life-crime have been created to enable this:  Not wanting to hang out with your ex-abuser, and not being able to co-parent with him.  
This has nothing to do with the parenting and a lot more to do with bottom lines — $$ lines — of people in the court systems.  I created this blog in part to help expose and address (to the general public, and hopefully some Moms who are still naive like I was) by what means you became an object of study in a random sampling about how to make more marriages, good bad or ugly, a single mother is a threat to the value system (moreso than to her children, I believe).  By “you” I mean young fathers, older fathers, young mothers, older mothers, and kids.  
90% of the time, what it’s “about” is not what it’s really “about.”  It was hard for me to shift my values, or at least understanding, because I highly value being about what I SAY I’m about — both professionally, as a person, and as a mother.  It’s not about your court case.  It’s about policies.  
And it’s about money.  


USA’s bad policies go worldwide FAST. Those who can fly abroad to run conferences on how to run families (back to the abusers they left, which can be into the ground, either literally or financially). Women attempting to keep a low profile (not antagonize abuser), or flee violence, are not present en masse in these conferences: Either we are not asked, we can’t afford to attend, or they are membership-only, closed-corporation processes (see “AFCC” for one) and intended NOT to have our input.

Wait a minute! “IPV,” “DV”– Social Scourges or Euphemism and Oxymoron?

leave a comment »

Vocabulary Analogies.

I was tempted to call this “in which I discuss the dissemination of obfuscation,” but it’s not really a laughing matter when people are dying over this, weekly, and around the globe.

I am not of the belief that utopia is possible, at least as enforced by any state agency, government, religion, NGO, or anyone else.  When I hear someone wanting to “help” me, at least someone I don’t know and didn’t personally solicit to do so, I try to head for the hills, and highly recommend this.

Unfortunately, with the advent of the Internet, the Language Police lurking around every corner, and our children being CAUGHT, practically, as they exit the womb by someone funded by someone fanatically suspicious of the mother/child relationship (i refer NOT to the practitioners — thank you, mine were born in a hospital — but to the premises behind some of the policies) — there are fewer and fewer hills left.

This includes hills and pockets of time as well, and that is almost nowhere as true as when a woman, with children, tries to exit a man, who has threatened and hit her, with institutional intervention.  

Just as, thanks to the increasing attempts to criminalize “homeschooling” (another misnomer) in my home state, there is less and less time available to the average citizen — whether parent, teacher, commuter employee, or child, unless it is built into one’s profession.    I have some perspective (age, profession, and parenting) from which to say this, but have not as yet decided to share identifying go public in more blatant identifying detail  (see topic, leaving domestic violence…)

So in general, people do lack either time, or motivation, to address IPV and DV unless we are typically involved by personal association.  It is, after all, less pleasant than stopping to smell the roses; in fact it’s profoundly disturbing.  

But I say, how about time to stop and smell the vocabulary?  Those most inclined to do this are those who have tasted its fruit, where that fruit is sometimes stale and putrid.  Maybe you could from the safety of your home (I’m not asking for money, or for you to call your legislator, am I?) might stop a moment to consider.

Some of these terms have become SO proprietary they are almost meaningless, although I am VERY grateful for the women and men before me who passed laws to criminalize “IPV” and “DV” and I am VERY very grateful that I had at least one opportunity to evict someone who had battered me in the classic definition of the word and was engaging in a pattern of what is called “domestic violence.”

IPV for the uninitiated is a version of “Intimate Partner Violence,” itself probably a linguistic migration from “DV” (Domestic Violence).  Trust me, there is nothing domesticated about violence, it is per se a refusal to be domesticated.  Nor does it only occur domestically (in the home).  It’s a lucky person that can domesticate a few cats, but who can “domesticate” a person that has taken to hands (or other handy implements) to intentionally: tame the shrew, or beat/threaten/punish the woman (oops, “partner”) in the process of teaching gender differences DO rule, and some divides were ordained by God (yeah, right) and not cross-able.  Note in that concept the transference of protesting hitting one’s (in this example) opposite-sex partner (with whom one has engaged in sex) to illustrate the girls do NOT rule, Boys do.  [This is a particularly religious thing, though not limited to it].

Intimate PARTNER?  Now that I think of it, when the relationship is He hits Her (or He hits Him, She hits Her, or She hits Him for the politically more correct than I am feeling today), it is the precise opposite of what the word “partner” means.  I mean, there’s a “partners in crime,” a humorous phrase used sometimes of a rapscallionly escapade that’s not really a crime.   I was mugged twice myself –outside the home.  I didn’t go back and “partner” with the guy who made off with my purse.  

