Posts Tagged ‘mediation’
“Why does he DO that?” A walk on the wild side…. [with some 2013 updates]
I am speaking as an owner and long-time appreciator of the book. “Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry & Controlling Men.”.. which showed up like a savior, emotionally, right as my case plummeted from stablized position under protection of a restraining order, into the volatile, “mandatory-mediation” arena of Family Court, which reminded me of “Chutes and Ladders”, with more chutes than ladders.
You take one false step (or have your family placed at the top of a chute through being hauled into this venue) and are on a chute.
Kind of like life WITH the abusive guy (or woman) to start with, anyhow, huh? Hmm… Wonder why they function similarly!
(The post on “Family Court Matters a la board-games” is in pre-development stage, meaning, a little gleam in the blogger’s eye still. Paper, Scissors Stone (last post) got me thinking for sure…..)
If you haven’t read Lundy Bancroft’s material AND/OR you are not yourself a victim or being forced to co-parent with a batterer, you’re not fully informed in the domestic violence field, period.
(2013 Update, In Hindsight):
Then again, if we’d all been talking about something besides “batterers” perhaps neither Batterers Intervention Programs nor “domestic violence” would have developed into “fields,” coalitions, or industries.
And the conversation about those fields and how THEY operate is the conversation that no one seems to want to talk about, even as updates to “The Batterer As Parent” have been published and being circulated in various circles.
I mean, think about it (why didn’t we earlier??) There is a crime called “assault and battery” — but by the time someone has become a “batter-er” that means, it’s habitual — which means someone else is experiencing “domestic violence.” How can you domesticate “violence” and what’s domestic about it? (Well, you can tame down its labeling and call it domestic “abuse” — which has been done…
In fact, as it turns out, “BIPs” are actually diversionary programs to criminal prosecution for the beating up on others. Some people figured out, along with programs like, “moral reconation therapy(tm)” and Psychoeducational classes for kids undergoing divorce — that the more programs the merrier. I guess… The money is made upfront in the trainings, yours truly (The United States Government, which is essentially “yours truly” — the taxpayers) set up the policies and the corporations and then runs the population through them every time someone shows up actually needing some realtime social service — or justice — or help.
I can’t explain it too well in a single post, but this conflict was staged and manipulated in order to obtain more and more central control (literally, an economic stranglehold) on most of us through those of us that are willing to sell out for collaboration, sales, and the conference circuit. As sincere or genuine as these individuals may be, I do know they are playing on empathy to increase sales. I do not know whether or not they see the endgame, after their own use has expired in the long-range plan of bankrupting Americans so we are left as a human resource without other options than begging or slavery, at a sheer subsistence level.
Some of us have been their in marriage, we have been there AFTER filing restraining orders, which were intended to protect us (allegedly), but we were NOT there after even a year or two in the family court Archipelago.
Somehow, in this destitute and distressed state, we grasp at straws of empathy and keep referring friends and neighbors to explain our own situation to the same types of information — such as if only someone would JUST UNDERSTAND batterers’ psyches, our kids would be safer, and life would be better.
Anyhow, what follows was from very early in this blog (October 2009) and shows my understanding at that time. Even then, I was questioning the logic of the question.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Golden State $$ Deficits: What doesn’t trickle down from DV Coalitions (to victims), bubbles up instead to supporting “Father Involvement”
We all know our state (California) is bottomed out.
Supposedly.
“June 19 NYT: Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose manly posturing either charms or repels, . . sent an oblong, melon-size sculpture of bull testicles to Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the Democratic-controlled State Senate.
The gift was apparently meant as a barbed joke, symbolizing the Republican governor’s hope that California legislators would display fortitude in deciding how to close a $24 billion budget deficit.
Mr. Schwarzenegger’s press office said the gag was a retort to a lighthearted present that Mr. Steinberg had sent the governor. That gift, a basket of mushrooms, followed Mr. Schwarzenegger’s description of Democratic budget proposals as “hallucinatory.”
I have not been hallucinating and I will display fortitude in reminding us that both government and nonprofits or both of them hand in hand (with foundations), have not opened their books and given an “evidence-based” (versus, walked through our doors-based) account of whether, to what extent, and HOW are they addressing hard social issues (including domestic violence, and the poverty that comes in it train
(NB: poverty does NOT cause abuse; abuse is a CHOICE, and there is no excuse for it. I have been poor in many ways during my years with this person, and I have not stalked, attacked, slapped, pushed, threatened with a weapon, attempted to cut off his relationship with his family (as he has — and has succeeded — with mine, including my own daughters — or any of those.).
Instead, they have run us around the block 15 times promising “help” and selling grandiose intentions until, wisely observing we’re exhausted, no evidence of help is even on the horizon yet and we just PAID someone with our time in expectation, or false hope.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-awareness — we just learned we’re gullible.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-sufficiency — we just learned how important free time and a purpose for it are.
And the entire structure of the U.S. economy is that those who, for one reason or another, DO have time to spare will (generally speaking) spend it on either themselves, or some noble cause to inflict on those who do NOT have time to spare. Though I’m pretty well educated, it took me the school of hard knocks knocking on nonprofit (and government agency) doors for simple, basic HELP, to figure out WHY this problem of making excuses for abuse.
For those of you who do refer to scripture (Bible), here’s the relevant parallel. A woman went to the doctors, and having spent all, was still bleeding, and as a result (in her society) considered in a continual state of “uncleanness,” she was an outcast socially.
(Mark 5):
25 And a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to (with DV) these people not only bleeding, they are hemorrhaging jobs and relationships, and sometimes HOPE, as well. Whether or not you believe the situation or the miracles, this IS how it feels not to be able to get free from domestic violence (it’s hard, with children involved; it’s near-impossible, once one sets foot in family law arena, which typically doesn’t like to ACKNOWLEDGE that abuse is a choice, domestic violence is dangerous to those kids, but instead holds conference about how to put them back with their abusers — 100%, or at a minimum weekly. And bill the public (or the nonbattering parent) for this. Don’t believe me? read my blog! Access Visitation Grants funding.
What that woman needed was NOT another coalition of doctors discussing blood flow, she needed it STOPPED while she had some strength left, and as the account says, she already had no money left! . . . . . . I have actually been in this situation, literally as well as figuratively, during a highly stressful time in my life (in fact, it was actually that season I was in a full-blown custody suit, as well as possibly that “season” of my life). I needed to take a long, long car-drive and was not going to be able to do so in this condition — or at least I’m sure the driver wouldn’t have approved the multiple stops. You know what? The solution was SIMPLE — an herb costing about $11.00 called “shepherd’s purse.” For a little 2-oz. bottle. I was able to get it, and make the trip. If I’d actually HAD health insurance coverage at the time, I’m sure I’d have been put through an appointment, and on a prescription. Butt I didn’t, so a simpler way had to be found.
I believe if we as a society really WANTED domestic violence to stop as much as we wanted not to change our ways (or institutions — can anyone say “faith institutions” ??) or beliefs that someone else is handling this, when they aren’t, or give up our mythic continual trust in Big Brother to come and rescue us — it would be stopped. I’m SURE of it. How hard is it to really shun an abuser, the way a person reporting it gets shunned and outcast and stripped of her funds, and eventually (and partly because of this) children? – – but not of the abuser’s ongoing access to her.
SERIOUSLY NOW, we are hearing daily on the news how broke we are. Take for example, BUSES have been cut back one day a week, and routes re-routed, and shortened. Things and tempers are tight at times.
Across the nation this week, funding for domestic violence programs is being cut, incoming emails proclaim:
In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “terminated” the budget for domestic violence programs. Although cuts were anticipated, the elimination of all programs was not. Learn more.
The City Council in Washington, DC voted to cut an already underfunded victim services budget by 10%. Read more.
If your state is facing similar cuts, let us know atpublicpolicy@ncadv.org. We’re here to help!From the “National Coalition on Domestic Violence” website and update:
California News (KFSN) — California’s recently adopted budget has dealt a severe blow to the state’s victims of domestic violence. Governor Schwarzenegger cut 20-point-4 million dollars to 94 shelters and centers statewide. As a result, many centers will have to make drastic cuts to their programs. Some will have to close their shelters altogether.
Executive Director, Rita Smith, attended President Barack Obama’s Town Hall meeting on Fatherhood held on Friday, June 19, 2009. {{IN WHAT CAPACITY? TO ENDORSE THIS, AS IF THE MOVEMENT WAS LACKING ENDORSEMENT? OR TO REPRESENT THE VOICES OF WOMEN WHO COULDN’T BE THERE– BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD, IN A SHELTER, IN HIDING, OR DESTITUTE FROM THIS EXACT TYPE OF FATHERHOOD PROMOTION FROM “ON HIGH” THAT HAS DILUTED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MOVEMENT AND CHANGED ITS CHARACTER ENTIRELY, WHILE KEEPING SIMILAR LABELS ON THE ORGANIZATIONS?)) President Obama discussed the importance of balancing work and family responsibilities, meeting obligations to children and serving as a role model to them, even if one’s own father could not do so. The President also encouraged fathers to break their fathers’ cycles, learn from their mistakes and “rise up where [their] own fathers fell short.” Watch here and read more.
However SOME of us, because we look!, know where some of that money goes. (if not — yet — what’s done with it once it gets there). For example, although social services are going to be cut, judges’ supplemental pay apparent is not going to be. Nor can we sue judges retroactively who took bribes, apparently (Richard Fine is still in jail for confronting THAT, Senate passed a law prohibiting it).
I’m sure our Governor and Legislature will work SOMETHING out that won’t leave them, at least, out in the cold:
Then ONE organization I thought was on the same page (understanding relationship between “family court matters” and “domestic violence” and “feminists v. anti-feminists (a.k.a. “Father’s rights’ promoters) ” and the general funding war, sent out another panicked alert that the Guv (Governor Schwarzenegger, i.e., the social services “terminator”) was cutting funds to domestic violence shelters, and this alert bore the name of some group I’d not run across, although for the past 10 years I sure have been RUNNING (and driving, calling, web-surfing, networking, asking, etc.) for HELP, etc. The name, being “California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.” Then the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” sent out another.
I’d recently turned from tracking HHS funds to finding out what’s up with all these DV Coalitions across the country…
I said, “say, WHO?” and then ran across THIS: I’m not the only person that noticed this ? ? ? ?
Governor Schwarzeneger is right about cutting DV funding
Okay, with all the chaos floating around about how wrong Governor Schwarzenegger is for cutting or vetoing Domestic Violence funding all together I have to say he is right on point. I never thought I would agree, however, I am coming from the victim point of view.
I reached out to get help from dv coalitions, who refused to help me. For what I am about to say isn’t going to sit well with people, but I am sorry, I didn’t get help,
Heather Thompson didn’t get help and was basically battered by her local coalition to stay away and was told if she didn’t they would file a restraining order against her.Yes, that’s right, a restraining order against a victim of domestic violence begging for help.
Maria Phelps, a victim who resides in New York, has been following protocol and filling out forms that are required to receive help and the folks in New York, pull her chain on daily basis. What kind of hoops does one have to jump through to get their needs met from those who claim to help.
Claudia Valenciana, a former Ventura County Sheriffs Deputy was turned away from the Coalition to End FamilyViolence in Oxnard.
Alexis A. Moore was refused help simply because of the profession her abuser was in and she ended up living in her car, is this what the states money is funding? Survivors In Action has started a petition for Domestic Violence Reform, we are calling you out and believe us when we say, this is serious.
Thousands of victims of domestic violence have been refused help. In California alone, there are many, most are afraid to speak up. This what I feel is the threat of Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto, this means the salaries of the big wigs who work at these coalitions are going to be cut. They won’t be able to drive around in their nice cars or buy their fancy clothes to wear to State Capital hearings.
Commentary Cars and clothing don’t bother me. What bothers me, personally, is all the conferencing, policy-making conferences, forgetting that the REAL stakeholders are those whose very lives are most directly at stake, literally. And that among the stakes that these nonprofit participants hold, when those funds come FROM government, the recipients have a duty to actually serve the PUBLIC. Not themselves, their ideas, and their careers. When the nonprofit funding comes from individuals, or foundations, it’s a bit different, BUT, the jobs done SHOULD relate to the title on the funds collected. “Are we done yet?” in some of these issues? And if not, WHY not? (Just to distinguish my point of view from what I’m quoting here).
I understand that Tara Shabbaz of the California Partnership To End Domestic Violence spoke out about what a travesty this would be. I didn’t see anything on their website. Perhaps Tara, your salary is in jeopardy of being cut, are you getting a little worried that you and other executives will be hurting and that you may not be able to pay your rent, make a car payment or a utility payment, well maybe this is a sign that you may have to suffer like the rest of us? I think this is exactly what should happen. While you sit in your cushy office, victims ARE SUFFERING.
WHILE I’m here, there’s a “CFDA” (federal grant program code) called 93.591, and according to this database, the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” got funding in 2008 & 2009. Is this a new code? I DNK:
Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions 2009 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0901CASDVC 2009 SDVC 06/11/2009 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 241,086 2008 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0801CASDVC 2008 SDVC 04/18/2008 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 231,230
AND, ANOTHER SOURCE< RELATED:
Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
Author: Randi Rosen
Domestic violence victims are not getting the help and services they need when reaching out to their local DV coalitions. More and more women are coming forward and expressing their frustrations which needs to be addressed.
Domestic violence coalitions receive federal funding for the victims of domestic violence, so if the victims aren’t getting services they need, where is the money going? This is a personal issue for me. Many years ago, I reached out to the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence in Ventura county. No ever called me back. I shared this with my mother and she couldn’t believe that I was ignored and a victim of domestic violence, she called the coalition herself and received the same response, nothing.
(I presume you called more than once, right? As I see below, obviously. I know how often I called agency after agency– ran up that cell phone bill….NONE of them were prepared to deal with chronic, long-term, family abuse through family court AFTER the restraining order expired, by which time you were supposed to be, I guess just hunky-dory fine…)
In January 2008, Assembly member Fiona Ma introduced AB 1771 Nadga’s Law. Assembly member Ma stated, “California can do more to curb the dangerously high number of domestic violence incidents through prevention.” That meant providing online information about prior convictions and providing potential victims with useful tools to avoid violence or a potentially violent partner, thus reducing the number of domestic violence incidents.
(Here is the blurb on “Nagda’s Law”:
Assemblywoman Ma Announces Groundbreaking Legislation
to Create Online Database of Domestic Violence Offenders
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) and former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer will unveil a landmark bill to create a state-wide database of domestic violence offenders. The legislation, AB 1771-The Domestic Violence Prevention and Right-to Know Act of 2008, would require the Attorney General to develop an online database that would report the name, date of birth, county and date of conviction for individuals convicted of felony domestic violence or multiple counts of misdemeanor domestic violence. The database would keep updated information available for 10 years. It is believed that this would be a first in the nation law and would go into effect on January 1, 2009.
Assemblywoman Ma, who is the Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence, introduced the bill in response to the case of Nadga Schexnayder and her mother who were shot to death in 1995 by Ronnie Earl Seymour, a former boyfriend of Nadga’s who had a 20-year history of violence against women. Hammer secured a life in prison conviction as the lead prosecutor in the case.
WHEN:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
10:00 a.m
Alexis A. Moore, President of Survivors in Action who sp0nsored the bill, stated, “This bill will reduce the numbers of domestic violence incidents by providing prior conviction records on line. Equally important, the bill will be a valuable preventative measure to help potential victims and their family members protect themselves from violence.”
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), California District Attorney Association and Interface California Family Services opposed the bill claiming an infringement on the perpetrator’s privacy. Interface is an organization that is contracted with the court system to provide batterers with anger management classes.
The bill was introduced to protect victims and potential victims of violence and these organizations are worried about the privacy of the perpetrators and their personal information. There is something really wrong with how domestic violence legislation is voted on, especially the very coalitions who claim to protect the victim. The laws that are in place today, are not working and they need to be changed, no longer are the victims willing to be the status quo.
Now, the coalitions want to spend a great deal of money to change Domestic Violence Awareness month which is October and shared with Breast Cancer Awareness, to another month. The intent is to separate the two different causes so Domestic Violence gets all the attention. What for? Why spend all that money on advertising and printing, when it should be used to help the victims. Domestic Violence is still in the closet as far as being taken seriously with Law Enforcement and the Judicial System. Look at how many women are being murdered as result of DV**. These coalitions need to be held accountable for their programs and services. When a victim of DV reaches out for help, those services have to be provided to them. If victims are turned away, then the coalitions should prepare to show where the money is being spent.
About the Author:
I founded Women’s Legal Resource in 2006 to help women who face the brutal challenges of the legal system. After going through my own experience in the Family Law Court without the financial resources to obtain proper counsel, I was faced having to represent myself. I attended Los Angeles Valley college in the paralegal studies program which helped in legal research and document preparation. All though I faced many legal hurdles, I felt the need to help other women, especially those who are Domestic Violence victims in document preparation and as a advocate.
The present laws as they are written is flawed and not honoring the safety of victims of violence in the United States. The manner in which police officials and the courts enforce protection orders, custody orders, child visitation and confidentiality escalates violence which leads to murder. Women’s Legal Resource is a nonpartisan organization to support the effort and petition congress for the revision of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault laws. Women and children are being murdered at the hand of their abuser’s, accountability; intervention and prevention are the crucial elements for change.
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
I realize (really I do!) this chart will not display well (any more than the others throughout my blog):
However, the CFDA code “93.592” under this http://www.taggs.hhs.gov website, is labeled officially:
“Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary”
This is a single California Entity (high-profile) that knows about this funding, obviously. I do not know whether they work also with
battered women’s shelters, or more on the “discretionary” part. I do also know that this group seems to have undergone a recent (to me) “sea-change” in the focus of its work. It has recently become intensely interested in “Fathers” work. I guess this is to help more with the prevention aspect.
| Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Award Number | Award Title | Award Code | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 07/28/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/27/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 145,000 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 08/13/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 01/26/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 32,940 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/20/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 182,375 |
| 2006 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 09/19/2006 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,145,872 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/29/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/14/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 115,000 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/14/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/27/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 90,000 |
| 2003 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/07/2003 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,133,236 |
| 2002 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/04/2002 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,113,796 |
| 2001 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/13/2001 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 958,542 |
| 2000 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/10/2000 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 804,542 |
| 1999 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 08/19/1999 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 698,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 678,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0153 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/30/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0157 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | LRNI MARIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0012 | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | 2 | 07/11/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | OTHER REVISION | JANET NUDELMAN | $- 9,549 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/17/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 600,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 1 | 06/13/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 37,604 |
Summary report on these 3 categories:
93.591
93.592
93.671
(All, basically “Family Violence Prevention” funding, and ALL have the word ”
Let’s Get Honest COMMENTARY: – which became a discovery — which became the remainder of this post —
RE: “Interface California Family Services opposed the bill ”
I thought I’d look to see WHO would oppose a bill letting people in our very mobile society know who has had a conviction record on-line (for those, like me, who aren’t expert at running down to the court, or cannot afford background checks…). While I don’t know about this bill, I was curious about “Interface California Family Services.” What I found there stopped me in my tracks.
So, I’ll detail what happened to those “DV Coalition $$” in an ensuing post….. I know y’all (even Plano Texas) probably don’t get through posts more than 4,000 words, and that data is too important to leave at the bottom of a post …..I DO have some rarely published (I think) observations……
After I started studying these DV coalitions (the ones that didn’t help me once I set foot in family court — it wasn’t their “venue”) are actually doing. Not in detail, but in the broad sweep of the market (niche) — I mean, it’s clean, it’s antiseptic, for the most part, and it’s colorfully logo’d internet-based, replicatable ideas that have LITTLE to do with the legal infrastructure of this nation, INDIVIDUAL LEGAL RIGHTS, but only “units,” of which a man MUST be a part, or it ain’t a family.
I’ m beginning to see the name of the organizational game>>>>>> that basically leaves actual suffering victims OUT of it, including kids, moms, and road kill…. and policies that do nothing to make a dent in those statistics. But are a GREAT market niche. Maybe we should just skip welfare, child support, and all that, and teach women leaving abuse how to start a nonprofit, and some internet skills, catch the surf of federal funding foundations (figure out first what the foundations actuallly really want — and here’s a headups. MOST of them are old money and DON’T want women to leave a marriage just because he’s a batterer. They also want no kids out of wedlock, hopefully, because people in trauma don’t make good employees. Just hang in there and take it a few more years……If you can’t, you’re on your own, because these days, it’s not about individual rights, or legal rights, it’s about “FAMILIES.” )
OK, so below here is my guided exploration to where your $$ went and what social policy is, apparently, these days. This may explain why the headlines haven’t changed much in a decade. People still throwing up their hands, “why??” did he suddenly “go off” and “off” his family, a police officer, a bystander or too, and/or his kids?
(I get more and more sarcastic as I go, so you might want to quit before the end of the post. )
These days, almost any organization that says “family” “healthy” “children” (“parenting”) basically is NOT sticking up for violence against women. It’s just a little linguistic thing. So I just looked . . . . I’m not saying they aren’t doing great things. But, I do know what help I just couldn’t seem to access, though having gotten it on time MIGHT have meant (1) solvency (for which safety was a component) and (2) neither my daughters, nor I, nor the several organizations I was working for at the time, nor the closer friends I leaned on (reeling from this event) might have had to experience an overnight, traumatic custody switch in the context of increasing child support arrearages, escalations outside of court and increasing denial INSIDE it, that domestic violence ever happened to start with, OR, that this was indeed the real thing.
On this site, we find, under “PROGRAMS (i.e., what they do, right?) ” . . . .
- Child Abuse Prevention
- Youth Services
- Domestic Violence
- Mental Health Services
- Strategies Family Support Program
OK . . ..
Batterer’s Intervention Program
Court Recommended
A 52-session program to help individuals change their violent behavior patterns.
The program provides the knowledge and tools to make new choices.
I’m not impressed . . . ..
HEY! — there’s no EXCUSE for abuse. It constitutes choices. Suppose that guy doesn’t WANT to make new choices, but fakes it well?
(This has been documented in later DV murders). WHY is this still going on, and at whose expense? Who is documenting behavior change and later safety of the partners?
(AND information showing the difference between violence/nonviolence, warning signs, and encouraging us to make a safety plan. Been there, done that. . . . . . . ). And the wheel of violence (old as the hills, and from Duluth). And what DV is, and so forth. How much funding is going towards maintaining THAT page? Let’s move on to another category of “Interface California Family Services.” What are they serving up?
AHA, now we are learning something . . . .
Strengthening ORGANIZATIONS to Support Families and Communities. (Probably training..–what kind of training?..)
Strategies is funded by the
State of California, Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the S.H. Cowell Foundation
A comprehensive training and technical assistance project for Family Resource Centers ???) and more.
Strategies provides practical and highly interactive training, as well as organizational needs assessments and individualized technical assistance to professionals in the field of family support.
I GET IT: “Technical assistance and Training” is a great way to access federal funds. It’s not so messy as dealing directly with victims, (and their PTSD, fears, and/or injuries) perpetrators (and their attitude), or PPIT (“poor people in trouble.”) It’s easily replicatable, and a lot of information-based (websitek printouts, powerpoints, seminars, etc.) I GET IT !!! The key word is, they are going to help the PROFESSIONALS.
Also, what is this vague, wide field of “FAMILY SUPPORT” (I somehow don’t think it’s the $$ counterpoint to “child support,” meaning funding that goes to children (supposedly)…)? What is meant by “families” and what kind of support? Pro bono legal to get (or defend from) a restraining order? Child support enforcement? Helping that dude get a job?
Strategies’ capacity building activities focus on using a strengths-based perspective, promoting evidence-based practice,** sustainability planning and developing effective public/private partnerships.
**flag — that “evidence-based” terms is often a fatherhood indicator.
This is the history. In 1994, some “prominent thinkers” (Per National Fatherhood Initiative) decided there is a crisis of father-absence throughout the nation. Helpfully, one of the NFI guys also had this post, or got it, in the Health and Human Services department, THE largest US Dept. He was the Secretary, or HEAD of it. He had some pull.
IN 1995, “coincidentally” a Democrat President endorsed this supposedly Republican conservative viewpoint, in a famous, short, memo (link on my blogroll) endorsing this point of view and telling all HIS departments and agencies to quickly “hop to” (into line with the above-mentioned prominent thinkers. No, I do NOT have their names, it’s not on the website, but we are told to take it on faith, this is THE major social ill around. Well, as to moving the huge wheels of state to point in a different direction, there ought to be SOME evidence to base it on. RIGHT? I mean, we have SOME progressives and radicals around the country (meaning, women that sometimes make a hard choice between staying, and being hit, and leaving and being criticized for being single; as well as men and women BOTH that simply didn’t do the marriage thing.
Note: I CANNOT criticize these people, because I DID the marriage thing, and it almost killed me, literally, and apart from some fantastic children (that I can’t see any more, thanks to programs like these spawned, and what they did to the process of divorce), I really am not in a place to look down on some who didn’t opt in the wedding band “thang”. . . . . In THEORY, yes. I think it’s better to figure out a serious commitment before pregnancy, than, say pick up the Son of the Porn King in a bar, as a women did recently, and ended up dead on her daughter’s 1st birthday. There are definitely some kinks also in marriage to be worked out in practice, and many of which this overentitled “fatherhood” (really, male supremacy) theology put in there to start with. It kind of meant, for me, I had to leave the “human” parts at the door (or they’d be kicked out), and when in the home, pretty much just only do things that looked REALLY “wifely.”
LIke scrubbing laundering, listening, giving birth and nursing (unless he wanted sex, or to engage in a lecture of some sort), oh yes, bringing home the bacon, but also handing it over once I did (Because after all who’s the head? It’s divinely, genetically ordained), smile when people were over, and shut up when they weren’t (well, I could talk, just not talk back to abuse…), and not complaining when the (US, incidentally) mail was opened, to make sure I wasn’t engaging in any NON-wifely, NON-womanly activities without permission — like
singing, playing the piano, and spending money I’d earned without clearance from the head. Or even saving it (possibly for an exit).
Eventually I did get a PO Box (after 3 warnings to stop this), there was a good deal of resistance (which was of course punished), but then he just assumed I was squirreling away money (when I wasn’t) and withheld contributing to the household even more. At this time it had been my assigned job to pay rent, and utilities, and my own way (and the kids’, too).
That I did this while in full possession of two college degrees, a professional background, and, I thought, my senses, is something of a real marvel, in retrospect. What I DIDn’T have from nearly the beginning was consistent access to: (1) Finances, or even a bank account, and (2) transportation. So I kinda sorta try not to blame myself for this. I also didn’t have ANYONE confronting this joker in front of me and saying “STOP” to back up my (frequent) STOPs! And I DID tell (not cover up), but was not fully informed on WHO to tell (Or, they just didn’t respond). Now, to hear women in 2006, 10 years later, say the same things, is very sad to me.
Well, back to the “evidence-based” phrase. Grants are grants, and they go to universities and researchers, and when it comes to the social sciences, well, it’s a little unclear whether the chicken (policy) came before the egg (studies, institutes, etc.) or vice versa. I guess I should’ve used the word “sperm” instead because after all this is regarding fatherhood, but then I couldn’t really in public complete the analogy. ANYHOW, in 1998 and 1999 the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives kind of went along the same “fatherhood rules, father-absence is a social plague” line of thinking and voted in some resolutions, just in case Clinton’s revamping all departments and programs to accommodate fathers better didn’t really work. This is the short version; in short, major universities got in on the grants also, and so everyone is stroking everyone’s policy/procedures/evidence back. The federal grant #, should you care to check, is 93.086, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriages”, which is only part of the mountain, and which if you’ve been paying attention here, is clearly, well, a going concern in California.
Now about those “evidence-based practices.” in a little nonprofit with the word “family” in it….
So, let’s see how this: 
(NOTE: at bottom of page:
New for agencies and practitioners: Supporting Father Involvement.
For information visit the Supporting Father Involvement website.Strategies is funded by the State of California, Department of Social Services,
Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the Stuart Foundation. (what happened to the “S.H. Cowell Foundation,” above? How many foundations are in on this thing??)© 2009
Let’s see how it develops the theme of “Strategies to Support Families & Communities”:
Increasingly, the social service sector is being challenged to provide evidence that their work is making a real difference for the people and communities they serve.
That’s for damn sure.! IN part, because the same domestic violence fatalities, child-kidnappings, and difficulties with “access/visitation” still happen. People are still poor, of course, and women are still jailed when they try to protect a kid that the courts won’t protect, but Dads are NOT jailed for harrassing our asses through family court allegations, hearsay or frivolous in nature, rather than, (say), working, and moving on in life. And for denying past, present, and risk of future abuse and extreme psychological difficulties for kids. . . . That’s not ALL Dads, I am talking about abusive ones, who are having a heyday in the family courts, and through this managing to trash attempts to get free from the relationship, share visitaiton, but NOT being part of a tyrannical dynamic. . . .. This was my issue, I know. I don’t see that it particularly phased ANY of the court-related OR the nonprofit-related organizations I was dealing with in the past several years.
You know what I recommend? ASK US!! READ THE NEWSPAPERS !!! TALK TO LITIGANTS!
No, that’s too messy. Can’t be data-justified; no reports can really be sold from anecdotal evidence, and in short, we’d just rather not. Here’s a BETTER idea (and use of short-in-stock social services funding….):
A powerful and user-friendly evaluation tool to help programs answer these questions is the Family Development Matrix.
That’s the better idea — a BUSINESS NICHE. There you go. THAT will help families experiencing stress from repeated interferences with work and relationships coming out of these situations . . . .
In a unique partnership the Strategies and the Institute for Community Collaborative Studies at California State University Monterey Bay provide training and technical assistance to organizations interested in learning how to use the Family Development Matrix in their programs.
The Strategies web page lists all upcoming trainings, includes a virtual tour of a Family Resource Center, provides links to relevant resources, and hosts a library of sample policies and procedures.
Community Training
Strategies draws from the broad range of expertise of Interface’s staff and consultants to provide community trainings in the areas of family support, child abuse prevention, cultural competency, domestic violence, mentoring programs, mental health issues and non-profit management.Upon request, Strategies also provides meeting facilitation, strategic planning assistance, and individualized coaching services.
My idea of a “Family Resource Center,” before I was in the social science sphere of family court, was my FAMILY. And a little privacy within it too: Home, meals, schedules, activities, associates, children and their friends and their firend’s parents, work, school, transportation, shopping, playing, time outside when possible, facing challenges together. AND seeing their Dad regularly on the weekend (my particular idea didn’t include the stalking and trauma part, but without that, I think you could definitely call it a “resource center,” our home. It had musical instruments, books, food, clothes, bedding, pictures on the wall, play gear, usually some pets, and sunlight. It had sleep walk, jump, talk, eat, drink, inside and outside, plan, and play. It was VERY resourceful and inspiring to combine these activities in the best way for the most richly rewarding use of our limited RESOURCES to get education, work, relationships and growth to happen.
The only problem for too many people — we weren’t in a properly approved PROGRAM, on the government radar, or asking permission from Dad to breathe or not breathe, come or go, sleep or not sleep as the case may be. Now THAT was a resource issue.
My idea of a resourceful family lifestyle did NOT include being analyzed every moment from waking up to going back to sleep too late and worried about the next exterior “analysis” of what we were doing from a persons or institutions who didn’t care if we were threatened or not, prospering or not, and safe or not.
Well, if can’t beat’em, might just as well join ’em. Here are some of those trainings:
Sho ’nuff, here’s one for “Fatherhood.” We want us all to be on the same page about THAT doctrine now, eh?
“Announcing: Journal of Marriage and the Family Article Published August 1, 2009Press Release:
NEW STUDY MEASURES BENEFITS OF MORE INVOLVED FATHERS
Children face greater risk when agencies focus only on moms, overlook dadsFamily service agencies are missing huge opportunities to help children by focusing only on mothers and ignoring fathers, according to a groundbreaking study by some of the nation’s top family and child development researchers..”
We ARE??? Where’s “motherhood.gov” or “hhs.motherhood.gov” — ever looked?
OH YEAH, it’s GROUNDBREAKING AND NEW — As new as the 1995 letter from President Clinton, as new as the 1994 National Fatherhood Initiative, and many other “Social Research Demonstration Projects.” It’s as “new” as “fatherhood.gov” and “hhs.fatherhood.gov.” To promote schlock like this:
A growing body of research has concluded that fathers are important to their child’s development, and yet the vast majority of programs that serve families with young children, especially low-income families, tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers.
It’s “growing” because it pays to study this field! Get a logo, write something, set up a website, and start marketing — you got a federal grant coming your way SOON! Get on the bandwagon, there’s room for plenty-a-more!
(Basically the page exactly mirrors Obama’s “Families” page propaganda in every point).
Perhaps this is why the women above couldn’t get help from the Coalitions they sought help from??? Social Services funding — and this IS funded by social services –a re going to father propaganda, spread by basic internet marketing practices through government agencies and other community organizations. We’re in the internet age, after all…..
the logo has two adults, right — nurturing a (single) child:
HEY — in this photo (a trick question) – –
s
WHERE’S MOM? DID HE GIVE BIRTH TO THOSE BABIES?
“As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these to benefit us all!”
and . . . .
The Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) intervention is entering its 5th year of implementation. From its inception, SFI has been a collaborative effort in funding and implementation representing a strong private-public partnership. The project is funded primarily by the CA Department of Social Services (DSS), Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP). Its partners have included the University of CA at Berkeley, Yale University, and Smith College School for Social Work. The state social services provided the impetus for SFI through its need and vision, funding, and administrative oversight. The college and universities have provided faculty leadership for design, implementation, and research.
The project has been implemented in a robust and supportive way {{OH!! That sounds so ‘masculine ‘ it sends shivers down my spine. WHERE IS HE??}}{{Unless they were talking about a coffee flavor — robust and supportive}}{{Oh, dang, it was just a “project.” But at least it was implemented robustly and supportively…}} by five able
{{oh mi God, able-bodied too? Where IS this?}}
{{Translation??: Spiffy websites with downloadable information, telephone numbers and a few trainers, and occasionally we’ll rent a hotel room, pull in some speakers (like us) and promote more fatherhood doctrine, and keep “mum” about the fact that domestic violence can suddenly turn lethal, batterers are NOT good role models, the cruelty of kidnapping to punish an ex-partner, the deaf ear the family courts turn when child sexual abuse is actually reported, and the fact that the custody evaluators (et al) are making a killing, financially, while the women adn children aren’t. And sometimes are killed, or Dad does himself in too. I bet these conferences don’t talk about THAT hard truth……??}}}
in Contra Costa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Tulare (Lindsay), and Yuba counties.
{{Well perhaps this explains a few court cases I’m familiar with throughout the state….}}
Strategies, the technical Assistance arm of OCAP, is helping to disseminate the program to organizations throughout CA.
{{Why don’t they, instead, disseminate the laws against these crimes, and things such as the flow of a lawsuit in the criminal, vs. civil, vs. family court? Why don’t they disseminate how to financially plan to leave an inheritance to your grandchildren by starting businesses, running them, or investing? Why not try something like, with that MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE/LICENSE, a copy of the laws against DV? Why don’t they disseminate to faith institutions that, fatherhood dominance or no fatherhood dominance, they are still mandated reporters, and next time they WILL be reported on if they fail to follow through? And give them some helpful books on the topic. And mention that economic abuse and verbal abuse is STILl abuse . . . . . . Why don’t they disseminate some thing that would help in REALITY, not in THEORY?}}
Additional funding for dissemination and public policy initiatives, as well as cost-benefit evaluation, has come from the Stuart Foundation and a grant is under consideration at the CAL Endowment.
“Given the widespread significance of the indications of SFI program success in terms of father-engagement and family well-being for California’s families and the agencies that serve them,. . .
1. Don’t break your back patting yourself on the back. The message is clear: you wouldn’t be looking for MORE funding were not the program so widely signficantly indicating that it’s engaging fathers, which is, (FYI), our definition of “family well being” and our version of child abuse prevention (it is funded in part by that office of child abuse prevention still, right, or advertised on a site that is….)
2. Suppose they don’t WANT a particular Dad engaged, because he’s dangerous and abusing a child? Does that still qualify as ‘family”? Would you lose some funding? SUPPOSE, in a situation like that you went ahead and engaged the Dad anyhow (the ones that the “access visitation funding to the states — all millions of it” didn’t already haul further into their lives, including sometimes out from a jail cell, or unemployment intentional to punishing an ex by not paying child support), and the situation “went south.” Would you re-evaluate the SFI program success a little DIFFERENTLY?
SFI is actively disseminating the rationale and results of the study. {{We got it already, OK. It’s straight out of Whitehouse.gov/issues/families page — the one with the word “mother” barely in there, remember?}}
We are open to and seeking support for expanded public-private partnerships to publicize the compelling results of these evidence-based best practices to increase awareness of service providers, practitioners, and policy makers with the goal of
fostering substantive organizational change within public and private organizations to think of fathers as caretakers of California’s and the world’s children.
WOW, so much for custodial mothers. I guess we’re out the door then?
and Wow, that “target market” is not even just CALIFORNIA’s children, but the World’s. That even tops the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition’s” target audience of everyone — literally, married, or unmarried, parent or not — 15 years or older in the entire state. (Guess that includes me….) Not content, “Strategies for Families” is going for the world’s children.
And it’s only our broke state of California helping FUND the organization…..
Does anyone in these programs (or the brunt of them) actually READ this shlock? First of all, it appears as though the prime EVIDENCE is if a warm-bodied father (whether or not robust and supportive, let alone ABLE to fulfil his responsibilities — and did we talk about INTERESTED in doing so?).
Second, it appears that the noble esoteric business GOAL is to “foster substantive organizational change . . . (blah blah blah) TO THINK OF FATHERS AS CARETAKERS.
In short, to change the way organizations “think.”
First of all, this organizational change within public and private organizations has ALREADY taken place. TRUST me, I stood in front of a mediator three times, at least, in the past 10 years, and the “fatherhood thing,” well, he “got” it.
There are few places a single mother can hold her head up, when it comes to agencies. There are few policy making places I’ve seen in the past several years — I DID find one in Australia several posts ago — that accept the concept of a single mother living with her children and NOT in frequent contact with Dad as even acceptable, let alone legitimate. I live in a “blue” (Democrat / progressive for internationals) state, and the moment I went single, I had government folk down my pants almost, and saying, essentially, put back on a skirt and take orders from us, or we take your kids. This began with a certain male in my family (not himself a father, perhaps he had regrets in that matter and was looking for someone new to dominate, as his wife, well, they’d been married a long time and living together a few decades….I’m not sure how submissive she was either, in private life. OR, they needed a reason to live — which FYI, kids really make a difference in, folks. LIving for someone else in relationship with you. Women need this too, at times….)
Now this person had absolutely no legal standing, no jurisdiction (and no legitimate reason) to start bossing me around, or my kids. I wouldn’t have mind, except he was herding us back in a direction I’d already adequately explored, and knew where it went — back towards poverty and dumbed-down education, with more stress and less success. We are not exactly in the top performing public education system in the nation — in fact Arne Duncan came out here several months ago and started scolding California like it was a bad little boy. And I took my kids OUT after this man had forced us in, and in a covert, dishonest, and pressured way when I didn’t have a valid choice not to obey.
At THAT point (or very shortly thereafter), I went to my government structures to put down a righteous foot, legally. But all I can figure out is, they’d already seen my girls, and they were (by and large) pulling the API (grade point averages) up, plus if I could be made to actually need SOCIAL SERVICES again, then at least something could be gotten out of this domestic violence survivor actually making it almost to the shore of solvency and safety — WITHOUT THEIR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT!
And this is where the anti-feminism thing, through the courts, really kicked in.
AND I am really off base here. I hope the post was informative. The next one contains the data I had in THIS one, til I saw this fatherhood shlock again, hiding in a federally supported program purporting to stop child abuse and reduce domestic violence. ACTUALLY it doesn’t claim anything of the sort, just has drop-down menus with those titles on them. However, the real “thrust” of the overall website and “family resource centers” is obviously leading one to “Support Fathers Involvement.” The other pages barely have sublinks and downloadable information — just a phone number for a batterer’s program, not a lot more. And a few flyers about some upcoming trainings.
(Ah well. . . .. )
“Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) is a family focused, evidenced-based intervention aimed at effectively engaging fathers as a key participant in family support and strengthening. It is also a method of fostering organizational development and growth for agencies and professionals serving at-risk families.
SUCH DOUBLE-TALK: INTERVENTION IN WHAT / / / in the way these organizations, often protecting children (and one way to protect children is to support the parent they’re with, emotionally or financially, i.e., that bond. When it comes to VIOLENCE< the bond with the NONbattering parent is the one that, if supported, will help and allow that child to heal. This is NOT, currently, public policy in the United States. But in case some “old-school” folk are still around, this workshop is here to “intervene.”
Notice the word “fostering,” a loaded word in the social science field. Good choice . . .. . ANd they’re talking about agencies and professionals as if they were living, animate beings, growing and developing (like kids, right?). While this has an element of truth in it, why isn’t the focus on the actually living animate beings IN those families? ANd their immediate safety and welfare, and then setting them free from program after program??
SFI offers multiple levels of participation in building effective strategies and methods to recruit, engage, and support the involvement of fathers in the lives of their families and the services provided, which includes access to web based materials, other resources, and networking. Agencies can assess their current Father Friendliness {{gag!!!}} and measure growth and improvement over time, using the SFI Organizational Self Assessment.
NOTE: there are so many millions $$ of funding going to from the Feds to the States ALREADY, which I have blogged about and which you can look up under 93.597 CFDA on the TAGGS database (going back to 1995), or if you want cool graphic summaries with lots of breakdowns and bar charts, you can get 2000-2009 on usaspending.gov under “grants.” These are the “Access visitation” grants ALREADY corrupting due process in the family law, so that results have required out come of more noncustodial “parent” (father) time by mandatory mediation, etc. MOREOVER, CFDA 93.086 {“Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. . “}has been up and running STRONG and FULL THROTTLE through the same department since about 1995, as I have blogged and you can search. Yet the materials always make it sound as if this was some radical NEW idea.
OR some grassroots, bottom UP movement, when it was nothing of the sort — not when a President, without legislation, issues a memo like that which revamps a federal agency.
DECEPTIVELY (very), “USASPENDING.GOV” does NOT have a searchable subcategory 93.086 along with all the others, but you CAN and WILL find plenty of funding by searching on other fields as to this. For example, one time I searched on “Noncustodial Fathers” and found millions of $$, and one of the 10 largest recipients across the entire country was, surprisingly, “Family Violence Prevention Center” in SF. The light bulb went off in my brain as to why the word “mother” was disappearing from this major nonprofit’s publications, agenda, and website.
For a noncustodial mother who’s had now almost 20 years of her prime work life, adult life, badly interrupted (you can call THAT an “intervention”) by domestic violence, first living with it, and then trying to leave it, after several years of which, setting proper limits and boundaries and doing what I would call incredibly heroic efforts to rebuild things AND send a clear message, AND when it was ignored, seek outside help for enforcement, AND when that really didn’t come through just about learning law, the courts, a whole field of study (domestic violence) and amazing number of related communities — WHILE also taking care of my kids, and trying to keep DAD off my front step, library steps, friends telephones, MY telephone, and other related areas — I cannot tell you how discouraging it is to see the direction of public policy and initiatives in these matters. It’s as though the entire structure just lost its mind and forgot the Constitution and what this country was ‘about,” which was independence from oppression and colonization.
GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND NOT TO RESHAPE HUMANITY. ALL PRESIDENTS, SWORN IN, are SWORN TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION, AND FULFIL THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT (IN REVERSE ORDER). THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM, MANDATES, AND BASICALLY BRIBING THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO INVOLVE FATHERS AT ALL COSTS. OR FOR THAT MATTER TO HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT IS SUCH A FAILURE, WE’VE FORGOTTEN THESE THINGS.
Look at this: remembering that this “Strategies” is part of “interface California Family Services” and is state-funded. And our state’s BROKE, supposedly:
Strategies embraces an approach that acknowledges that no child, family, or organization stands alone
WHAT THE HECK DOES “EMBRACES AN APPROACH” HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
So much for the Declaration of Independence
Rather, they {{THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING SENTENCE IS SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL}} must navigate complex systems in order to thrive.
Personally, I have tried to keep my life fairly simple and its processes too. But my thinking is a lot more complex than the tripe I’m reading on this website. Bureaucratese that simply loosens up $$ to get more professionals together to push propaganda that doesn’t, it appears, help them THINK better, and how can one operate better without thinking straight? It’d be better to haul out some classic literature and assign it. A man working with Viet Nam vets with severe PTSD did just that — he used the Odyssey! (apparently it helped too — last name “Shay.” You can look it up). I’m sure some personal relationships were involved in the process — not pdfs and websites and one-day or three-day trainings designed to infiltrate (sorry, “intervene” in how an organization operates….
Strategies’ initiatives provide an opportunity for organizations to participate in comprehensive, in-depth, evidence-based projects that address complex systems change. Each initiative involves multiple sites that work together over time to achieve common outcomes designed to strengthen children, families, and communities.
This Day Will Include:
- Introduction and Orientation to SFI (WHICH WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT BECAUSE . . . . . ?)
- Interactive Tutorial of SFI Web Based Resources
- A Discussion of Barriers and Bridges to Involving Fathers
(just tell them to go to family court, or head down ot the local child support office, where they will be recruited into a program).
- Resources Available Right Now To Strengthen Efforts to Serve Families
(guess you have to “be there” to understand. But of course serving families, well, that’s a great goal. I deduce it mostly means, putting Dad back in.
- A Luncheon Discussion Focusing on Next Steps of SFI Participation and Implementation
Basically, sounds like a cult. . . . . .
(OK, I get the picture — that’s enough. ALL THIS on just one little company, “InterfaceCalifornia Family Services”
We encourage you to integrate the resources of this site into your work with
families and your community.As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be
relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness
practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these
to benefit us all!
OK, I’ve had enough for now.
But what you see here is going to be in nearly every service organization, and branch of government. This will help explain that kind of “glazed look” you get in certain quarters when speaking of things like laws, rights, and enforcement.
No woman, or man (although men, if fathers, are being “recruited” remember? to be more “engaged” in their families. . . and getting help making this happen through the courts, help women do NOT get in retaining custody of their kids IF a local man wants them…..) could possibly go throughout the internet and figure out this was going on to such an extent.
the only reason I took time to was after running the gauntlet of expecting a court order — ANY court order — to be taken seriously in court — EVER, when it favored my rights, and not his whims.
forget it.
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Radical Idea — Enforce Existing Custody Laws . . and the rest…
(and, “HOW MUCH TIME AND HOW MANY EXPERTS WILL IT TAKE TO FIGURE THIS OUT?”)
This post is in response to, gradually, retroactively, discovering what was published, conferenced, said, explicated, implicated, rationalized, demonstrated, and nationalized during the past ten (or so) years since I filed a domestic violence restraining order, and found out that this person was NOT an isolated, deeply disturbed, person, but was in fact living out a systematic creed, which thrived better in certain types of schizoid linguistic neighborhoods than others — such as, faith institutions and family court.
It is not one of my better posts, except for a few graphics. HOWEVER, I do feel it’s truthful.
What one wants, in the field of Domestic Violence, is STOPPING it. Not theory, but results.
However, unlike in, say music, where there is a range of audiences, many of them who pay, in THIS field, there is a fountain of funding for theorists. Not content to actually work on getting laws enforced, and saving lives, there is constant, constant tinkering, reframing, training, talking and (you get the picture). Well, if you don’t, here’s one:
This pie chart shows Federal Spending by Federal Department:
FEDERAL SPENDING FY 2009 YTD
(legend at the link). PURPLE is Health and Human Services. RUST– is Education
RUST is what we were supposed to learn from “Zero to 5” and from “K-12” (and beyond) but didn’t about behavior ethics and character, as well as the usual academic whatnot (reading, writing, counting, obeying rules, doing homework, working hard, and not joining gangs or impregnating/getting impregnated before one is, say at least 16 or 17 years old….)
PURPLE — that’s primarily catchup, at this point -_ healthy families, responsible fatherhood, early heard start, child development, and many many more things (Including some fantastic funding for more scientific research, medical, and so forth).
Despite the majority of federal spending going there, we are behind in education, and people are still killing spouses and/or children after divorce, or over the issue of child support, even. Children are kidnapped over these issues, traumatizing them and burdening society further.
Grants, once established, are like the energizer battery, and just keep on going, going, going for the most part. WHO is reporting WHAT as to the results?
Are results measured by people who go through the programs (a headcount) or by the headlines? As finances are a major predictor and risk factor in otherwise stressed relationships, perhaps we ought to find out what’s happening to these finances.
SO, I put it this way,. . . .
If a “lightbulb” going off signifies “Aha!” — understanding, my question is, . . .
How many social science, legal, and
court-associated experts does it take
to UNscrew a lightbulb?
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/light-bulb-ban.jpg
and
My experience, and others’, and the headlines, show that frequent contact with a batterer, including frequent visitation
(however supervised, however accessed, however negotiated) can be hazardous to your physical and mental health.
I never got supervised. As a consequence, I consistently was traumatized, stalked, harrassed, and lost work — and eventually children around this. Because I knew this to be a NOT safe situation, I had to choose between seeing my children, ever (even when court had ordered it), and working steadily, EVER, basically. The exchange was not a 15 minute exchange with court orders poorly written as mine, and going to court to fix this had never resulted in anything (in my case) but significant loss.
It was a traumatic and awful experience every time except for THE first time, when I finally got domestic violence restraining order with kickout and had a little space to begin repairing and rebuilding every area of life this battering thing had knocked out of kilter, including work, relationships, and physically, aspects of the house (not to mention my health).
Now, to find out later, how MANY experts had been practicing how MANY ideas in which areas of the United States (and the funding they got to do this), and how LITTLE actual input from litigants seems to have been sought — a typical list of what are called “stakeholders” doesn’t include the people affected MOST directly: Moms, Dads, and Children. No, the stakeholders, in some people’s view, are the professionals — well it’s saddening they need SO much training to figure out what I (and others) could have easily told them — and what’s already on the rules of court, samples of which I link to below.
BUT, now,
Here comes yet another federal grant to explicate, reframe, and contextualize what the rest of us know needs to be simply STOPPED:
BWJP has been invited to apply for a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women for (1) a demonstration project to develop (2) a framework to guide custody and visitation decisions in cases involving domestic violence. Research on custody and visitation determinations provide(3)troubling evidence that procedures currently in use in family courts often fail to(4) identify, contextualize and account for the occurrence of domestic violence in these cases, and if identified, (5) its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.(My numbers, and color coding, added for commentary, below)….
Let me translate:
(1)
First of all “Demonstration project” means that a few areas around the country will be targeted for experimentation with some new policies (the litigants are generally not going to be told, incidentally). Then, apart again from LITIGANT feedback, as in “we are running a demonstration project and would like your feedback”, but rather, taken from things such as mediation, evaluation, and other statistical reports-from-the-courts (etc.), someone you have never heard of will (without your input) describe, evaluate, and report on this grant. (sometimes there is an uncomfortably close relationship between people GETTING the grants and people EVALUATING the grants).
After that, depending on how that reporting went, it will be expanded nationwide, at government expense, usually.
ONE THING GETS OMITTED: Lots of poor people don’t have internet access, or time to research who’s doing what about them. One aspect of violence is isolation and intentional breakdown of infrastructure. Trust me, (or don’t), most women don’t stick around for abuse, given other viable ways to get out of it. At some point, one figures out the abuser ain’t going to change, and the question then, if not at survival level yet, becomes safest exit. If it is sensed that this exit is about to happen, the controls tighten. TRUST ME, they do.
(2)
“A framework to guide custody and visitation decisions.”
? ? ?
There already IS a framework in place: Laws, and rules of court.
A). Laws. These laws were passed by elected representatives in legislatures, and as such, that’s a fairly FAIR process. When it comes to domestic violence, SOME of these include the word “rebuttable presumption against” and are followed by phrases such as “custody” or “joint custody” and the word “batterer.”
HALFWAY or less through family court process, I figured I’d get smart and look up the pertinent LAWS. Silly me, I didn’t know about the system of federal grants, policies, and that I lived in a nation with a national religion called “Designer Families.”
My point is: There is NOT a need to continue doing this. The framework exists. The only reason to continue conferring more and more is, I can only deduce, to further undermine and restructure it. OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING. . . .. .
Here’s one law(among many) that was deliberately ignored in my case:
278. Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,or conceals a child andmaliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody,or a person of a right to visitation, shall bepunished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16 months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt power. (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a defense to a crime charged under this section.This single law was the framework that crumbled about 1-1/2 years prior to my starting this blog.
Along with the pre-existing (to that crime) employment. I guess someone had been explicating andtraining court personnel out of remembering this, and instead to reward this (criminal) endeavorwith a custody switch.The law is fairly reasonable in certain areas pertaining to domestic violence. For example, it’s either a misdemeanor or a felony.I’m not sure whether child abuse could EVER be less than a felony, but in some venues it’s getting a little hard to tell. Probably, as I say,they are conferencing about how to figure out which is which, and whether they should report, intervene, or ignore. Or apply“therapeutic jurisprudence” to the entire family unit because ONE of them committed a bunch of misdemeanor or felony crimes.
B) Rules of court. Although I was clueless that these existed for most of my case, someone was kind eventually and sent me the list of the local ones, so I KNEW what had been done wrong in my case from start to finish. Now I’m so smart, I even know who makes these rules. There are rules to insure due process, and there ARE rules directed TO mediators about the quality of orders coming out of this.
I was shocked when I read mine. The california ones are at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules
HECK, if you scroll down, you can even read the Code of Judicial Ethics, too.
| California Rules of Court | |
| Title One. Rules Applicable to All Courts (Rules 1.1 – 1.200) | HTML | PDF(190 KB) |
| Title Two. Trial Court Rules (Rules 2.1 – 2.1100) | HTML | PDF(952 KB) |
| Title Three. Civil Rules (Rules 3.1 – 3.2120) | HTML | PDF(1832 KB) |
| Title Four. Criminal Rules (Rules 4.1 – 4.601) | HTML | PDF(5819 KB) |
| Title Five. Family and Juvenile Rules (Rules 5.1 – 5.830) | HTML | PDF(3518 KB) |
| Title Six. [Reserved] | PDF (84 KB) |
| Title Seven. Probate Rules (Rules 7.1 – 7.1101) | HTML | PDF(5978 KB) |
| Title Eight. Appellate Rules (Rules 8.1 – 8.1125) | HTML | PDF(3208 KB) |
| Title Nine. Rules on Law Practice, Attorneys, and Judges (Rules 9.1 – 9.61) | HTML | PDF(549 KB) |
| Title Ten. Judicial Administration Rules (Rules 10.1 – 10.1030) | HTML | PDF(2113 KB) |
| Standards of Judicial Administration (Standards 2.1 – 10.80) | HTML | PDF(775 KB) |
| Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration | PDF (101 KB) |
| Appendix A: Judicial Council Legal Forms List | PDF (510 KB) |
| Appendix B: Liability Limits of a Parent or Guardian Having Custody and Control of a Minor for the Torts of a Minor | PDF (14 KB) |
| Appendix C: Guidelines for the Operation of Family Law Information Centers and Family Law Facilitator Offices | PDF (27 KB) |
| Alternative Format: Complete California Rules of Court in PDF format, compressed into a single .ZIP file. | ZIP of PDF Files (updated: 7/1/2009, 6.79 MB) |
| Code of Judicial Ethics Formal standards of conduct for judges and candidates for judicial office. |
(3)
“procedures currently in use in family court”
Does this mean procedures, as in those that the rules of court mandate, or procedures, as in what actually takes place?
(4)
“identify, contextualize and account for”
Excuse me, “contextualize”??? Maybe the new rules of court will explain this a little better. Does that mean, did the little child see it or not see it, or were they hit in the process? Does this mean, “in context” it was justifiable, I.e., “the devil made me do it!,” or “temporary insanity,” whereas, say, in a criminal or civil court, it would be the mundane misdemeanor worthy of some court action?
(5)
its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.
I’d have to say that’s false. Reporting and identifying this appears to have the result that custody is often switched, according to a document (which I BELIEVE I linked to from BWJP’s site, although I would have to track back on this one).
Family courts traumatize battered women and hand custody to their abusers 37 percent of the time, finds a report released today (5/2008) by the Voices of Women Organizing Project. Latest story in our “Dangerous Trends, Innovative Responses” series.
“The courts’ own rules and regulations are often not followed,” Lob said. “Those kinds of things just seem so blatantly unfair and unreasonable.”
Eighty percent said their abusers used the courts to follow through on a threat to gain sole custody of the children and prevent the children from being in contact with their mothers.
Women were advised, sometimes by lawyers, not to mention domestic violence in one-quarter of cases, and not to challenge custody for fear of worsening the situation.
“To me, that’s the shocking thing,” Lob said. “We’re in a position where it’s actually sound advice for a woman not to raise these issues.”
Fifty-eight percent of women said that asking for child support triggered retaliation from their abusers.
I have personally talked myself into two conferences which were ABOUT people like me, but not FOR people like me. While these were tremendously validating and exciting (plus I spoke some informally at one of them), I was in the heat of the battle at the time (and losing total contact with my kids, but — barely — retaining the remaining single job that had survived the last round) – – BUT, I repeat, they weren’t typically inviting people like me. You have to research, knock, call, send away and beg (generally speaking, after a certain point in the family law process, someone is going to be destitute. it is simply not possible to stay in that system, be stripped of protection, and maintain a livelihood, without some extreme support or ingenious ways of getting basic needs handled.
Add to this that some of the long, drawn-out custody battles come after leaving a systematic abuser, which before separation can really wear out a person, it gets kinda interesting maintaining some work momentum.
ANYHOW, now, being a little better networked (referring to internet access AND knowing other people), I have found many of the:
- foundations
- publications
- organizations
- websites
- key authors
- key concepts
. . . . . and so forth, that like to talk about what I call “us,” meaning, Mothers Determined to Leave Domestic Violence (WITH kids).
It’s like any other life skill, or professional skill — after say 10 years of extensive exposure (immersion style), networking, reading, and so forth, one gets a little bit of fluency. I mean, that’s how I learned math, music, langauges, other things. Same deal here.
But unlike some other fields, for example music — I don’t think people at the top of this field typically are tone-deaf or unable to play a single instrument. If they compose, often they can play many. What one wants in this field is SOUND.
There are already laws about domestic violence as it pertains to custody.
There are already rules of court about mediation, not that I am in favor of mandated mediation at any point in time.
There are rules of court about what can go in in court. For example, a judge should not be taking testimony — and making decisions based on it — from someone who is not under oath, which happened in my case.
A judge should not make a critical decision (for example, switching custody) following criminal behavior regarding custody. There should not be partiality, and in particular, when threatening behavior clearly intended to obstruct justice has been reported, that took place outside the courtroom, this should raise an eyebrow. I had reported stalking, and submitted a signed eyewitness account. It was filed and ignored.
A judge should also give the legal and factual basis on which a decision is made when directly (in writing) requested to by an attorney, which the one in my case did not.
A mediator should take a few minutes to actually ascertain readily available (and relevant) facts before spouting off.
Now, as to the niceties of IS it domestic violence, or is it NOT domestic violence, and was THAT assault, THAT court order violation, THAT threat, or THAT child abuse as reported by CPS, a D.A., or anyone else, REALLY harmful to the child? – – – why, exactly, are all these volumes of press, books, conferences, etc. being written?
I see it as simple. Don’t HIT, don’t STALK, don’t THREATEN, don’t HARASS, don’t Destroy property of, and (whatever else the protective order reads in the particular case). It’s REALLY in basic, high school English, and doesn’t require extensive interpretation, does it, REALLY?
Another one should be obvious — don’t lie in court, or on the record, then when caught in a BIG one, make up a new one. If this goes on repeatedly, do judges need to attend institutes and conferences in order to be trained how to notice this?
SO JUST ASK ME — I’ll explain it real clear to any attorney, judge, mediator, or any one else who is still unclear that the 3-letter word “law” means “law,” and that the 5-letter word “order” means “order,” and the 7-letter word “custody” means “custody.” I have been a parent, and a teacher, and I”m not TOO confused on this generally speaking. I don’t wing it constantly, veer radically back and forth between whether I actually expect a standard to count, or not count. When learning a new skill, I focus on that one and “call” it consistently (speaking in group situations) til the point gets home.
The skill someone who has been systematically been engaging in domestic violence, which is the word VIOLENCE in it, and which includes a pattern of coercive behavior that violates boundaries (and law), and generally in “order” to give “orders” to the victim. The physical attacks (threats, intimidation, property destruction, punishments, animal abuse, isolation, and a whole other array of possible intentionally humiliating and dependency-inducing behavior towards another adult — OR child) have been compared to “POW” techniques. They are not consistent, so the person is kept on edge as to what may provoke what. Sometimes, a person can’t handle this, and provokes an explosion intentionally rather than live in the tense buildup, anticipation, and fear. It may be the one thing they CAN control in the situation. BUT, overall, what it’s “ABOUT” is giving orders. Period. Hapazardly. Basically, it’s tyranny.
I never was unclear about this for long. Not the first or second time one gets hit in the home — the dynamic is basically clear.
NOW — here we are “out” and this pattern of attempting to give orders, on the part of the former batterer, continues. WHAT is the obvious safe solution? The obvious need is to send a clear, clear message to this individual that he (or she) is now NOT in control and allowed to manipulate and give orders, instead he (or she), is now in the position of TAKING orders from a higher authority — the courts, backed up by police and the threat of arrest/jail. This is THE primary need at this time.
How does family law handle it instead? I found out, the exact opposite way. So, I found myself, during exchanges, repeatedly explaining to the various personnel involved (including police officers, who failed to get it) that the any ORDERS I was now under were the existing court orders, and I expected them to be adhered to so I could live a sane life. Between me, and the father of the girls, there was never any lack of clarity in the situation. Observed over a period of years (in family law), a court order would be obtained, and violated the FIRST weekend (or day) after its issuance. He was acting like a two-year old, testing boundaries, and getting his right to violate every time.
When a woman then puts her foot down in this manner, SHE is labeled, and the whole “thing” is labeled as “high-conflict.”
Well of course it’s high-conflict! Did we expect such a batterer to lie down and play passive easily? When someone is not looking?
Someone who’s gotten away with mayhem, which brings attention and benefits (compliance), and this is confronted, there is going to be conflict. That doesn’t mean it’s a two-way conflict. If the courts would simply pay attention to the situation instead of trying to be so “smart” all the time, more people would survive. IN plain English, this means, fewer would die. NO ONE should have to die for leaving a violent or abusive marriage, and expecting their children to be protected – – and their rights respected — also.
But they do.
Domestic violence per se can be and often is, lethal. It often escalates without warning, and without intervention (including separation)
basically ONLY escalates. Mediation is inadvisable in these cases, and joint custody is a recipe for societal trauma, and debt upon debt.
Mediation is MANDATORY in my area. I can document (now) how our particular mediator violated the rules of court at every opportunity.
SOMEWHERE (i read it) it says that a “spousal batterer” IS a clear and present danger to the physical AND mental health of the citizens of (this state, although technically we are US Citizens, not State citizens).
Study after study — including of substance abusers of various sorts (i refer to Acestudy.org, again), of prostitutes, of adult abusers or victims, and people with significant difficulties later in life (including in forming healthy relationships) – – shows that a violent, battering parent is NOT a good role model. The light bulb is already screwed in for the real stakeholders — those whose lives are at stake.
But the experts are not done yet . . . . . Even though things are already in the law.
FINALLY, the lightbulbs are going off in MY understanding as to why they won’t go off in people’s understanding whose children and lives are NOT at risk in a volatile situation, and who can (safe from the hearing of litigants or custodial mothers, in particular, or domestic violence survivors — or the children who are being molested on regular exchanges with a noncustodial parent — and so forth) : If the light bulb went off, where would they publish? Who would pay them to train the advocates, the judges, the attorneys, the mediators, and the psychologists? WHO would travel around the country and the world to discuss, well people that sometimes have trouble traveling 5-10 miles down the road to see their own kids on a weekend? (case in point).
WHAT’S THE EXCUSE FOR NOT ACTING CONSISTENTLY ON THESE BASICALLY SENSIBLE LAWS?
Here’s another reference I ran across researching something else:
IT DATES BACK TO THE YEAR 2006
{{EDITING NOTE: LINKS DIDN’T COME THROUGH — I WILL RETURN AND FIX}}
The 37-page original is downloadable. These pages have footnotes. It is well worth a read. Here is the cover page:
There are organizations (and the author here is on the board of one of them) who appear — I’ll take responsibility and qualify “to me,” although I am certainly not the only person of this opinion — to be HIGHLY invested in reframing the issue of Domestic Violence (and joint custody after it) from being a terrible role model for children, and experience for either parent, into something that people can be “counseled” out of. Supervised visitation is touted as a “solution” to this problem. People have been killed around supervised visitation, and the literature on this acknowledges it. Still, it’s ordered, and sometimes used as penalties for parents reporting their fears, or hurt to their children.
One has to ask why/ The ONLY reason i can come up with, primarily, is it’s a GREAT profession talking (and publishing) about what to do, and it’s also a great profession, “parenting classes.” There is little to no substantial evidence that even domestic violence (batterers intervention) classes change a spouse highly invested in the coercive control dynamic. Newspapers OFTEN report murders occuring shortly after someone was cleared from a DV class — or had violated a restraining order multiple times, without incarceration. The latest high-profile one I can think of (in California) was Danielle Keller and “Porn King” Mitchell (which I’ve blogged about recently). One in about 2005 that absolutely frightened me was a stalker — just a boyfriend relationship — the woman he was stalking, her body was found in the car trunk a few days after passing with flying colors the latest set of “classes.”
That’s playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives. I object, on behalf of my life, and my kids, and others, to this policy, of trying to “ascertain” who could and who could not benefit from counseling. I counsel strict consequences for domestic violence, which is a lesson in itself.
Regarding Expert Conferences (this, and others, and others, and others) – – – MOST domestic violence victims simply can’t afford to attend them! We can’t afford to subscribe to their publications, and our opinions are NOT asked — in a truly collaborative sense — in these matters. If they were, we’d say, probably to a woman, as mothers: “JUST SAY NO!”
Domestic violence includes economic abuse, and often access to the internet, or internet skills CAN be an ongoing issue. I know that in my situation, I was discouraged from using the PC unless it contributed directly to family income (his), and even in one case, I had to turn down a stable source of income from home to accommodate his desire to keep me without electronic contact with the outside world. When I finally obtained it, at around $8, or was it $18 (DNR)/month, I remember shuddering with fear as the vehicle pulled into the driveway, and praying that my internet would be turned off before he got in the front door. I had at this time worked substantial office support jobs and was internet fluent.
Another reason our voices are often not heard — not really — is that we do not have sufficient funding to take the time and write, post, publish, and attend conferences. If we have children, we are taking care of them, and ourselves. If we do NOT have children, the priority is getting back to them. And if we are domestic violence survivors of any substantial length (OR are in court with such an ex-partner or ex-spouse), it is pretty well guaranteed sheer economic survival is an ongoing issue.
Currently, I am reaching an overload on some of these topics, emotionally — and also have the situation to handle, which is not yet final, either. Support systems are constantly eroded til one begins to wonder what the prime identity is. We may trust people we know individually and personally, but after a certain point, one gets very jaundiced about organizations, ESPECIALLY nonprofit organizations promising help.
One of the best primers I am aware of on custody issues with batterers is called “The Batterer As Parent” (Bancroft/Silverman, Sage, Thousand Oaks 2002). It’s coming up on 7 years since it was published. I’ve personally heard a domestic violence expert, whose job it was to testify in criminal cases, say that this is a classic. I have this book, and my copy is dog-eared. It talks about ALL the things that the family law system as a whole absolutely REFUSES to do — support the nonabusive parent in her — or his — relationship with the children. Be wary of the risk of kidnapping (in my case, the court literally not only failed to act to protect my kids from this, after I requested it, but also failed to acknowledge it — WHEN IT HAPPENED! It talks about being aware that batterers are often chronic and convincing liars, and also of the overlap with incest perpetration.
Here are some of the ‘Scholarly” cites of this book:
Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in four cities: Diversity and dichotomies
EW Gondolf – Violence Against Women, 1999 – vaw.sagepub.com
… 1283 TABLE 2 Family Status and Parents’ Behavior of Batterers in Four Cities (in
percentages) Batterer Program Pittsburgh Denver Houston Dallas Total …
Cited by 63 – Related articles – All 3 versions
Men who batter: some pertinent characteristics.
FJMS FITCH, A Papantonio – Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 1983 – jonmd.com
… The authors report statistics on five major correlates of such men: violence between
the batterer’s parents, abuse of the batterer when he was a child, alcohol …
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 3 versions
HERE IT IS IN ALL ITS 1999 GLORY AND INSIGHT, EXPERTS BACK THEN KNEW THE RISKS:
Supervised visitation in cases of domestic violence
– ►ouhsc.edu [PDF]
M Sheeran, S Hampton – Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1999 – HeinOnline
… remain: visitation centers are not a guarantee of safety for vulnerable family members;
they do little to improve the ability of a batterer to parent in a …
Cited by 23 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions
Legal and policy responses to children exposed to domestic violence: The need to …
PG Jaffe, CV Crooks, DA Wolfe – Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2003 – Springer
… REFERENCES Bancroft, L., & Silverman, JG (2002). The batterer as parent.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, T. (2000). Charging and …
Cited by 19 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions
Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor …
– ►wa.gov [PDF]
L Bensley, J Van Eenwyk, K Wynkoop … – American journal of preventive medicine, 2003 – Elsevier
… 14. L. Bancroft and JG Silverman. The batterer as parent: addressing the impact
of domestic violence on family dynamics, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA (2002). 15. …
Cited by 71 – Related articles – All 11 versions
[BOOK] Children of alcoholics: A guidebook for educators, therapists, and parents
RJ Ackerman – 1983 – Learning Publications
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 2 versions
[CITATION] The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics ( …
L Bancroft, JG Silverman – Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, Problems and …
Cited by 2 – Related articles
Batterers‘reports of recidivism after counseling
A DeMaris, JK Jackson – Social Casework, 1987 – ncjrs.gov
… had problems with alcohol, and had witnessed violence between their parents. The
small sample size, the limited credibility of batterers‘ self-reports, and the
WELL, what to do? TALK some more? Out of the hearing of women and children?
I’ve managed to talk myself into a few conferences — I couldn’t afford the entrance fees for the most part. In one, I passed as a professional, up to a point. In another, I spoke about my story, and the PTSD it triggered (I was inbetween court hearings about whether or not I’d ever see my kids again) caused me to misplace the car (and house) keys and almost have to spend a night on the streets, as I’d just lost contact with the last round of professional colleagues locally. This MIGHT have cost me the last remaining job, but a very recent contact (and a current client) pulled off a “rescue.” FYI, abuse runs in families, and families are not always there to assist in the buffer zone.
About two years later, I learned that this particlar domestic violence organization (which I mistakenly — it’s a common mistake — confused with a group that was intent in stopping violence against women, i.e., saving our lives, helping us leave situations like that — has a linguistic profile similar to the whitehouse.gov “virtually invisible in public agenda” absence of the word “mother” in its website. A glance at the funding (more than a glance, actually) showed WHY.
It’s easy to make a declaration if it’s a closed -corporation discussion. It’s not that these groups don’t ACKNOWLEDGE the problems, but that they do not acknowledge how their SOLUTIONS exacerbate the already existing problems, of a parent with a REALLY bad attitude, and some REALLy serious problems that a few classes, or even a years’ worth, may or may NOT address.
And if these classes are concurrent with a typical course of action ina faith-based institution, the effects PROBABLY will cancel each other out, when it comes to protection of women.
That’s about all the time I have to post today. I hope this is proving informative.
You cannot have fatherhood and feminists in the same government grants gene pool and expect to get further down the road. The effects will cancel each other out, and leave yet larger and larger debt.
Currently, stipulations MANDATED by the VAWA act on Supervised Visitation (safe havens) contradict — categorically — with stipulations from the Health and Human Services “access visitation” grants. There’s a history (and a financial profile) to this, and I’m reading it these days. It took a while to grasp the “why.” I had to apply a rule I thought I’d mastered earlier — don’t take ANYTHING at face value, and do your background research on who’s who and doing what with whom. It’s a pain in the neck, but wise to do. As I used to learn the field of my profession (music), the terminology, to distinguish good from excellent, and know who’s who in general in my field (and as to the organizations also), it can be done in these fields also.
Again, I am still getting nationwide and intercontinental visitors — any of you are welcome to comment, particularly if you have checked any of the links and agree, or disagree. And remember — if you’re a parent, try to stay AWAY from the child support agency and work it out some other way, especially if you begin divorce or separation as a custodial mother.
Caveat emptor. (“Buyer beware”) There is no free lunch — the bill comes in later. You pay in your freedom, and you may very well pay with your future, and your children’s.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Demonstrating Healthy Marriages – Think Big, Invest Much, Expect a Lot, Require –???
U.S. Health and Human Services — Administration of Children and Families
Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants
Last post, after I got over the sticker shock of how much California Healthy Marriages took (as I perceived it) starting in 2006 from funds that otherwise might have met desperate need, unmet to date, for enforcement of existing court orders granting me ACCESS and VISITATION to my to stolen on an overnight visitation daughters, just as I’d found despite searching — HARD — no such help before then to get help <>prevent this event, <>enforce existing child support or collect any of the mounting arrears, or <>consistently enforce even the weak, poorly-written visitation court orders, <>obtain an extension or renewal of the original restraining order so I could work in peace and a degree of safety in supporting my household WITHOUT consistent child support, or <>stopping the subsequent (once RO was off) stalking, etc.
Another year, including a flurry of arrangements and orders, none of them adhered to, yet when i pressed for this, certain things were done OUTSIDE the courtroom to warn me not to disrupt the status by taking my court-ordered rights (or his responsibilities to them) at face value. Eventually I again saw (a few rounds in family law system will probably make this clear) that the court itself wasn’t taking them seriously either, and I was evidently some rabble rouser for doing so myself. Concern for their intents with our daughters continued to rise. During this time, of course there was no child support either.
In subsequent months, after the dust had settled into the dreary zero contact, I worked instead on seeking help merely to maintain a cell phone so as to replace the work lost in all this process, not to mention unemployment. The bottom, marginalized line of society were told to get in line (and I did), and that a phone was simply not a necessity for life. At least life on welfare, which I am beginning to realize was possibly in the original plan. It’s hard to control people who are in a satisfied manner working and living out their life’s purpose, particularly when there’s a match between that and livelihood. They are less likely to have the financial difficulties.
Phone help — and unemployment — was, however, promised from certain agenices, as if a person going through the family law system needed another layer of bureaucracy to decipher.
So, after THAT, I sort of figured out a way to maintain things, and tried to keep my chin up.
All this time, really prior to that child-stealing event had worked its way through family law and child support court to the point of, basically ZERO (contact, or enforcement of arrears), I had had existing work, pending work, and referrals, plus sources of them. It was increasingly frustrating to have no single obstacle to acting on this other than the toxic relationship of having dared to leave a divorce, and then after that dared to say “No” to invasive orders-giving about how to rebuild a life and livelihood. And to have attempted to set clear and reasonable boundaries — and mean it. To continue to be dealing on a personal level with this level of hostility and/or dysfunctional thinking, the same kind that endorses wife-assault if she’s uppity, or he doens’t want to answer that last question. Or just because . . . . I’m talking about dealing with family who refused to acknowledge existing court orders, and systematically placed themselves in my life and above the law against my will, and brought destruction with it. I call that a criminal mind set.
Most of my life work had been spent in voluntary situations/organizations (nonprofits often) where people came there because they wanted to, or wanted their kids to, which made for a much better climate (and better pay, too).
Now that my schedule had so cleared, and significant time to study WHY this happened, the answers are not that complicated to understand — just hard to accept. What it’s hard to accept for our society is that some women — and sometimes for VERY valid reasons — “just want to be alone” when it comes to live-in sexual partners, or live-out ones either. In addition to this, the fact of not having a live-in sexual partner (married or unmarried) would not be AS hazardous to adults’ or children’s health if society would simply just “deal with it,” rather than attempt to wholesale “eradicate” it. The word “CHOICE” is the relevant word here.
I DID learn a valuable lesson, to bastardize a quote from an assassinated U.S. President, “Ask NOT what your country can do for you — even when it has proclaimed it will ….”
I had been naively looking in the wrong Department of the U.S. Government. Naively, I thought the key to why justice wasn’t happening lay in the justice department, and its workings. I looked at law, rules of court, mediation (as to domestic violence issues), I consulted databases (and emailed staff at) national judicial databases, or the respected National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ” if I have the word order correct), I read, researched, networked, talked, called, and wrote, gaining information, seeking to see the WHY . . . . .
Now, here I see these movements and this particular California Coaliation:
This coalition, as of 2006 (the year of this loss) had received over $2 Million — per year — for 5 years — in my state to help marriages that WEREN’T on the rocks, or split up, or broke already due to domestic violence, and related extended-family-wide safety issues. So, I think I could be forgiven for a strong, public exclamation at this indignation. For one, ACF, the same OPDIV umbrella under which HHS’s hated and feared OCSE had granted this CHMC, Inc. group $2.4mil/year on the basis of its HOPING and EXPECTING that this demonstration grant would demonstrate some serious results and accomplish many lofty goals, such as reducing crime, poverty, domestic violence, and of course the social plague of “fatherlessness” which is now responsible for those first 3 social plagues.
For the unwary:
(Administration of Children and Families)
(Operating Division)
(Health and Human Services)
(Office of Child Support Enforcement)
(California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Inc.)
I realized that this coalition’s “Target Population” was, basically the entire state (married or unmarried, rich or poor, and any cultural or racial background too) that had successfully survived life to the age of 15, which I suppose represents fertility, or something similar. They are thinking BIG — and as such deserve big bucks.
These funds are not just dollars, they practically have a life of their own:
They are going to:
-
BIRTH
-
NURTURE, and
-
SUPPORT the development of a . . .
. . . . well, you can read below. . . .
| Name of Grantee: | California Healthy Marriages Coalition |
| Federal Project Officer: | Michelle Clune (202) 401-5467 |
| Target Population: | Married and Unmarried persons in California, ages 15 and older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds |
| Federal Award Amount: | $2,342,080/year |
| Program Name: | California Healthy Marriages Coalition |
| Project Period: | 9/30/2006 – 9/29/2011 |
| Priority Area: | 1 (five or more allowable activities) |
Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaign (#1); Education in high schools on the value of marriage (#2); Marriage education, marriage skills and relationship skills programs for non-married pregnant women and non-married expectant fathers (#3); Pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples interested in marriage (#4); marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples (#5); divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills (#6); and marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities (#7).
Organization Description: California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to saturate the entire state of California with marriage education. CHMC will pioneer a “coalition of coalitions” model across the state.
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to birth, nurture, and support the development of a statewide interlinking network of community healthy marriage coalitions. The grantee will use the following curricula:
— Youth: “Connections” and “Love U2”
— Non-married pregnant women and expectant fathers: “Love’s Cradle” and “Bringing Baby Home”
— Pre-marital education: “FOCCUS,” “PREPARE/ENRICH,” and “The RE Marriage Prep Program,” and “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.”
— Marriage enrichment: “Relationship Enhancement (RE),” “Mastering the Magic of Love,” “PAIRS,” “10 Great Dates,” “Active Relationships,” and “World Class Marriage.”
— Divorce reduction programs: “Retrouvaille,” and “The Third Option”
>>>>>>>
See, I thought FAR too small. I did birth, nurture and support only as many as I spent 9 months apiece on. MY vision was to separate them from domestic violence, give them the best possible education, and set an example that it’s OK to leave dangerous situations — that women are not to be assaulted by their spouses, and don’t have to stick around for more of that. This has to do with things like self-respect, exercising legal rights and other such folderol.
I would like to, pretty soon, take a closer look at the marriage education being offered. I think a BETTER way to preserve marriages in California, especially existing ones, would be to SATURATE the faith communities with copies of:
- Mandated reporting laws on domestic violence and child abuse, and a stern statement to rabbis, pastors, imams, priests etc., AND any teachers or child care workers involved (etc.) that “THIS MEANS YOU”
- Copies of the state’s laws against these behaviors for distribution and posting.
- Statements against joint counseling of couples once violence has entered (which could be dangerous); retaliation might well happen after the one-hour or half-hour “performance” has ended, and without witnesses.
- Warnings to have a little humility when a situation exceeds their expertise…call in an expert (I have literally seen thumbnail-sized (tiny) booklets that appear to suggest someone reading the few pages is qualified to counsel such situations. We’ve seen SWAT teams that couldn’t save the situations, let alone a casual reader).
- A reminder that women got the vote in 1920, and that POSSIBLY, some of the institutions might wish to allow them to speak up not only in their public places, but also possibly have a voice in their marriages also.
- 800#s resources in case the messages don’t get through
- (A frank reminder to the WOMAN to avoid the family law system at all costs, if possible, should this crop up)
- “You Breed ’em You Feed’em” business cards, pre-marriage.
- Occasional messages from the pulpit that no one was created to be a scapegoat or target in life, male or female.
- Prominent postings of the Bill of Rights
- A realistic statement on how they expect to reconcile their activities with contrary activities within the public school system, for example some dismantling of the “abstinence education” stuff.
- Financial education, as this is a primary area of struggle within marriages.
- Suggestion that, for real, the couple look at the family history, education and work history, too.
- Got milk? Got any more ideas?
Among, of course, other things, such as the wisdom of having both partners retain access to finances, transportation, and be informed of the state of their own economic affairs, and other things such as might be a deterrent to different forms of abuse common in these places.
I think SATURATING California with such things might save some marriages (or prevent some unwise ones).
It might have mine… The joint counseling thing almost made a statistic out of our nuclear unit.
Moreover, saturation or non-saturation, there ARE people who just shouldn’t get married, no matter how much they like to have sex. I’d like to see (since it’s taxpayer funds) how California Healthy Marriages plans to handle this, and has to date.
I would like to see that NONE of the materials are saturated with the misogynistic, near-vigilante, woman-blaming, feminist-hating talk. For example, when people are killed by an irate ex (last time this happened — well, I know there was a hostage/femicide-suicide combo this past week, in San Jose. They WERE happily married, but the husband was not the little girls’ father, who didn’t take kindly to losing custody. Now she’s an orphan. Both biological parents are gone. Tragedies are tragedies. However, at times, as with any movement, it attracts all sorts. We had (see blogroll to right) one commenter blaming a domestic violence homicide on the woman, for fililng a protective order. It was awful; a little background search (Google) revealed that the person had done jail time previously, related to some skinhead type affiliations (and weapons accumulations).
This coalition needs to be sensitive to the fact that such hate-talk exists, and not take advantage of a tragedy to promote a policy, or that it will produce MORE overentitled males and transformational cell groups whose real agenda is not publically stated. These indeed do exist, and some may be viewed, apparently (fairly new site to me) at http://www.rickross.com.
I owe my readers a short post. This is one. . . .
Here’s the link to review the stringent requirements and “detailed” descriptions of other “Priority Area Demonstration Grants for Healthy Marriages.” I look forward to a radical shift in the headlines — fewer family wipeouts, and less government intrusion in our lives through child support enforcement, or lack thereof.
I’m also still searching (among these) for a description in any abstract of what constitutes a Healthy Marriage. I mean, among these grant recipients, is it sufficient (for now — this IS California after all, and the challenge isn’t going away) that a man and a woman be involved? Does there need to be some parity in contributions, rights, or discussions of long-term plans? Do they have to have the same religion? Do they have to decide whether childre are to be involved, or what to do if this is a second marriage for one partner? (In that case, read more on my blog and the blogroll to the right, FAST!). Does healthy involve “mild” or any forms of domestic violence, and if so, is this going to be “explicated” by a differently funded HHS grant from, say, Office of Violence Against Women?
Can a healthy marriage happen where the woman earns more or is more highly educated?
What about age differences (I am simply noticing that many — not all — of the incidents with fatalities involve a middle-aged male with a far younger woman, which makes me wonder whether he married for the babies or not. Or vice versa.).
In fact, now that I think of it, how in the world could a coalition define what is really a relationship? I mean, who’s to say what they do in the bedroom or with their finances? And if it’s a religious group behind this, WHO is going to advocate for the poor girl to keep her credit and bank accounts open, if they exist, and NOT put a house in only one person’s name?
Is it going to say: Boys and Girls belong together to procreate. If you’re going to procreate you should marry and stay married.
Is it going to address the high incarceration rate in the U.S. and say, “when Dad gets out, we want you two kids {meaning the parents of a child or children) back together, now, OK? MARRIAGE is HEALTHY, and FATHERLESSNESS is a social scourge, after all.
(FYI, this is already what the US is doing….).
HAPPY BROWSING:
HERE is the link to the descriptions of the use of these funds. As you can see, some have smaller target populations, although one with the word “Dibble” does say “throughout United States.” Another one I looked at yesterday (and need to view a bit more) made news article for having been taken over for certain bookkeeping inconsistencies by the Dept. of Education. I’m puzzled why the funds are still going through. We are, after all, in tough economic times (and I’m still owed money, also).
We appear to be carved up into REGIONS (not states).
Regions 1- 9 (except “6,” which appears to be “MIA”
Hover for a summary (titles and target populations), or Click to Look.
Many of these are 5-year obligations of around $500,000/year.
Apart from the CHMC above — I hope there’s a no-competition clause in there somewhere, because it’s not the only one in California — my other favorite for scope of vision (if not clarity) is:
Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant
Federal Project Officer:
Heather Sonabend (202) 260-0873
Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health (#1) and education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills and budgeting (#2).
Organization Description: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education was founded in 1996 with a mission to focus on helping teens learn the skills needed for current healthy relationships and future strong and sustainable marriages.
WOW — that was shortly AFTER the National Fatherhood Initiative (1994) and shortly BEFORE the U.S. Congress voted in both houses that we have a plague of fatherlessness (1998/1999, see prior posts and I think I have blogrolls on this). I hope they will be nice to Mothers too…
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The Dibble Fund plans to create a public advertising campaign on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health, and to provide education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. They will train 500 Family and Consumer Sciences high school teachers each year to implement peer education projects to reach 113,500 students with over 1.66 million hours of instruction over 5 years. They will increase the number of high school age youth that have access to “best practices” healthy relationship and marriage programs (including **Love U2, Connections, and The Art of Loving Well curriculums{{Curricula??}}) through schools, youth agencies, faith communities, and peer-to-peer education efforts in states with limited Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) teen programming. They will influence the knowledge and attitudes of teens about healthy relationships, the “success sequence,” and marriage through an innovative media campaign that reaches teens “where they are,” by leveraging the power and reach of the entertainment media (TV shows and magazines that teens already flock to), the internet, and other new media (mobile phones, i-pods, and other new technology that delivers content in non-traditional ways).
You have to admire the chutzpah, though — “teens across America” and in states deprived by “limited Healthy Marriage Initiative” teen programming. That’s ALMOST higher than the U.S. Dept. of Education goal that No Child Be Left Behind — ALL be able to read, write, and count (at a minimum) before they turn 18.
BERKELEY, CA must be Healthy-Marriage Initiatve deprived (too many same-sex marriage advocates?) because they got a grant, I saw in yesterday’s chart.
But then again, the HHS budget is far larger than the Education budget, so they can aim higher.
**Some curricula designers are going to be profiting from this 4SURE, too.
REGION 8 — apparently Colorado, Colorado, and Colorado** plus Utah and Wyoming.
**See my link on “Policy-Studies.com” and if it’s still there, “Center for Policy Research” with Jessica Pearson et al. The 1983-2005 picture of a tree showing its growth is worth the wait time if your PC/Mac takes as long to load as mine does.
Under Wyoming, I note a group that’s new on the scene (in getting gov’t grants to promote marriage….) as of 2002 — AND targeting 2nd marriages and stepparents. Good for them. They will also be aided (where one partner is the man) in the generous Access Visitation Grants in getting his child support reduced by gaining custody of the children, if they aren’t already in the home:
Organization Description: The High Country Consulting, LLC dba Faith Initiatives of Wyoming (FIWY) is a statewide intermediary organization for faith and community-based (F/CB) organizations founded in 2002. It currently serves more than 2400 F/CB organizations through training and technical assistance, fund development, identification of best practices and advancement and use of technology, all aimed at building service capacity at the local level. FIWY also assists with direct management services, data handling, event planning and coordination of partnership activities for F/CB projects.
It WILL, of course, be cautious not to maintain a balance between the religious viewpoints with those of atheists, or non-adherents. I’m curious of those 2400 F/CB organizations span a variety of faiths…
Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: High Country Consulting will implement and evaluate a marriage enrichment program that will target stepfamilies and couples in second marriages. They will provide marriage preparation, enrichment and divorce reduction services through both community-based and faith-based organizations, using a pilot program as a cultural model to reach out to over 1,250 participants…
REGION 1 – (Simply substitute the number in the “URL” to switch regions) — one grant only,
| Character Counts In Maine | |
| Organization Description: Founded in 2002, Character Counts In Maine (CCM), doing business as Heritage of Maine, has delivered abstinence education that includes marriage preparation skill building for adolescents in communities across Maine over the past two years. Their Heritage Keepers abstinence until marriage curriculum teaches relationship skills which lead to the formation of safe and stable marriages. CCM has formed a coalition of civic and faith-based organizations, high schools, youth groups, churches and marriage education organizations known as the Main Community Partnership to bring healthy relationship education to high school adolescents. | |
| Target Population:
|
Adolescents/Teens in High School; Educators in High Schools (to deliver services to adolescents); High School Principals (quarterly newsletter) |
REGION 2 — 3 grants, slightly more interesting:
Organization Description: University Behavioral Associates was founded in 1995 by the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Montefiore Medical Center and is the main provider of behavioral health care in Bronx, New York. Additionally, the organization has long-standing relationships with local welfare-to-work programs and has the capability to manage information for hundreds of married couples.
SO — we have the religious approach, and the Behavioral Modification approach. So long as teens and adults from one set of marriage programs don’t marry teens and adults from the other side. Well, this is targeted at already married people..
Organization Description: The Research Foundation of SUNY, Stony Brook University is a non-profit organization located within the Stony Brook University campus. They proposed to use a highly innovative, empirically-supported, empowering program for income, unwed parents soon after the birth of a child.
Region 3
Organization Description: Family Guidance, Inc. will be the lead agency for a coalition of regional non-profit agencies, calling itself “TWOgether Pittsburgh,” to strengthen marriages. Coalition members include: The Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, The National Fatherhood Initiative, evaluator Dr. Stanley Denton, The Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, and Smith Brothers Advertising.
High school students, married and unmarried couples and individuals who are residents of Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding 5 counties.
Region 4 – one of the larger (or more active regions — SE United States (Georgia, FL, Alabama, N. Carolina, etc.)
This one particularly bears some looking at, and I hope to. Several universities make the list, a “Trinity Church” and a good deal of abstinence-based education, which is being fought elsewhere in government circles, at least within the school systems. I also note a certain curriculum popping up a lot, and am curious as to how many of the institutes receiving grants (judging by originating date) may be offshoots of the Fatherhood movement which — it should be clearly noted here — is a reaction to the feminist movement which, at least according to itself, is a response to simply oppression on the basis of gender, and things such as — you got it — violence within the home, or an attempt to deprive a person of some basic civil rights. Feminism is not the antithesis to patriotism (nor is patriotism as promoted by some of these groups synonymous for respect for the Constitution and the laws of the land).
I became a feminist precisely because of my trip through marriage and afterwards, the family law system. Til then, I took too much for granted. I am a mother, and I retain my faith — just practice it in safer places. We find help and strength where it is found. The hardest thing in my life to date was not having children, raising them with a violent, narcissistic, father (and working and struggling economically also), nor was it afterwards supporting them. That was a piece of cake, until the advisors began flocking into my life on the basis that I didn’t have a man in there (long before I was ready for such a relationship, after all this). On the basis of my profile, not the actual behavior, facts, results, or character. In fact, the experience of being “advised” after marriage when I wasn’t seeking or needing it, of being forced to do things I personally knew (and announced) were destructive to both work, relationships, and daughters’ educational options — was very much like living with abuse, only with more participants and less actual physical attack. Psychological escalated, along with the lies (once audiences were found).
The hardest thing I have ever done in my life, that I can recall, is surviving the total removal of my children from my household, and all significant contact with them at THE very point where our household was poised to succeed dramatically, in several categories (work, housing, schooling, neighobrhood, and surroundings). It was about AS healthy a (single-parent) family (with contact with the other parent available in the circumstances.
THAT, friends, was the problem to an abuser — success and independence HAS to be stopped. This doesn’t happen by telling the truth and complying with commonsense laws: Don’t steal, don’t perjure onesself in court, don’t suborn perjury, don’t kidnap, don’t harass, don’t stalk, and don’t refuse to work in order to punish the other parent — adn the kids alongside. Put your need to dominate SECOND for once in your middle-aged, male life. Develop work, not just alliances in the slander, and take-down campaign in order to somehow justify that NO single mother can handle life alone.
Well, not with this kind of attitude running the environment.
There are many uncomfortable similarities with the personal history here (which parallels many I’ve heard of) to the overall scope of this movement. HEY, I’m in favor of marriage, too obviously — I married, right?
I’m just not in favor of a national religion, at others’ expense and my own. I am pretty sure, by now, that the difficulties these children went through, and others still are (and mine are), and their confusion (or unified, but unjustified, belief of lies about their mothers, which is undermining to a healthy values system for growing adolescents) — are in good part traceable to some of the grants and initiatives I have been detailing on this blog. They are contributors to the social problems, while purporting to solve them.
Until this connection is made by enough people, the burden will just get larger and larger, while the public proclamation would be, funds are shrinking and shrinking. WShen the proclamations are coming from THE largest arm of the Exec Dept (and elsewhere), at some point in time, we have to say, WHAT are you doing with that MONEY? At an individual level (like I am starting to) and then call your Congressperson in charge whatever grant affects your area.
The catch: Mostly the people who can do this are on the outskirts
In essence, it’s socialism. There have to be safe options for not marrying, and these are to be as valid as the others. When it comes to my case, it was only being forced to live a serious “half-life” half-in and half-out (or, 95% in)multiple GOVERNMENT_RUN- institutions — that economically and artificially suppressed prosperity for us. I was forced to fight, instead of work, after having done my best to reconcile the irreconciliable differences with an abuser. This has done nothing but escalate, since I met the guy, basically — with only a few brief pauses.
I talk with a LOT of people on a daily basis, and it’s rarely a day I don’t hear of another similar situation.
Preaching marriage around the place doesn’t help matters, as far as I am concerned — the entitlement in such cases is through the roof. I did practically everything I am reading about in these abstracts — didn’t have children out of wedlock, stayed committed, worked alongside, supported, you name it. Hung in there as long as possible. My commitment to this ideal of marriage, for one, didn’t match the father of my children’s. He was committed to its privileges, but not its emotional sacrifices in that, he was to engage with a separate human being AS a separate human being, not a household (or biological) function.
ABOUT MARRIAGE
When it works well, it works well. When it doesn’t, then I wish that the national atmosphere (federally-pronounced) would cool it on the propaganda — the air is highly charged around here, and domestic violence ignites quickly when marriage (or other fatherhood, proprietary success-mandated) entitlements become the national ideal.
I dare anyone to get up there and OPENLY substitute one skin color, one ethnic group for the word “father” and another for the word “mother” in the same languages, and then got about to make this happen.
Or, religion.
it would be seen for what it truly is — ridiculous, and bigoted. Somehow, and for somereason, the concept of “fatherhood” unites a LOT wider spectrum of people, more closely, and incites more trouble. For example, I’d say a good proportion of the domestic violence I lived through and my kids witnessed, traumatizing and sometimes terrorizing all of us, and then engendering response compensatory behaviors (including super-performance mentality in the girls, when small), plus it wreaks havoc on the biochemistry (I came out obese, which was handled, but remains a struggle when dealing closely with the situation long-term). The obesity was a clear self-defense measure, and has been studied nationally (www.acestudy.org). When I lost weight, significantly, and felt TERRIFIC (post-marriage) we were still seeing each other regularly (on exchange of the children for visitation) and somehow this brought out more aggression, stalking, and competitive behaviors from a person who’d already filed for divorce! I was sitting at my work, and considering not only my own safety, but that of a person apparently perceived (not even real) “rival.”
I’ve had to struggle morally with whether it was FAIR for me to enter into relationships — almost any kind — with the knowledge of how volatile the situation is.
Put that together with work, and figure it out.
These groups are talking about the high cost of “fatherlessness” to a growing society. I’m not sure this equates with motherlessness. But here’s a question you don’t hear too often — what about Rachel lamenting her children (that’s a Bible reference).
What about the effect on society of taking competent, mature, sometimes skilled and dedicated FEMALE workers and contributors to society — and keeping them traumatized a decade at a time, and in use of multiple social services they wouldn’t otherwise need. What about their risk of old age poverty and homelessness from simply a few decades out of the work force, in order to handle:
1. Abuse, first, (including verty often as part of the control system, economic abuse), then.
2. Recovery, brief respite indeed — AFTER which, a long drawn-out custody trial for all too many, resulting in MORE lost work and opportunities.
What does THAT do for society? First, stealing from its contributions, and then, burdening the safety net.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it
HANDLE the domestic violence issues, and you will handle a multitude of other issues. STOP forcing women who left abuse through classes (I wasn’t, but I know it’s a cash stream in the family law) when they weren’t violent. STOP trying to put back together what already broke up unless you are willing to sign up front: I take PERSONAL responsibility, up to and including incarceration along with those classes, if those attending my class addressing battering behavior go out and kill their ex, or anyone else, afterwards.
WELL, if taking the class allows a slick performer to pass with flying colors, and fly out the door, get sentence, or get OUT, and then go get EVEN, it’s setting the climate for homicide. And I’m not the first person to point this out, either.
I bet there’d be fewer takers on these grants, and a slightly different economy.
The government is not a good teacher, it’s an abusive rulers, and it would do better to follow the examples of good teachers that are already OUT there, find out what principles they use, and follow them.
This is of course practically impossible with such a federally huge educational system — which is one reason many people, who can, opt out of it. Now the government wants another crack at educating people who didn’t make the grade the first time through.
No, I do not have a firm technical business plan answer. But I know one that’s NOT it when I see it, and “healthy marriage education” falls under that category. Either we have a national religion or we don’t. The country needs to make up its mind. The educational system claims that we don’t (I’m not sure I agree), HHS department is demonstrating we do, structurally speaking.
In my life, and as a fully-functioning intelligent working adult, I have experienced the worst of both worlds when it comes to treatment of females — blind to abuse, and upset at personal (peaceful) choice. From atheists “educated” and from religious “undereducated” both.
This post was drafted a few days ago, I have more research coming. The BOLD LINKS above give more detailed descriptions.
SHARE THIS POST on...
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...
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...
Let ~Behavior~ not ~Gender~, Determine Custody once Crime has Occurred. FYI, Law, not Psychology, Defines Crime.
“Peace” without “justice” is not peace.
Any child’s and any woman’s right to physical life and freedom from molestation and abuse ALWAYS should prevail over the child’s purported need to access to both parents, when one is abusive.
One wants to ask why, in the domain of “Family Law” that “family” should always prevail over “Safety” when kids are involved. Suppose there were no children? Would someone dare to tell an adult woman, she has a “right” to the man she just left, and is incomplete without him? Or some other man.. Or cannot earn a living without him?
One woman without an in-home abuser, or without one stalking her after being evicted, is ALWAYS more competent, and her children in better hands, than that same women with no exit from the abusive relationship. The fact that so far all are alive should be enough testimony to networking and someone’s bravery. MOST communities to NOT confront a man that is paying some of their bills. The fact she got out probably relates to initiative and resourcefulness, which are transferable skills.
FYI, Domestic Violence, and its response, The Fatherhood Movement, are industries like any other. Solve the main problem — put an IN-HOME deterrent to men beating their women, or thinking this is acceptable, – – – and 9 times out of 10, she’ll probably stay. IF she leaves, then she gets the children, and too bad, sir — abuse was a choice. These two industries are then out of commission and will have to go find something else to fight about that does not have human casualties, preferably. And the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services will have to go find someone else to study, and then administrate and “serve.” They can keep their essential departments, and delete those millions going towards grants to “promote responsible fatherhood” and “collect child support” and going into prisons to find men to seek increased access to their children in exchange for lowered child support arrears, which is simply a way to pass the “buck” off to a different set of professionals that come into play when the mothers, naturally, resist and protest this insult. ONce they find out about it….
IS it better for the greater good that families continue to be wiped out (fewer mouths to feed?) than that we stop this insanity? These family wipeouts, or woman-wipeouts, accompanied at times by kid- or father-wipeouts (or, the intergenerational perpetuation of PTSD, the trauma that accompanies war, which FYI, this is…) will not stop until the myth that ALL the people operating under EITHER DV initiatives OR Fatherhood Initiatives are doing so out of pure motives and the wish to save individual families, or families as a whole.
They aren’t. They are busily either bouncing angrily off each other, and frequently interbreeding, endlessly, draining the lower ends of society and enriching the upper (Harvard, Yale, Indiana, George Washington, other institutions that receive grants to study these problems). Middle classes continue to muddle along, thinking mindlessly that those experts have it all under control, to this day.
The last incidents I heard/read of were yesterday — a 15 year old girl reported missing 2006 shows up — buried — in her father’s back yard. He was already in prison on some other charge, and supposedly methamphetamine was involved. I didn’t finish reading about it. “National Father’s Return.” He was a biological father and a father figure. Not too bright, apparently.
And a friend of mine, who had to (first time in her life) preside over a memorial service and subsequent cremation for a youngish- (45 yr old) male who had thrown his 70 year old female mother across the room in retaliation for her having tried to surreptitiously call 911. She managed to flee (NB: her own home where her son was living) to a neighbor, 911 DID eventually come, along with a SWAT team, and after the man, having realized I gather he had crossed the Rubicon, shot up the place (including several windows, and a few cats, as it was a cat rescue place), and eventually himself. My friend, whose husband was ordained but out of town, stepped in and presided over the thing, as well as helped participate in cleaning up the mess. That was less than 24 hours ago, and only a sampling. We cannot keep up with the atrocioties. That was not a custody case, but it WAS a male adult who somehow felt like a failure, and spread some of this around the neighborhood.
This same state just received (I also read yesterday), $2.8 Million to prevent “Violence Against Women” as its own Senator promotes a yet larger, more ambitious Fatherhood Initiative, press says. WELL, make up your mind — which do we want? Nationalized Fatherhood with ongoing fatalities, or a balanced budget without them?
More likely, a perpetual cash flow in the direction of mental health professionals is the end game. I will bite my tongue and stay on topic here.
Regarding my last post, about a young woman who fled to Australia from England (from her Serbian husband), and was ordered BACK there to determine custody, whereupon she was shortly after asking police to drive her to a “safe house, ” dragged from between her two sons, in the back seat of a car her mother was driving to flee for safety, and (by this same man) stabbed to death in front of them all — there is a simpler answer which was proposed in at least 1992, and has been systematically fought in Family Law courts throughout the U.S., as well as in others.
It is a rare woman who can afford to fly to another continent for safety as fast an effectively as these dangerous & deadly ideas, applied in the context of previous domestic violence, are flying around the internet, and their proponents around the globe promoting them.
This simple, sane answer ALSO has been written into laws in most (U.S.) states, containing the words “rebuttable presumption against custody being granted to a batterer…“
What’s a good upstanding batterer to DO? The women are getting uppity? Easy – retreat to certain venues (where those feminazi radical _ itches are not welcome, — and the existence of which women fleeing violence are not informed. If such a woman WAS informed, the average one can’t afford to attend anyhow…) and focus on other, nonjudicial processes, are ignoring, at least until said laws can be diluted, and overturned, and stomped on, and out of the public conscience — kind of like some people are, in this form of violence.
Folks, the protective laws are already on the books — they are just not being enforced! Initially, this confuses people coming to court for that purpose — the legal process, and contempt for its violation. BUT, I say, Family Court ITSELF exists as a practice and as a venue, to overturn those laws. It, like them, has a history. I didn’t know til I studied, nor will most. Here’s part of it:
http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf
From their Intro:
By the mid 1990s California NOW began receiving an increase in letters and phone calls from
mothers throughout the state who were being victimized by judges,lawyers,mediators,evaluators
and attorneys for children in the Family Court system. Some women were being cheated in the
process of dividing marital property and assets,while other women were unable to get the court’s
assistance with child support collection.{{THIS IS KEY AND A PART OF THE PROCESS}}
The vast majority of communication,however,came from
women who were fit mothers and the primary caretakers of their children who had custody
revoked from them and given to the father.Decent fathers did not take wrongful advantage of the
courts situation; it was the abusers who did. Too often the communications came from citizens
whose children had made allegations of abuse against their fathers, although a smaller number
came from those experiencing domestic violence and those for whom joint custody was simply
unworkable. It appeared from the volume of communications that the problems, loss of custody
through gender bias, denial of due process, fraud and corruption and alleged syndromes such as
parental alienation,were occurring throughout the state,and that it was not being addressed effec-
tively,if at all,by any branch of government.More recently,women who have experienced this have
become organized at the grassroots level for the purpose of shedding light on this growing prob-
lem.These groups turned to CA NOW for assistance.The increasing communications from these
individuals and groups have demanded action from CA NOW to address the lack of governmen-
tal response and initiate reform in the Family Court system.
I would never have called CA NOW if I had not tried other arenas without success first. As a “woman of faith” (sic), this organization as a whole did not speak for my interests and beliefs. Yet, no faith community or government agency was. The nonprofits had played into the hands of my abuser (see above description), nor could I get law enforcement to enforce what I had, by now, learned the laws were — or even an existing custody order. Increasingly frustrated and indignant at the ongoing, perpetual interruption of my life, and resumption of my rightful, nontraumatized, contributing place in a new community I’d moved to (for some — but not too far from their father — distance), I had already learned from national organizations, such as “NCFJCJ” that mediation was inadvisable for people in my situation, yet it was being rammed down my throat every time an incident was created that brought us to court. I had also, as my manner is, studied this topic of domestic violence (I study things that affect my family!), and found more than one author who directly spoke to my situation, including Lundy Bancroft’s cogent analsyses, “Why does he DO that? ” and “The Batterer As Parent.” I had experientially determined that the local DV supportt group could provide moral support to endure abuse, but at this point, my concern was to STOP it, not endure it more graciously — and this is where I returned tos etting firm boundarie,s in my situation, and saying “NO” or “MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS ON YOUR OWN TIME” more often.
It is devilishly hard to analyze a situation as it enfolds, and when survival is an issue, but between my background as a musician, and in diverse places adn fields within music, plus my 10 years with an abuser, I had some skillsets.
The further afield (wider and wider spheres of influence I investigated), the more shocking — and chronically common — is the situation.
Nothing, really, could prepare a person who has been a lifelong citizen of one country for such widespread and uniform betrayal by this country of people of my profile, that profile being (1) FEMALE, and (2) additionally — and let’s face it, many females share this other trait — MOTHER. People who have already been betrayed and oppressed or diminished on some other additional characteristic — such as skin color or ethnic background, accent (i.e., national oriogins or familys’ national origins) or religion, have been better prepared.
Nothing in my personal experience, which was not exactly that narrow, in the standard sense, prepared me for an assortment of the acts of (1) marriage and (2) giving birth to children — having, in others’ minds, suddenly, and permamently, infantilized this 40- year old woman with a diverse background, and some sigifnicant educational experience.
In other words, I took foir granted things other women had fought hard for in decades past, and (being busy working, and otherwise engaged in life), had not been privy to what the U.S. Congress, prompted by initiatives prompted by religious world views (in great part), also prompted by fear of loss of power and control of money, was itself engaged in. I am posting some of it on this site.
Civil rights, like legal rights, don’t just show up on the landscape and continue of their own accord, like a perpetual motion machine. They were fought for to start with — any independence is — and need continued “fights” for their maintenance, even as I, as a musician often in charge of choirs, “fight” to maintain a certain standard of excellence (and progress towards it, or, if one level is achieved, progress towards the NEXT (higher, not lower), standard — as a lifestyle.
FOR READERS WHO ARE SHORT ON TIME, YET STILL INTERESTED IN THE TOPIC, SCROLL DOWN TO THE RED-INK PORTIONS, AND BELOW THAT, THE fine-print green centered quotes..!
TYPICALLY, I GET TO THE MAIN POINT TOWARDS THE END OF THE POST, AND REFLECT ON & SUPPLEMENT IT IN THE TOP PART.
MY THINKING IS MORE OF A TAPESTRY, AND I ENJOY WEAVING THE THREADS, THAN AN OPAQUE STATEMENT. PROBABLY IN PART BECAUSE OF HOW HARD IT HAS BEEN TO RECONCILE SOME OF THESE ISSUES, AND IN PART BECAUSE I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN A READER, AND NETWORKER. SOMETIMES I OVERESTIMATE OTHERS’ WILLINGNESS TO PROCESS ALL THE DATA. OR MAYBE IT WAS A FACTOR OF CHILDHOOD (LOTS OF TIME SPENT OUTDOORS) OR WHO KNOWS — I HAVE THE GENES OF, OR ADOPTED THE HABIT OF, ASKING “WHY?” OR “SAYS WHO??” EARLY ON — I REALLY DON’T KNOW WHY. I DO KNOW THIS IS HOW IT GOES.
Inherent in the processes of growth is conflict and overcoming of gravity, need for nutrients, and conditions required for life. Even physical human life requires assimilation, digestion, absorbtion, and excretion. It requires water, and it requires activity.
So does any good marriage or relationship.
When a law system, or government, comes in and says “conflict is bad, only total peace is good,” for one, it is lying. Governments PROSPER (and grow, oppressively so) the more conflict and chaos exist, because it is human tendency to delegate out authority & responsibility when stressed. In other words, to hire shepherds, policemen, farmers, lifeguards — and doctors, gravediggers, and ambulances — to assume the problems of life.
But, we need to be watchful, when government encourages us to hire out (1) thinking and (2) the education of our (respective, not “communal”) young. These skills and life activities, like others, will go stagnant — and the populace become passive, fleeceable sheep — when un-used. Few things that have kept me sharper in life (other than learning to survive abuse) than working for years with children who challenged authority, including existing educational theory (read “limitations”) on how children learn, or what they can do. Poverty also is a teacher, up to a certain point, to value one’s time and bottom line. In music these were not typically age-sorted, or easily intimidated. When I began, I was not much older than, and certainly not stronger or taller than, the teenagers I was working with (or faster than the little ones). Obviously, we had to work things out. And not in a manner that regimented & squelched the energy level, which making music requires.
No Conflict? There are many situations in life in which “peace” exists, at least temporarily. One of them is tyranny. One of them is death. Another is stagnation – there is little conflict or dialogue because nothing of substance is being done; routines are settled, status is “quo,” and flab of some sort is being accumulated. This may not be the best for intimacy, or the sex life, FYI. Like TiDES, ALL of life has some ebb and flow.
For an institution to come in and label the degree of conflict a marriage can have (while ignoring when blows have already been delivered) is an insult. The thing is, to strive “lawfully” to work it out. When the mediators and evaluators are themselves conflicted over the existing laws, their usefulness is dubious. Whatever the intent, the EFFECT is to further reframe and confuse a situation, not DE-fuse it.
As usual, this post covers several topics, but related to the post title. I have an integrative, symbolic mind, and enjoy viewing common topics in a less common light. Turning ideas – not just physical objects — upside down, or inside out in this manner, can show what makes them tick, or lets the reflect diffferent light — particularly puzzling topics like, why when a young mother reports that her husband threatened to dismember her, and flees to the otherside of the world, “POLICY” brings her back to be dragged out of a car and murdered by this same person.
The role of the police, in their capacity to protect, was to give her a “panic” alarm, not a self-defense class or even a knife, pepper spray, or Taser (stun-gun). WHY? Because a woman defending herself in this society is an anomaly — and would upset the status quo of who women ARE.
This thinking habit may relate to my music background (which is the language of expression, itself a symbol for emotion, carried in visual symbols translated into real human b ehavior). It may be due to the multiple perspective changes that a home not being a safe place, or a (religious) sanctuary, actual sanctuary, or having had family flip viewpoints on me for the smallest acts of independence after abuse. I don’t really know why, but it does make life more interesting.
That that woman died, needlessly, was a top-down, institutional factor of failure to respect her boundary or give her permission to FIGHT BACK AND, IF NECESSARY, WIN!
If women were taught to actually defend themselves from their partners, physically, society at large would probably descend into chaos. Well, it already IS there, but this would give it at leat a different flavor. Don’t worry — I do not think this is about to happen.
Think about it — how many industries are based on and sustained by the fact that women do not have equal rights, “unalienable” or otherwise? The existence of “Fatherhood” resolutions being passed by both houses of the U.S. Congress testifies to the fact that some are running scared. But consider: would it not improve sexual excitement overall, as rather than seeking more and more younger and younger partners, men would have an in-home challenge, knowing that this act was not a power play, but an communion thing. IS quantity really better than quality? I don’t think so. In other fields (food, music, art), discretion and quality should prevail AND then these non-co-dependent partners in relationship and lifell could then go about separated lives as well, exist as individuals, and not as functions in life, and a gender caricature in their communities, too. They would cover each other’s back, rather than one constantly putting the other one on (hers), and not just for sex. Vive la difference, avec dynamic balance – individual, and as to gender only. Fluidity and grace/strength. Not one blustering male and one overworked passive female — OR vice versa.
I don’t know where it would go from there, but I STILL think self-defense training (before marriage?) is a good idea that hasn’t been tried yet.
As verbal many times precedes physical, we’d have to also take a stand on demeaning, derogatory talk. I believe this would also elevate men, as well, from beyond their figurative role, to actually interacting with their partner as the full-scale human beings they are. One person who agrees with me has actually been honored by the “fatherhood community,” and that’s (Rabbi) Schmuley Boteach, whose book “Hating Women” (the title is misleading), I read, and approve of. He is the one that said, women with out men can and do live clean and orderly lives, with no dead bodies around at the end off the day, but there is excitement in the relationship.
The same would go for LGBT relationships — the domination paradigm would need to GO! As men and women no longer existed as caricatures of how “male” and “female” really show up in human beings, I suspect that the need to rebel against that also might. The entire pornography industry would likely take a hit, as there is absolutely that sex + violence (as a combo) does have an audience, avid consumers. And possibly, young men might stop showing up in schools with guns to get attention.
THAT stance would probably require dismantling not the educational system, but just the compulsory, mind-numbing, child-leaving-behind government sponsored and funded one as well as not a few religious institutions.
When an entire system is based on threat — of withdrawing funding, of police hunting down if a someone fails to attend (but it STILL fails in cases of foster children, and others, as we have already seen, and it CONSISTENTLY underperforms other, existing systems based on the free-market system, some of which can also be done by poorer families) — it is itself disrespectful, personally insulting, and a violation of boundaries, and those who prosper in that system are going to breathe in and exhale the same negative attitudes. I say this after decades of perspectives on this at all levels, and am not alone in this statement.
In fact, in viewing the womb-to-tomb institutions of my country, the teacher/student, expert/plebian, priest/proselyte, guard/prisoner, controller/controlled viewpoint is VERY common. This is not obscured by the fact that great and inspired people exist in many of the middle layers. The bottom layers are being squished and punished, usually arbitrarily, and have been squirting back in rebellious forms in direct proportion to their need to recover a sense of humanity, dignity, and to have their voices be HEARD.
And the less noble among the men, take this out on the women closest to them, punishing and killing as they too were punished and felt something important in themselves killed. Sometimes, and unfortunately, the women too, take this out on the children. How can that sense be transformed into something better, eh?
Why are the arts historically the LEAST valued aspects of our public school system, when in fact they are closest to the most important, along with sports, debate, and mastery of foreign languages? The medium of this large mess is the MESS-age. It’s too large, too bulky, and too inefficient, and too impersonal. Then people wonder why the prisons are crowded.
ANYHOW, I have often in hindsight thought back as to what would happen if we were taught to do fight back, and that at times it’s good to break some rules. Not in the girl-gang manner, but individually.
When I taught people to sing, together, in ensembles:
As a teacher, and whose job used to be helping groups of diverse ability sing complex and scintillating music, which ALWAYS included skill-building and endeavoring to communicate the vision of how it would sound, and the enjoyment of their personal voices and their personal voices in balance with each other (and what the music required, to come to life) — it was VERY helpful to simply teach the difference between right & wrong, or Good and Better, in specific situations. This is NOT so hard as it sounds, when participants are a little willing (which, FYI, is KEY). MOST kids like a challenge, within range, and in general many adults don’t have the free-flowing physical energy after work to do this — BUT THEY CAN, AND MANY TIMES DO. No matter the size of the group, I would seek to show and offer individuals for examples, and let those examples then also, themselves, practice feedback, leading, and commentary so that we all would understand what the principles were (this, moreso with children then with adults).
Once the difference between “Good” and “Better” has been taught and recognized, it is only necessary to consistently remind people, if they do not recognize, which way Better is in, and movc on to another skill. IT is the consistency which gives them and me feedback, and keeps us on track towards excellence, which is the goal. YES, it’s interactive and dynamic, but once the direction is positive, and understood, the hope of getting and the joy of the process, picks up momentum.
You cannot have a successful singing group if they are never told the difference between off-key and on, or better and best.
In every singing group, there are more and less highly motivated people. The thing is, the overall concensus, and whether the conductor can live with the level involved (i.e., his/her musical conscience), and to the singers, whether they can live with the concept that singing does entail expenditure of physical and mental energy, and will they engage in the process, and also continue to enjoy it. Any conductor knows that permanent plateau doesn’t exist — no growth = erosion. That’s how the human psyche works. Boredom = sloppiness increases.
Now think about abuse — does this person want to learn?
YES we adjust for times of tiredness, or illness, but the overall thing is continuing to keep the standards improving; MOST PEOPLE like to do well. If I find a choir is in a status quo mode, a social group only, and there is no potential or interest for much more, I do not stick around for long. Typically, this is rare, as choirs tend to be volunteer situations. I am amazed at how well a smaller unit of nonprofessionals can do, with time, and some love and positive direction.
When I filed a domestic violence restraining order
The question of INTENT to abuse had already been established, and the thing was to establish a boundary, now, limits.
Now that I had experienced a little life with a little more boundary, there was extensive cleanup and repair to be done in all categories. The immense energy from having the threat of immediate physical harm at unpredictable times REMOVED, allowed me to have a joy and concentration in my work that was sporadic and rare previously. Even before we were completely on the road, healed, restored, there was such an exhilaration in the sense that I could GET there. The person who had viciously and intentionally been sabotaging my work and endeavors, in front of our kids, was out of the house. I remember at one time regretting that he could not share the sense of peace — until I remembered why it wasn’t there when he was!
AFTER THAT:
It was possible to actually reap rewards from initiative/effort that were more commensurate with the effort. But I needed boundaries respected, and it took time to start to develop the vigilant patrolling of them, which no abuser likes.
The Family Law Venue — and in cases (as mine) where biological family ALSO failed to report and stop the violence — tends to then defines success in such cases in terms of ability to moderate and get along peacefully with someone who had formerly been beating the crap out of one parent, or threatening to do so. This breaks down her boundaries, making it harder for her to sustain work, and repair momentum.
A woman who has successfully experienced the difference between in-home violence (and all that goes with it), and NO in-home violence, who has been interrogated and derided, etc. for eyars — and NOT having to be pulled out of a sound sleep for this, or stopped leaving the home for work for this, and whose pets, and personal property is not being broken and hurt to make a point — will NOT readily go for more of it from another source.
She might come off as somewhat “thorny.” This is because there is work to do!
She may not waste as much time explaining to the next few people who wish to violate her boundaries, and interrupt her work, or taking care of her children, that this is inappropriate. I didn’t. When my family came after me (having failed to label the DV to start with) and began “advising,” I did not waste AS MUCH (though still TOO MUCH) time saying, “Get a life. I have one already.”
The struggle moved to the only times and means available this man had to then sabotage, interrupt, and harass me with – my relatives, exchanges with my children, any point in the custody/visitation order which lacked clarity (and ours was POORLY written, in violation of standards I later learned the mediator was responsible to know and address), and so forth. I was advised to GIVE him joint legal custody by the family violence law center, and on an irrational basis. I did so, and this was a huge chink in the door, larger even than the poorly written custody order.
An abuser has failed to learn some very basic lessons in life, and unless there is some strict accountability, the lesson will not be learned.
BOUNDARIES:
N THE CASE OF ABUSE, IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO BE CONSISTENT IN MINOR DETAILS.
ONE OF THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF A CAPTOR DOMINATING A POW. ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE IS THE OBJECT, INCONSISTENCY IS THE TECHNIQUE, AND NO INSUBORDINATION GOES UNPUNISHED — BUT THE CAPTOR IS NOT GOING TO KNOW WHEN. THEY ARE CONSTANTLY SET OFF BALANCE UNTIL THEY (HOPEFULLY) COWER.
I have heard of similar, but not so violent, methods being used in training a dog.
In order to “TEACH” the abuser that boundary violations and attempts to revert to the former “ordering” her around behavior is unacceptable, SHE NEEDS to protect the boundaries, and have some means to say NO! available when they are violated.
There should be a consequence for domestic violence, and that is simple.
No contact, for a significant time, with minor children until the father (or mother) has figured out that this was an unacceptable role model, example, and way of interacting with other people, including little ones.
Jack Straton, Ph.D., (NOMAS) Said it Straight in 1992, 2 years before
- The 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Acts (“VAWA”)
- The 1994 formation of the National Fatherhood Initiative (“NFI”)
First of all, who IS the guy? Well, I didn’t know this til recently, but among other things, hover cursor over the link for a short description — he has worked in two different fields, Photography & Physics.
http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_general_education/v048/48.2george.html
He co-authored with “Linda George” the following article, which makes a lot of sense to me:
Approaching Critical Thinking Through Science
In that it talks about Viewpoints (natural, in a photographer, one would think), Process, Values, Perspectives, including this segment:
((Please note: The PROCESS is explained in the article))
How Do Scientists Make Truth Claims?
Before beginning to work with issues in science, we find it useful to discuss what science is and is not. As a starting point, Steven Lower’s computer-aided activity “Science, Non-science and Pseudoscience” (1998) provides some good working definitions of the terms hypothesis, theory, and scientific fact. In addition, the interactive program guides students through issues that attempt to frame the domain of science: what kinds of questions science can and cannot address, what kinds of practices distinguish science from other types of knowledge, and so on.
OR. . . .
Knowledge and Uncertainty
Students tend to have polar views on the nature of scientific knowledge. On the one hand, there is a sense that knowledge that has been derived scientifically is “factual” and is closer to “Truth” than other ways of knowing; on the other hand, once students have been exposed to the notion that knowledge is mediated by one’s perspective (Tompkins, 1986), this is often misunderstood to mean that there is no “real” knowledge since “everything is biased.” [End Page 113] These epistemological issues are ones that scientists tend to ignore, but we bring them into the course because they connect directly to issues of diversity and multiculturalism. For example, students read essays about scientists who are not white or male and discover that, throughout the history of science, the fact that science is done by human beings who have socially constructed “perspectives” has a significant influence on what kinds of science get done and what kinds of conclusions are arrived at.
We unpack the subject of “knowability” by exploring wave-particle duality in the quantum world. We first demonstrate “conclusively” that light is made of waves and then provide “proof-positive” that light is made of particles. We next show photographic evidence that matter, too, has both particle- and wave-like properties, so that wavicle might be a better descriptor. Next, we discuss the social controversy over welfare and take students through a parallel series of steps that reveal a paradox like the wavicle: the rich are often in favor of cutting welfare, but if welfare is cut, starving people will turn to crime or revolution, neither of which is in the interests of the rich. The ultimate lesson is that if we get stuck on any particular perspective in science or society, we are likely to be missing much of what we can know.
OR. . . .
Science in Society
One unfortunate development in our educational system is that science usually is thought of and taught as a discipline different from every other. The result is that science does not usually appear in “nonscience” courses.
Someone who can talk sense in one category, can often talk sense in another. Common sense says there might be more than one perspective in life on a problem. Now, that 1999 Resolution of Congress (2 posts ago) is not drenched with common SENSE, just common ASSERTIONS. As such, I claim that MY assertion that IT constitutes a prophetic utterance, and attempt to establish a religion. I observe that its assortment of facts in support of a theory came from its own hired experts that already believe such theory, and many of them, on the basis of a commonly-held religion that has been wont (see "Genesis 3") to blame women when held to task for its own failures (a.k.a. disobediences).
Anyhow, here is what Jack wrote in 1992 as to:
What is Fair for Children of Abusive Men?
Journal of the Task Group on Child Custody Issues
of the National Organization for Men Against Sexism
Volume 5, Number 1, Spring1993 (Fourth Edition, 2001)
C/o University Studies, Portland State University, Portland, OR, 97207-0751
503-725-5844, 503-725-5977 (FAX), straton@pdx.edu
What About the Kids?
Custody and Visitation Decisions in Families with a History of Violence
National Training Project of the Duluth Domestic Abuse Project
Thursday, October 8, 1992, Duluth, Minnesota
This is 9 pages only, and has 59 detailed cites. I recommend reading it ALL. However, here is the conclusion:
Let me sum up what I have shared
with you. I have criticized the “Best
interests of the child” criterion as
being so vague that it requires us to
rely upon the opinions of adults as
to what “best interest” means. And
the norms behind these opinions
are seldom acknowledged, and thus
not refutable.
I then showed that
courts who apply this criterion have
disregarded the severe effects of
domestic violence on children, even
to the extent of saying that killing a
child’s mother is not a sufficiently
depraved act so as to deny a man
custody. If it is possible for a cus-
todial criterion to allow such twisted
result to result from a jurists value
system, that criterion itself is se-
verely flawed.
We then looked at the flaws inher-
ent in presuming joint custody to
be in children’s best interests. I
then described the primary care-
taker criterion and showed that for
violent families it will almost auto-
matically remove a child from
harm’s wayorder.
We found that children who wit-
ness wife beating have difficulty in
school and are much more prone to
juvenile delinquency and, ulti-
mately, violent crime than children
from non-abusive families.
FATHERS’ GROUPS, WHO DID NOT ORIGINATE
IN LOWER-INCOME OR POORLY EDUCATED CIRCLES
ALTHOUGH THEY SEEK MEMBERSHIP AMONG SUCH,
WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE
THIS IS DUE TO THE ABSENCE OF A MAN
OR FATHER FIGURE IN THE HOME.
TO ACHIEVE THIS, IT SEEMS NO HOLDS ARE
BARRED AND NO PROCESS ILLEGAL
IN HARASSING AND PURSUING
CHILDREN THROUGH OTHER MEANS
WHEN A WOMAN CHOOSES TO LEAVE,
WITH KIDS
They
have poor relationships with peers
and siblings, learn to despise their
mother for her abuse, and learn to
emulate their father in his expres-
sions of aggression.
We found that the longer the abuse
witnessed, the more severe the re-
sultant disorder.
A decade-long study between Kaiser and the CDC (Center for Disease Control)
on the topic of, initially, OBESITY, concurs.
It too, has largely been ignored in family law circles,
which prefer their own experts.
Yet no feminists, anti-violence people, or father’s rights groups
initiated this study. Two (male) doctors did, in the context of an obesity clinic.
{{“The Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study: “Bridging the Gap between Childhood Trauma
and negative consequences later in life”
What is the ACE Study? (please hover cursor, for more detail)
The ACE Study is an ongoing collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and Kaiser Permanente. Led by Co-principal Investigators Robert F. Anda, MD,
MS, and Vincent J. Felitti, MD, the ACE Study is perhaps the largest scientific research study
of its kind, analyzing the relationship between multiple categories of childhood trauma
(ACEs), and health and behavioral outcomes later in life.}}
How much trauma, substance addiction (driving an escalating prison population in the US),
disease and eventual “leading causes of death” might have been avoided,
had someone listened more to “Dr. Jack” (below)
than “Dr. Phil” (TV personality) when it comes to Custody After Abuse?
Given that assaults
on women actually increase after
separation and divorce, we would
expect that children have more trau-
mas associated with this phase. I
was able to find only one rational
conclusion from this cascade of phe-
nomena; that a cessation of contact
with the abuser is the only way to
minimize demonstrable and fore-
seeable harm to these children.
How can we
face future generations of our kind (FYI — that’s HUMANITY)
and say that we knew about the
abuse and did nothing to help?
Join
with me; take your place at the front
of our march toward freedom; let it
never be said that our generation
was too afraid of male violence to
stand up for the lives and hearts of
children.
- Written by a Photographer (skillset — observing, choosing subject matter, different light, framing, focus, development (pre-digital), exposure, and all sorts of variables are required for a BFA in this field).
- Written by a Ph.D. Physicist who teaches. Skillsets — knowing and communicating concepts and process to a variety of students. (I also recommend reading the first link– it’s interesting!).
The scientifically-inclined mind will question why such reasoning is absent in Family Law arenas, and WHY.
Only taking out a personal mirror, and examining one’s own preconceptions about others’ viewpoints, will a rational explanation be found as to WHY? this paradigm will not rule.
I have a link on the blogroll showing what it takes to become a Certified Family Law Specialist in ONE of the 50 United States. Even a cursory reading of this shows that the focus is NOT on safety for one of a couple (Domestic Violence) or protecting children from abuse (Child Abuse), physical or sexual, but on other fields. No matter how frequently such specialists and their associated professionals convene and publish to “explicate” domestic violence in the context of divorce, the fact is that such violence, once it occurs IS the prevailing context of that divorce, and has to be handled.
As such, mediation (at least as practiced in court venues, and as this tool is used), is NOT advisable where violence has already occurred. Undeterred, these associations, of which “AFCC” is primary, push, publish, and promote mediation as THE standard, and the parent who (for safety, for boundaries) who refuses, as uncooperative.
That is, I believe, why this field of family law exists. I have believed this for a long time, and this is why I am not interested in attempts from bottom up to “reform” the field. It exists to “reform” (reduce, dilute, and eliminate) certain rights that laws that exist to protect women from being battered in a relationship, and their children from witnessing it by virtue of simply being around it.
Jack’s recommendation, and those laws, settle the question. Continuing to ask the same questions that were already answered (“Prop 8” In California comes to mind) reveals an intent to undermine those laws. Don’t be silent, and don’t assume the experts have it all under control. Stay home from something and read up. Don’t go just to newspaper to find out about the fiscal budget — go to governmental websites. MUCH of this information is already on-line. More of it is available (USA) under the FOIA (freedom of Information Act).
Thank you.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Obamaland: Domestic Violence Awareness pre- and post-election
SUBJECT MEMO:
Obama on Domestic Violence, in “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” (Oct. 08)
OCTOBER 2, 2008 2:18AM
“http://open.salon.com/blog/kellylark/2008/10/01/obama_on_domestic_violence
(1) About My (FamilyCourtMatters) Blog, Topic-Switching.
I see it as “Alternating Threads of Thought.” There IS a tapestry involved, imperfect and news-sensitive though it is.
Readers will find that I may skip from topic to topic among my posts. One day, it may be recent news of family annihilations (in the context of divorce and custody). Another, it may be my reaction to administrative non-reaction to this. A third day, it may be a bit of history on the courts, or the next day, I post an article from the 1990s. Yesterday, I tacked on a database (that has been lurking link-side for a long time here), about the US Federal Government, where your $$ went, and how to find out.
(On the $$, I am also working up a separate site . . . . sarcastically entitled “Administering Families, Serving Humanity.” (“http://hhs-acf-ocse-et-al.blogspot.com/“). So far, it’s not yet populated with a post.
Well, possibly that comes from having been a musician, and part of this time, a conductor. Expect different dynamics, melodies, and energy levels. It’s not just about a single tune (“Father’s Rights. Mother’s Rights. Best Interests of Children. Feminism is anti-God. God is anti-woman. Domestic Violence. Child Abuse, or “false allegations” thereof. Parental Alienation vs. Post-divorce pedophiliac behavior. Parental KIDNAPPING. Due Process Lost. Law and (dis)order. in the Courts. Forensic Psychology vs. fact-finding when it comes to child abuse (or for that matter, IPV). “Healthy Marriage” promotion vs. a single citizen’s right to protect herself/himself and her or his children. (Boy, i bet THAT order of genders caught your attention!) … Sob stories, Statistics, suicides, femicides, homicides, familycides, or – – – – is it REALLY all just about the money? Or is it social engineering from on high…))
Clamoring melodies trying to drown each other out, true. But on this blog (although I’m sure you detect to what tune my theme is generally pitched) the idea is to examine many threads, and pick up on the energy level, dynamics, and the cumulative expression. IF the cumulative expression is diminishment of CIVIL rights and due process, we have a problem, folks! If you come to this conclusion, then I have plenty of links for you to do some homework, or search terms to think about to validate / invalidate your conclusions ideas.
IF justice is being bought and sold at the federal mandate (or initiative) level, and the bottom end of the food chain, those with the most to lose in the matter of injustice, then we have a moral / spiritual / serious constitutional issue (which I think we do).
OR, is it just about the heirarchy of studiers (and funding for the studies) vs. studied (the population to be tested, randomly sampled, and have the techniques re-adjusted to achieve a desired result — a GOVERNMENT desired result that was not subject to popular vote or poll) then we have a problem. And that “we” is all of us but those who do not need a country to protect their assets, their families, or their livelihoods.
So Subject Switching here is to be expected. Pick your melody and follow it — or, just float along, feel the tilt and roll of the boat. If you have leisure for the “float along” blog-read, I presume you are not IN the system, because IN the system many of us (without personal connections, or personal resources, or a professional guide — or a professional guide TO the professional guides, who prey on novices) are water-skiers with one ski and a frayed rope, we need to pay close attention to the wake (of the motorboat) and find ways to maintain our stamina on the fly. As such, we will be skiing faster and farther afield, and more dangerously so, than those in the motorboat. If this is you, you might enjoy the thrill of it, or, having had enough, try to let go, slowly sink, and hope shore is within swimming distance. Or, that the boat circling back to see where you were, lets you on board, and doesn’t force more of the same.
After all, a trip through the family law (and child support, psycho-jargon) system, or through the wide-cast trawling nets that reel squiggling, flapping, or stunned catch from the bottom of the ocean (or food chain, as it were), is going to change one’s major relationships: With children, spouse, employment, possibly former social acquaintances, concepts of “liberty and justice for all” and a few more items.
Therefore, it’s my blog, and it’s broad in scope. If you are overwhelmed, welcome to it. It succeeded in communicating — because that’s how families are. If you as a bystander don’t LIKE supporting families (societies) trashed by this, then please come back later and chew off some more data and digest it, or chew it (but don’t inhale — former President Clinton says he didn’t, neither should you. Take time out, but DO come back.) And don’t spit anything dark and nasty at me, either, please! Spittoons ARE available in comments, which I moderate.
Or visit some of the illustrious buttons I’ll be adding later today, and get another take on these items.
Speaking of visitors, this blog is getting viewers from many countries, including a few whose names I don’t even recognize. Please make yourselves known in a comment or two — I get a little nervous when India, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia show up shortly after I’ve posted something with the word “honor killing” in it, or something about a brave 12 year old that said, give me the law, not your version of it — to her parents, when it came to marrying too early. Then again, maybe it’s someone else taking heart, which would be wonderful. I do wonder what West Finland, Sweden, and Scotland are doing here, and Washington, D.C., I’m citing your data and commenting on it, so “deal with it,” OK? Los Angeles, if you’re the Courthouse, ditto!
(2) Today’s topic, and how I got to it:
Intro:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or, how many “awareness” days can you pile into one little month, APRIL, when at least in the U-S-A, many are most sensitively aware to the I-R-S? I believe April was: Sexual Assault Awareness month, Child Abuse Awareness Month, and in a few states, governors were persuaded to tack on “Parental Alienation Awareness DAY.” After all, one needs to even the score every now and then, which PA is intended to do, and in some arenas, has more than. The thing to become aware of as to “PAS,” however, is its author, its origins, its prophets & priests, and the varying (and they do vary — radically) responses of various areas of professional expertise (and grants/salaries) Pro or Con.
Well, I can now scope out the “He Said / She Said // WE (the experts) say” sites, fairly quickly, They tend to have more limited vocabularies, and the themes are fairly simple to follow. This gets boring, and sometimes I like to check one of the regular news an commentary, and just search on a hot term: “domestic violence” or (any of the above). Say, “truthout,” or CS Monitor, or Washington Post, or, today, Salon.com caught my eye.
In between other interests which kind of make up for, I suppose the years when the general tenor of the marital conversation was half a Bible version on gender roles (if you’ve been there, you know which one I mean), or reproof for not living up to my 9 /10ths of the imaginary marriage vows (as opposed to the one I said out loud, before witnesses), or reminding the holder of the 1/10th that if he was the boss and I was the hired hand, where was my pay?, and if working conditions didn’t improve, someone just might be short a hired (oops, “conscripted” hand) for the assigned tasks. Or, recovering from the somewhat predictable response to such protests (see, eventual DV restraining order actually was granted, based on declaration, and in the company of a support organization which had been helping me survive emotionally, learning a few legal rights on the way, until this event) — part of my compensation is an extra prolific range of reading, on-line and off. And, I talk to lots of people about their situation. I am a personal data net. It helps me navigate…and is entertaining at times, too.
So, I searched “Open Salon” on “Domestic Violence” (Parental alienation didn’t yield a single relevant result, which also tells me that this is a specialized vocabulary to this (Alice in Wonder)land, and, that (as in mirrors) normal words read forwards, but only make sense if you understand they are interpreted backwards..
And here it is:
(3) PRE-ELECTION PRIORITY:
“Obama on Domestic Violence” (link):
OCTOBER 2, 2008 2:18AM
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
The one time when all people are supposed to remember this problem, and perhaps think about it. In my group, it is the month to get preachers to preach about the unacceptability of domestic violence. A lot won’t though, because it “encourages” divorce.
I know it is a difficult topic. It is a difficult thing to live through and then admit that you lived through it. It is extremely difficult to deal with on a regular basis in trying to help. It’s a soul-sucking, terrible, situation to deal with these women and their children trying to escape this violence. But it is so much worse to BE them, of course.
But it is always, always, a lesson in the great courage of women. The women who escape these situations with nothing but the clothes on their back are awe-inspiring – but they don’t know that. They are simply terrified women doing whatever they need to do to protect themselves, and more often, their children.
Ms. Kelly Lark says:
October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, so, I give you Obama’s statement today,
so we all know he has not forgotten us, and to hail Joe Biden for the VAWA act once more.
{{“Hail”is too reminiscent of “Heil, H_ _ _ _ _” and I tend to reserve mine for now.. How about, “thank” or “express appreciation”? We are in a republic (ostensibly) not an imperial regime. At least on the books. Let’s wait a little on the “Hail, the Conquering Hero Comes,” or Palm Sunday, as it were.}}
“Today, I join all Americans in observing Domestic Violence Awareness Month. At a time when one in four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime, it’s more important than ever that we dedicate ourselves to working on behalf of the thousands of women who suffer in silence. {{We WHO? Some have been all along…}}{{I resent the characterization of “suffering in silence.” Rather, the silence is deafening to those of us who actually do reach out, and report. That silence after reporting is ALSO heard by our abusers, and may result in silence the NEXT time. So it’s often a matter of tuning the community’s ears – – not just to reporting, but to tthe laws, the edifices in place to help (and their shortcomings and conflicts of interest), and to the broader definition of DV than broken bones and blood. And to its effect on children. Leave it to a man to say we suffer in silence as a whole, although it’s clear many do…}}
Too often, victims of domestic violence don’t know where to turn, or have no one to turn to. And too often, a victim could be someone you love. That’s why, as a State Senator, I led the fight in Illinois to pass one of the strongest employment protection laws in the nation, ensuring that victims of domestic violence could seek shelter or treatment without losing their jobs. {{Shelter/Treatment? how about Justice/Law enforcement prosecution Help? I don’t want to underestimate this, but I personally wasn’t showing up with broken bones, but still lost work through trauma, harassments, and direct orders. Shelter is a first step only and these shelters have their own issues, too.}} That’s why I introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to provide $25 million a year to domestic violence prevention and victim support efforts. That’s why I co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. And today, I am so proud to have Senator Joe Biden, the man who wrote that groundbreaking legislation that gave so many women a second chance at life, as my running mate in this campaign. {{Well, I am thankful for that legislation too. Now, are you aware of the groundswell of retaliation against it, or not? }}
{{$25 million sounds like a huge amount. Spread throughout the country, and compared to funding already in place to WEAKEN the effects of VAWA (let alone a system that tends to do this, probably not accidentally) it has a different ring. More, below Thank God for it. BUT, I have a question. When I went looking — HARD — for pro bono help to support my 2nd application for a restraining order, or my FIRST contempt of the multiple thousands of $$ child support arrears, I found nothing effective. Where was that part of the $25million. HOW’S COME every time I faced my ex in Family Court (and someone coached him to get the case there, too), I see indications that he was getting financial support for legal help, and expert coaching on how to railroad my civil rights? HOW’S COME when the ABA Commission on DV (or toolkit, you can look it up) advises clearly, along with Family Violence Prevention Fund (or “endabuse.org”)’s “toolkit to end domestic violence –which very fine toolkit, one now has to hunt for on their site) — when that highlights the IMPORTANCE of enforcing child support orders after DV, instead I found an agency intent on NOT enforcing it til custody was switched from me to the batterer, for the first time since we separated? HOW’S COME when I went to a mediator, he did abide by the rules, and categorically ignored domestic violence, which was an issue all 3 times? HOW’S COME there is practically no accountability (a “complaint form,” after one’s life was just upended) for quality control in this mediation — yet I see the whole system is adamant about mediation as THE formula, whereas organizations that do research say, it is NOT workable in cases where domestic violence exists? So, the system makes a token nod — and in a way that eradicates due process (right to answer the charges one is accused of in open forum) by “separate — but unequal — meetings with a court-appointed mediator. HOW’S COME that mediator “recommends,” but this should not happen in true mediation? And many, many more “How’s Come’s?” come to my brain. Especially as I began to review Federal budgets, emanating from the White House, some of which you will see below, shortly.
HOW’s COME? with all the effort ~ specifically coming up on a decade’s worth ~ ~ I put into getting free from abuse, with my eyes on alert, my mouth open, and my rudder set straight, it so far has failed, 10 years post-restraining order Are we only doing triage and then throwing the flapping women up on the shore? Or, are organizations focused on their own}}
- “As President, I’ll make these efforts a national priority. {{OUT OF HOW MANY HIGHER RANKING NATIONAL PRIORIOTIES< SOME OF THE CONTRADICTORY TO THIS ONE??}} This month, and every month, we must fight to bring domestic violence out of the darkness of isolation ** and into the light of justice, especially for minority and immigrant women, and women in every community where it goes unreported far too often. We’ll stop treating this as just a woman’s issue, {{WE WHO? CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, KAREN ANDERSON AND OTHERS HAVE ALREADY BROUGHT IT TO THE INTERNATIONAL / UN LEVEL, FAILING TO FIND HELP IN THE U.S. ON IT? WE ARE ALREADY CALLING IT A CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.}} and start recognizing that when a woman is attacked, that abuse scars not only the victim, but [“also” is grammatically correct] her loved ones, sending currents of violence that ripple across our society.
- {{On this one, the word “scars,” though effective is weakened. It is already in the headlines, unchecked, it can and often does not just scar, but also KILL the victim and/or her loved ones.
- Re: “loved ones” — Future First Lady Obama, Michelle, help us here. You should understand. “loved ones” includes KIDS. Why no mention here of the overlap between domestic violence, and traumatized kids. OR, of DV and child abuse? It’s not exactly rocket science on this, at this point, 2008! I find “loved ones” too vague. I love my KIDS. I separated from their father, who was abusive. He saw them, but he lost his privilege to LIVE with us. In this, I, their mother, sought to make a point of what is and is not acceptable treatment of young ladies. Or older ones.}}
- We need all hands on deck to address this – [1] neighbors willing to report suspected crimes,{2] families willing to help loved ones seek treatment, {{{Batterers’ Programs being proved efffective somewhere that I’m unaware of yet?}} and {3} community leaders {{DOES OR DOES NOT THIS INCLUDE “COMMUNITIES OF FAITH?? INCLUDING SOME OF THOSE ON YOUR ADVISORY BOARD??}} willing to candidly discuss this issue in public and break the stigma that stops so many women from coming forward.
- {{Sir, with respect, all hands LOCALLY are already taking the brunt of this — nonprofits are overstressed, police officers responsding to DV calls sometimes lose their lives, too. A woman (this is VAWA, hence the gender) traumatized, in shock, or in the hospital leaves a blank — an expensive one — in someone’s life; either her kids, or her businesses’ (suppose she’s a teacher? Or in a place in front of many people? Or a pastor? Or a lawyer? Or a DV advocated herself? Or a woman caring for an elderly parent? Many of us get attacked for being too “uppity” in our professions, and if we have managed to somehow overcome that, this is a professional disaster, which becomes a financial disaster all too soon” So, WHICH “WE” DO YOU MEAN HERE? HOW ABOUT POLICYMAKERS?}}
FINALLY, IN 2008, PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA SAID, PER THIS OPEN SALON BLOG:
“Together, we’ll make it clear that no woman ever struggles alone.” (I hope so, I’m reserving applause, though). I just reviewed the “We’s” versus the “I’s” (Pres. elect Obama). I heard ONLY one “I,” only one promise. And that was in the opening statement. “AS PRESIDENT, I”LL MAKE THESE EFFORTS A NATIONAL PRIORITY.”
{{HOW?? Tell us NOW what you — not all of us — plan to do. After all, you want the vote, right? What’s your commitment, in DETAIL.}}. . . As it played out, I have looked already — this same remarkable “lack of detail” is in the White House Agenda. I have already posted on it, and one of my top links to the above right is a 4-page summary of just how much of a “priority” DV is in the big pictture. It is LAST on the agenda, and mentioned in appropriate token vagueness:
“Department of Health and Human Services” (this is a link)
The subtitle (page header) reads “NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY”
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal Government’s principal
agency for protecting the health of all Americans
and for providing essential human services {{LIKE<, STAYING ALIVE??}}
This (FY2010) Budget provides $768 billion in support of HHS’
mission that will bring down costs and expand coverage
The reserve is funded half by new revenue and half by savings proposals that promote efficiency
and accountability, align incentives toward quality, and encourage shared responsibility (etc. etc.)
Let’s compare $25 Million (whether this be 2009 or 2010, the above promise is an indicator): If your high school math is in place, $25,000,000 / $768,000,000 = $25 / $768,000 = or 0.00325% (alternately, 0.0000325). National priority. Now, I know that the USDOJ administers VAWA, but I am unsure whether its funding actually comes from HHS. (I will find out, though!)ANOTHER “QUICK LOOK” WAY IS TO SEE WHERE DOES THIS VAWA COME UNDER THE DEPT. HHS FY 2010 DESCRIPTION. FOR EXAMPLE: DOES IT MAKE “FUNDAMENTAL HIGHLIGHTS?” Look and see (the answer is No).
Does it as such rate its own heading (no). It shows up LAST, not bolded, in 4 pages of elaborate agenda with details of amount of funding: The heading on alternate pages reads “NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY” and addressing violence against women, or intimate partner violence (which overlaps with child abuse, can lead to homelessness and death, and does, etc., and has been tagged as potential cause of substance abuse and other troubles under http://www.acestudy.org (Adverse Childhood Experiences — see my link to right) — this does not make the “CHANGE.gov”‘s administrations honor roll, even.
Domestic Violence comes under “Other Presidential Initiatives” like this:
Provides Support for Other Presidential
initiatives.
The Budget includes funding to reduce domestic violence and enhance emergency
care systems It also expands the treatment ca-
pacity of drug courts including services to protect
methamphetamine’s youngest victims Substance
addiction is a preventable and treatable chronic
condition and this initiative helps address the
most urgent needs The Budget also provides re-
sources to reduce health disparities, which the
President has identified as an important goal of
his Administration
The sum total level of description, herein, are the words “reduce domestic violence.” There is plenty more detail in almost any of the other 17 plans. Each merits its own paragraph. REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMES IN #18.5 of 18.
Hardly a “priority,” eh? ???
Let’s check back at whitehouse.gov — maybe they did better for 2009: (I have also already posted on this):
FAMILY:
Ten days after taking office, the President established a White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, led by Vice President Biden. The Task Force is focused on raising the living standards of middle-class, working families across America.
The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided needed support to families enduring difficult times.
ALREADY I see I’m not on the map. We were a middle class (lower) working family plagued by (my husband’s) domestic violence, which has resulted in him, basically dropping off the map economically since separation (FYI, part of the economic abuse, ongoing) and me being forced out of it back onto welfare. So out of the gitgo, many families, being in this situation, are not on the map economically as to being rescued. HOWEVER, let’s look. Under the “FAMILY” is this statement above, that this AMERICAN RECOVERY & REINVESTMENT ACT is to help “families enduring difficult times.”
Domestic violence is long-term difficult times, until it is stopped, or the perpetrator is separated from his victim, and held accountable. However, a problem arises (among them, jails are full). ANother problem is the alternate white house agenda of putting fathers (ALL fathers, apparently) back in their kids lives. I am wondering whether a female-designed program might just have accounted for the concept that under the all-inclusive category of “WOMEN” (in VAWA) are many MOTHERS. We are approximately half the population, or 51% I heard? Most of the other half came from some of us. If the 1 in 4 abuse figure (25% of the 51%) is appropriate, then I think this is a significant enough percentage to merit a mention under “family” in our white house agenda.
Under “Families” are 7 bullets, none of which refers to violence within the families.
Under helping Working Families, it’s not mentioned either.
Under STRENGTHEN FAMILIES, do battered Moms (or women) (or children) make a mention?
Strengthen Families
President Obama was raised by a single parent and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. {{ DESPITE MY RAILING ON THESE SITES< I FEEL HE TURNED OUT ALL RIGHT. DON”T YOU? HE BECAME PRESIDENT. I VOTED FOR HIM IN PART HOPING HE MIGHT ALSO UNDERSTAND THE SINGLE MOM TAKE ON LIFE.}}
He is committed to responsible fatherhood, (1) by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. (2) The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.
[The bold below was a technical error and will be corrected later]…
A commitment to stopping domestic violence, which is primarily targeted at women when it comes to fatalities, would most certainly help ensure that the children at least get to grow up, period!!
(1) “responsible fatherhood” is a code word for the uninformed, and boy is IT well funded. By “encouraging young MEN to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways” I would like to note, WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN?? It’s already abundantly clear it is desirable that the Moms put their kids in earlier and earlier Head Start. The purpose of this is that we go to work. So why do young MEN get our President’s and his wife’s special encouragement, while the young women, some of who are giving birth, don’t even get a mention when it comes to “promising career pathways.” What is expected? Does he want us at home with our kids (but not homeschooling, which is anti-patriotic, I heard), or in the workforce? Does he want to perpetuate the WAGE gap while attempting to narrow the health care gap? What’ gives?
And, I would also like to ask, where is the respect here for some of the older women, who have raised children somehow with or without the benefit of VAWA, and are working also? If we happen to be divorced and NOT playing 2nd string Mom to some children that were Healthily replaced into Marriages that the Federal Government approves of, what are we expected to to do? Take up the slack in the VAWA funding as encouraged to do in the Oct. 08 speech above?
Now, while I see under “Women” this is mentioned, I just wish to point out that when discussing “families” it takes a woman to make one.
“Prevent Violence Against Women
Violence against women and girls remains a global epidemic. The Violence Against Women Act, originally authored by Vice President Biden, plays a key role in helping communities and law enforcement combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. At home and abroad, President Obama will work to promote policies that seek to eradicate violence against women.”
On subsequent posts, I will describe some of the funding for policies that tend to do the exact opposite. When it comes to $$ versus words, a $$ is worth a thousand words, and paints a clearer picture.
Other links on VAWA, not necessarily up to date:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.
VAWA was drafted by Senator Joe Biden’s office with support from a number of advocacy organizations including Legal Momentum and The National Organization for Women, which described the bill as “the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades.”
VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006.
Criticisms of VAWA legislation
Various persons and groups, including Marc H. Rudov, Glenn Sacks, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR), and African-Americans for VAWA Reform (AAVR), have voiced concerns that VAWA violates due process, equal protection, and other civil rights. {{ALL OF WHICH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ITSELF DOES….}} None of these groups oppose laws protecting victims of domestic violence. They oppose laws that discriminate exclusively against specific social groups and deny these groups equal protections.
NOTE: Click on “Rudov” (a name I’m less familiar with) for a sampling of the thinking behind opposition to VAWA
PICTURE ME IN THE AUDIENCE, EAGERLY RAISING MY HAND, AS IN A CLASSROOM, JUMPING UP & DOWN FOR ATTENTION.. .. “Sir, Sir? SIR?? I have a question”
Given that many “women” are “mothers,” and the Bush and Clinton administrations are avidly promoting “Healthy Marriages” (meaning, 2-parent households preferred, all others, go to the back of the line, when it comes to custody) “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood,” how are you going to reconcile the domestic violence restraining orders, obtained through the VAWA fundings, with the inevitable trip through the family law system, where another paradigm reigns?
How are you going to reconcile “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood” {{=child support waivers (lowered obligations) in exchange for increased access (to children that may have witnessed Dad beating Mom to the point the law had to intervene)}} with the above claim. As I am sure you know, those movements “rule” in the family law system, and are vastly outfunded compared to this $25million, though we do appreciate it?
Would it not be simpler to de-fang the the policies that are specificall directed AGAINST VAWA and AGAINST the right of a woman to NOT remarry after leaving an abuser, without losing the children that she removed from that volatile environment?
Or, I have another idea. If the “communities of faith” continue (as they have) to operate as a law unto themselves (as they do) in the matter of domestic violence, being as clergy at least, many of them mandated reporters of DV & child abuse, how’s about you remove the tax-exempt status unless they PUBLICALLY post the laws stating that domestic violence, spiritual or moral problem that it is too, IS in this country a felony or misdemeanor crime??
Prevent Violence Against Women
Violence against women and girls remains a global epidemic. The Violence Against Women Act, originally authored by Vice President Biden, plays a key role in helping communities and law enforcement combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. At home and abroad, President Obama will work to promote policies that seek to eradicate violence against women.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Irreconciliable differences?
Decades after mediation became the model in divorce, and was pushed worldwide (starting in Calif., especially in the 1980s), it still has a sour taste…
Hey — Can we talk about consequences of this doctrine, yet??? This is the U.K., only last fall (Sept. 2008). I was googling another incident, and:
Kate Hilpern, in “The Guardian” asks:
Ending it all
This week’s killing of two little girls by their father, who then killed himself, is the latest in a shocking tally of so-called ‘family wipe-outs’. What drives men, often described as devoted to their children, to carry out such crimes? And can we stop them? Kate Hilpern reports
Every six to eight weeks (and lately, more frequently) a man or a woman – usually a man – kills their partner or their children and then themselves. Most of these cases are never reported. David Wilson, professor of criminology at Birmingham City University, explains that, somewhere along the line, our perception of murder has become warped and “murder-suicides” don’t quite fit prevailing news values. “Most people have a view of murder – which is very much constructed by the media – as stranger-perpetrated and requiring police to try to catch those perpetrators. In fact, the clear-up [rate] for murder [is currently around] 88% and that’s because you don’t have to be a Cracker to work out who’s done it. When it comes to children, the most likely person to kill them is their parent, just as when it comes to adults, the most likely person is their partner.”
No, this wasn’t in my world view growing up, either. . . Yours??? Theirs??
This article intelligently addresses several of the primary issues, such as what these were NOT (temporary insanity). It WAS predictable, and probably avoidable. It WAS about power and revenge. Frequently, the woman was ignored. Precursors besides clear threats, and a history of battering the woman, include often depression, and recent or long-term unemployment or unemployment. And/or stalking. Clear refusal to obey orders. I personally KNOW these things (all of them), and it scares the bejeebers out of me.
What has frightened me, if possible, much, much more, is that with each return to a family court judge, there is no alarm, fright, concern, or apparent belief of the warning signs. Instead, there is this kind of “stupor,” as in, where’s the blood? When was the last time you were taken to the emergency room. Was there an actual threat to kill?
No, not this time. The point was made clear years ago, and has continued to be made clear through enforcement of minor requests as orders (or else), or taking my daughters when I attempted to set a line in the sand — or collect child support arrears.
To be taken with an ex-spouse in front of a court that refuses to believe (or review the file), and have a mutual knowing that this is not going to be taken seriously — and then to go and read the laws that say, it IS to be taken seriously — that is a very, very, frightening experience, my friends. It interferes with daily life often enough. How low can one lie? Is it possible to lie below the radar of such intense stubborn refusal to comply (with court orders), such flagrant challenging of them rubber stamped publically — but not for women.
“In other cases of murder suicide – which, despite the recent spate, have remained constant in terms of numbers for several decades – there is a very clear history of domestic violence. In other cases of murder suicide – which, despite the recent spate, have remained constant in terms of numbers for several decades – there is a very clear history of domestic violence. “
“Julia Pemberton’s ex-husband repeatedly warned her that he would kill her. It wasn’t that she didn’t take notice, as she told friends, family and police. Family court judges were aware of the terror. Her final 16-minute 999 call made headlines in 2004 when it was read out at the inquest into her and her 17-year-old son William’s murders, committed by her husband, who also killed himself.”
====
I note that the address URL for this article read “/children.mentalhealth”
Here’s a wonderful excerpt from the AFCC website talking about how the “old” terminology of criminal law was just so inappropriate, outmoded, as it were, for family law. After all, it’s a “family,” right?
(This is from the AFCC link to the right, the history page):
“The 1980s: The Mediation Explosion”
“The Children’s Bureau of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare awarded AFCC a research grant to study the effects of mediation on custody and visitation disputes in courts in Connecticut, Los Angeles and Minneapolis.
Interest in court-connected reconciliation counseling was diminishing, and joint custody, mediation, domestic violence and stepfamilies were becoming central issues. The legislation boom had begun, and it was moving in a strong wave from California across the United States. Mandatory mediation and joint custody were hot topics.AFCC’s Mediation Committee hosted three national symposia on mediation standards between 1982 and 1984. Representatives of more than thirty organizations participated in developing the first set of Model Standards of Practice for Family and Divorce Mediation. By the late 1980s, mediation of custody and visitation disputes was mandatory in jurisdictions in more than 33 states.”
I have experienced mediation 3 times. It was a farce each time. It also was a violation of due process, and immediately upended the family dynamics — and households. I am utterly opposed to its use in DV, and the family courts are utterly adamant about it up here. WHY, one wonders. Streamlines the process, no messy “reviewing” of the court record, or the history of DV that perhaps led to the breakup to start with.
Perhaps there should be an automatic safety rule, as Dads feel so disempowered, and need to act quickly to restore the balance — a cooling off period of at least 3 months, perhaps. Perhaps. I don’t know, but mediation will not work when the power balance includes physical violence and intimidation. Depending on how one defines “works.” A 32 year old man, here (above) was sure he’d win. When he didn’t, he found another way to “win.” We need another paradigm.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Rocky Mountain High– if you’re in one of these professions…
leave a comment »
or should I say, Rocky Mountain HYbrid? Sure looks like one here….
A.k.a. Carpet Bagging on Divorce Distress, at high altitudes…
I just had an odd question: Why is SF’s famous, and well-established Family Violence Prevention Fund, a pace-setter and leader in the field of violence preVENtion conferences and training, promoting conferences like this?
I mean, I just got on “endabuse.org” and searched for “family law,” to see if they actually address some of the rampant troubles with the family law system. After all, they are a FAMILY violence prevention fund….
Here are links on top right, first page”:
ACTION CENTER
LEARN MORE
Do you see anything about preventing violence against WOMEN? In fact, women show up, if they’re immigrants. A search of “fathers” versus a search of “mothers” on this site pull up entirely different stats — you should try it some time.
This came up on page 1 of search results, only the 4th item:
**:have evolved.” Wake up. Want to know how? Look at AFCC’s “About us” or history page — this was not accident, it was intentional transformation, and “how” they evolved was particularly through conferences such as the AFCC puts on, policies which the FVPF has now more overtly (i’m not sure for how long they were ever truly independent) bought into….
I DID “click here,” which brought me not to New Orleans, but to Denver. At which point, this post was conceived and “evolved” — we deserve to know that the organization called “endabuse” is advertising for, and sponsoring conferences for, the organization that is promoting doctrines specifically originated to cover up domestic VIOLENCE (not “abuse”), Child Abuse (is the term, although it does violence to children), and incest, etc. . . . To cover up criminal behavior and change it into something else, linguistically.
/ / / / /
Let me clarify “AFCC”, in case you’re under 20, IN one of these professions, and haven’t been a parent involved in divorce: Custody Switches Happen. HOW do they happen? When something is confronted by one parent, or reported by a children, generally speaking. WHY does this occur? Well, a variety of reasons, but generally in retaliation for reporting. (From what I can see). I mean, what’s the common (?) or $$-and-cents for pulling a sole-custody switch midway through a growing child’s life? It’s $$ and sense from a certain perspective… The “best interests” of the child is not as common sense as we might wish to think (see my blog on slavery & domestic violence, a recent one).
But I’m blabbing here: AFCC, per Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net, and I have to agree after my studies, at least of grants patterns and some of the printed materials, not to mention experiences:
The LEGAL disincentive for defaulting on child support obligations is a contempt of a court order action. There was no problem in using this against the protective mother in Oconto Wisconsin, recently, so I know the judges “understand” the concept. But when a father is involved, somehow we need to give them “incentive” to care about their children’s welfare by helping “bribe” (you give me this, I may give you that, perhaps) them to carry this out in the form of stepping up to that child support plate. That alone is suspect to me, as well as many other aspects of the child support system.. . . . . Women are supposed to care, men have to be bribed to?
ALSO, Is that what any type of courts are FOR? To resolve family conflict? I thought that’s what counseling and therapy was for. Sounds like we have a confusion of purposes somewhere (and should throw out the Constitution as irrelevant, as well as laws). ANYHOW, here they are:
47Th Annual Conference
June 2-5, 2010
Denver, Colorado
More information>>
December 7-8 & 9-10, 2009More information >>
AFCC Training Programs In Houston, Texas
February 22-23 & 24-25, 2010More information >>
Subscribe to the AFCC free Monthly eNews
Subscribe>>
‘Traversing the Trail of Alienation: Mountains of Emotion, Mile High Conflict‘
I’d like to pause here for a brief prayer: “Lord, deliver us from all do-gooders, parent educators, and unsolicited profiteering helpers that may cross my life, or my children’s this day, in Jesus name, Amen.” (I’d rather SEE a sermon than attend a parenting seminar any day. This is parenting: you get your kids SAFE, FIRST, and teach them right from wrong based on behavior, character — not family function. You do not assault & batter yourself, and you protect them from those who do, to the best of your ability, and empathize at least when you can’t. How many of those parenting educators have actually GONE through what family law system has put us through, and after DV, too in many cases? Moreover, I’m not paid for being a mother. In some contexts, doing this can be criminalized as resulting in family “conflict,” i.e., taking a stand somwhere along the line!)
FVPF should not be promoting this! Why are they? Oh– I forgot to tell you:
Do you see the word “discretionary” in the “grants to shelters” ??label? Really, it’s about conferences and training, not actually STOPPING violence. For another, perhaps, because they can: I mean — this is 2009, alone.
Funding is going GREAT for THIS nonprofit:
Assistance to Recipient(s) “family violence prevention fund”
(FY 2000-2010)
Total number of recipients: 1
Total number of transactions: 67
Look at which branches are funding it now — the best of both worlds, from HHS and DOJ both. One is promoting fatherhood through federal grants, another is spouting out millions (and that’s literally) to organizations like this, and others, to “train” judges how to recognize domestic violence (clue: look in the law, look at the facts, look at the bleeding, look at the casualties) and be good and address it, supposedly.
Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance
HERE”s the CALIFORNIA chapter of AFCC, transforming the words “clear and present danger” (lifted DIRECTLY from the legislature’s own definition of a spousal batterer) into a budget crisis — which the same group has contributed to!
Whose children ARE they now? Are they your subject matter or the progeny of two parents? When you see a kid, do you see a $$ sign for your profession?
Apparently so, and government grants to ENDABUSE.org going to promote AFCC — a membership charging organization — for professionals to hawk their wares, while too many parents are UNaware of it.
Which I hope to stop, obviously!
That’s what I call Carpetbagging, no matter what the altitude.
Would like to analyze a bit more, but time and technical limitations prevent. Check this out yourself….
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
November 28, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Posted in After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids
Tagged with AFCC, Alienation, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, domestic violence, Due process, DV, Education, family law, fatherhood, FVPF, Grammar of Male Violence, HHS-TAGGS grants database, mediation, obfuscation, social commentary, Studying Humans, Supervised Visitation, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..