Why then would I attempt to with the guy who made off with my children?  Can we not depart in peace, or get some assistance in this process, eh?

More to the point, why would some agencies in Washington, D.C. and (yes, I looked) Colorado, as tested in a variety of states, usually including California, determine that my doing so would be good for the overall populace?  It really goes against nature and common sense.  WHO was it that didn’t respect boundaries to start with, generating what’s called some form of separation?

Therefore I say, Intimate Partner Violence has GOT to be some kind of triple oxymoron non-think that has just wormed its way into our vocabulary, nonprofit [and governmental] organizations to distinguish it from stranger violence.  

Well, folks, IPV is far WORSE than stranger violence.  Stranger violence, if you AND yours survive it, and are not maimed, is not statistically likely to reoccur and escalate to death.   Stranger violence has the concept of accidence in it, you could MAYBE have avoided it, or it was unavoidably bad luck.  Not so with “IPV,” which when magnified through the institutions designed to (but in general failing to) put a stop to it, is closer to a total blood transfusion, and entails a personal, specific, and persistent hostility and will to hurt from a specific individual specifically against another.  

Anyway, words don’t just drop down from the sky.  Many of the times (at least in the U.S.) they are federally mandated.  Like “Access Visitation” — but that’s another topic for another time.    

Once these words have been mandated, and promoted, from “on high” (that’s called, government of the people, by the people, and for the people — or it seems I once heard it was….) they are then circulating through the lower, plebian realms — courts, schools, police stations, nonprofit agencies, and so forth.  And the attendant associations to these agencies and institutions, FEW of which YOU are going to be involved with unless you (a) work there, or (b) deal with someone who does, or (c) whose life has led through their doors, or (d) someone dependent on you, or vice versa, as a friend or relative, has also.  

My sarcasm here is not really out of place.  I have been tracing funding of dysfunctional organizations, with some guidance (NAFCJ.net being among but not the only source) of WHY when I knock on a door and sit down in an office, the agency-speak is simply in my native tongue, but with an entirely different set of rules.  The general rule I apply anymore is that whatever it says on the door, the OPPOSITE is not just the effect, but the intended effect and implicit in the design.  

Gentle readers should also understand re: blogger/survivors — there were years of being told NOT to talk (and still are) under our belt.  So, part of blogging is just telling it.  One woman’s simple attempt to summarize the problem (see “Australians Talk,” previous blog and links) spoke to me, so I slapped it up here, thinking it would suffice for a post.  

No, darn it, I had to actually think about it.  I thought about how insane/inane it is to sterilize these words, as we do, face it.  If even God had to do quite a bit of show and tell (miracles, sending a Son, etc.) (was that a Freudian or Theological slip — mine is showing, I suppose), similarly, those who have actually survived this violence, trauma, and losing someone or something to it, should be setting policy AND vocabulary.  

That’s enough for now.

Intimate, Partner, Violence.

Domestic, Violence.

No wonder we need mental health professionals throughout the fields attendant on these terms.

Can you wrap your mind around that one?  (No wonder it’s a market niche around “family courts” etc…..)

the word “court” certainly applies, in the sense, court someone’s favor, or in the royalty application.  The word family, again, has just about become meaningless when those promoting it as essential to the fabric of our nation (and to a degree, I Do agree, believe it or not). 

I know women who went homeless fleeing abuse.  They had homes and professions after the exit; the stability appeared to threaten the status quo, the basket was turned over and emptied out, and through the same mechanism that has put my stomach hungry some days, blogging where the internet is free, and unable to purchase a simple meal at the same time.

Alternately, these terms rolls off your thinking like water off a duck’s back, how many intimate, wonderful, partnering, dynamic, sensitive moments in life have along with the oil coating also rolled past your door? Some of the best parts of life (not just your body) are sensitive to others around you, and what national policies mean to immediate neighbors.

Let’s properly sort those terms:

“Intimate Partner Violence” and “Domestic Violence.”

Move the words around, and it makes much more sense:

Put “intimate partner” with “domestic” and you have something user-friendly.

Take the two “Violences” and keep them separate, and the antagonism is right there out in the open:

V2 (Violence X Violence).  There’s no place for this in the home.

Again, just as a reminder, the definitions include a pattern of oppression.  No, I don’t mean, being asked to wash the floors if you’re awoman.  I mean being TOLD to wash the floors NOW, or else, and the “else” you already  know, because it happened before, and hurt.  Or destroyed.  Or violated one of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

March 25, 2009 at 5:15 am

%d bloggers like this: