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

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

Posts Tagged ‘men’s rights

Analyze This: Wichita Woes — What happened after 911? (1st time, 2nd time).

with 2 comments

I rest my case on “certifiably insane protection orders”. . . . 

 

This article is a quiz (answers below).  Do this:

A.  Put events in order.  

B.  What piece of the puzzle doesn’t “fit” and which pieces are missing?

C.  Keeping this within Kansas, bring this case history  to Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau, recently found sponsoring (yet another) Fatherhood act of some sort in Kansas and ask for commentary.  Request permission to record, and share on youtube with the rest of us, why a man like this needed to be within cutting/shooting range of his 21 month old daughter.  (Because if he didn’t get this, someone was going to pay, bad?).  And how the (decade-plus) of prior fatherhood initiatives may or may not have contributed to this young man’s sense that after punching XXX officers and threatening to slit the throat of his wife, for calling for help, society still owed him something…

D.  Rewrite the headline, more appropriately reflecting the crucial issues in the case.

And then Alternately

E-1.  Pray to the tooth fairy that this isn’t you or anyone you know and/or recite after me:

E-2.  “it spiraled out of control.  We had no idea.  It spiraled out of control.  The real social crisis of our time is fatherlessness, not lawlessness.  It wasn’t his fault.  It wasn’t her fault.  It wasn’t anyone’s fault.  Nevertheless, the Feds + faith-based + local agencies will fix this situation.  We WILL eradicate violence against women and murder by men if we JUST try harder, train more professionals, and dump some dollars in that direction.  We WILL, right??”


The children are our future.  Now, Where’s that Valium?

Kansas.com


Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past

. . . (and they married WHY???)

Comments (0) 

BY TIM POTTER

The Wichita Eagle

The 27-year-old man accused this week of ambushing a Sedgwick County sheriff’s deputy had a history of violence against his ex-wife — and against officers.

{{For why the word “had” is used, see 2nd article, below}}

 

In 2005, Richard Lyons’ ex-wife, Jenifer, accused him of holding a hunting knife to her throat and threatening to kill her after she called 911, an affidavit filed in Sedgwick County District Court said.

Lyons pleaded guilty to aggravated assault and served several months in the county jail followed by about 16 months in a state prison.

He was released on parole on March 2, 2007. His sentence and parole supervision ended on April 11, 2008, records show.

In March 2005, four Wichita police officers responded to a report of a disturbance with a knife at his ex-wife’s home in the 900 block of South Waverly, in southeast Wichita.

Lyons had arrived and “demanded she give him their infant daughter,” the affidavit said.

She reported that they argued and that after she called 911, Lyons held a 4- to 6-inch knife blade to her throat and threatened her. The knife reportedly came from a sheath attached to his pants.

“Jenifer said she hung up the phone because she was in fear for her life and believed Richard would carry out his threat,” said the document, used to bring the felony aggravated assault charge against Lyons.

On the 911 call, a male voice could be heard saying, “I will cut you,” the affidavit said.

When he went to get a diaper bag in another part of the house, his ex-wife grabbed her two children and fled, the affidavit said.

At the home, officers found signs of a disturbance, and when they tried to arrest Lyons, he punched two officers, the document said.

Although prosecutors also initially charged him with two counts of misdemeanor battery against an officer, those two charges were dismissed after he agreed to plead guilty to the more serious charge of aggravated assault, records show.

His ex-wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Lyons.

In April 2005, about a month after the incident involving his ex-wife, court records show Lyons was living at the house where he is accused of shooting Deputy Brian Etheridge this week — first with a rifle and then with the deputy’s own gun.

Etheridge was responding to a 911 call from the South Rock Road residence, reporting a theft — a report authorities now think was concocted.

In Lyons’ 2005 divorce case, court records say he was working for Colortime in El Dorado at the time. The court at one point required him to pay $234 a month in child support.

At another point in 2005, Lyons temporarily lost visitation with his 1 1/2-year-old daughter because of the incident involving his ex-wife.

On Tuesday, a man who said he was Lyons’ father declined to comment.

Lyons’ ex-wife could not be reached.

In September 2003, about two years before the knife incident, Lyons was convicted of misdemeanor battery against an officer.

In the years before that, he had been convicted of felony criminal threat and misdemeanor domestic battery and criminal damage to property, records show.

As a juvenile, he had misdemeanor convictions dating to 1995, when he was 12, for criminal damage to property.

Wichita school district records show that Lyons withdrew from Metro Boulevard Alternative High School in July 2002.

Contributing: Hurst Laviana of The Eagle Reach Tim Potter at 316-268-6684 or tpotter@wichitaeagle.com.

QUIZ ANSWERS (mine) BELOW:  (I interspersed A & B as dialogue)

Events, apparent order (quite different from article, which jumps around considerably)

  • 1995 Juvenile Richard Lyons, age 12, has misdemeanor convictions for criminal damage to property, ergo he was born about 1983.
  • July 2002, Lyons withdraws from alternative high school (age, about 19)
  • Between age of majority (2001?) and 2003, he has convictions for felony criminal threat AND misdemeanor domestic battery, meaning, probably against a WIFE or GIRLFRIEND.  This is called “domestic violence,” folks.  SEE 1994 VAWA Act.
  • ??? somewhere in there he gets married to Jenifer Lyons.
  • Sept. 2003, misdemeanor Battery against an officer.
  • Somewhere in 2003  Jenifer gives birth to his child.  (Note:  Physical assaults sometimes begin with pregnancy.  Mine did).
  • Somewhere between then and 2005, they get divorced.  (Given the assaults, probably understandable.  What’s not quite understandable is why they got married, unless the pregnancy PLUS her lack of other options to survive (i.e., HER family of origin support), PLUS no doubt some of this federal pushing of marriage on everyone…??  Who knows.  Maybe they wanted to.  Maybe HER household (how old was she?) was a place she needed to get out of.
  • By 2005, he has a child support order in place and is actually, it appears working.  Apparently they’ve entered the family court system somehow, I’d guess.  The man is all of 22 years old, so this is a good thing and possibly a change for him?
  • THIS IS TAKING LONGER THAN I PLANNED.
  • OBVIOUSLY they had “visitation” (unsupervised, obviously).  Note:  He assaults women AND officers, felony-style, and threatenes (someone — seee above).  He destroys property and punches policemen.  NEVERTHELESS, an infant needs her Daddy.  Daddies can be nurturers too.  If we try hard enough, perhaps all of us (through funds, and social support and of course parenting classes) can transform this young man into a real nurturer before he kills someone for telling he can’t combine nurturing infants with wife assault.

Now in March 2005, things start getting, well, interesting:

  • In 2005, Richard Lyons’ ex-wife, Jenifer, accused him of holding a hunting knife to her throat and threatening to kill her after she called 911, an affidavit filed in Sedgwick County District Court said
  • HEre’s the account, I rearranged some sentences.  Apparently by now there are 2 children (both his?  Maybe not?) 
  1. Lyons had arrived (EXCHANGE OF THE KIDS  RIGHT?  Here’s a CLASSIC CASE involving DV, and no help with the exchange.  Yes, I’d imagine this was in family law system already, totally oblivious (per se!) to the potential danger of the situation, despite lethality assessments and DV literature dating back to at least 1985 (Barbara J. HART), 1989 (Family Visitation Centers started in Duluth Minnesota), 1994 (Violence Against Women Act) and all kinds of other literature.  THis hadn’t reaached the “heartland” yet, I guess. )  and “demanded she give him their infant daughter,” the affidavit said.  ((OMISSION – was there a custody/visitation in order or not?  if so, was it clear and specific, as many states require (but don’t practice) cases involving DV be, to avoid incidents like this?  If it WAS clear and specific, was his demand in compliance with or NOT in compliance with that order?  As they say, and we see, this isn’t typically a guy that plays by the rules, not even the rules for graduating from high school, or refraining from damaing others’ propery.  We’ll, he’s about graduate from punching officers to putting a knife to his wife’s throat.  I wonder if this was the first time….)
  2. She reported that they argued {{POSSIBLY OVER WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS HIS TIME TO SEE HIS DAUGHTER?}} and that after she called 911, {{POSSIBLY THE ARGUMENT CONTAINED SOME THREAT OR PHYSICAL ELEMENTS?}} Lyons held a 4- to 6-inch knife blade to her throat and threatened her. The knife reportedly came from a sheath attached to his pants.  {{May I speculate that perhaps Mrs. Lyons was aware that Mr. Lyons sometimes carried knives, and this may have contributed to her decision to call 911, even if the argument was only “verbal” in nature?}} 
  3. On the 911 call, a male voice could be heard saying, “I will cut you,” the affidavit said.  (I’m going to assume this is “evidence” and it was his, not a responding officer’s.  I will further assume that this was a criminal prosecution, because someone actually got ahold of that 911 call.  GIVEN the history, was this a creditable threat?  It appears to the reader that her report was accurate in this part.  Contrary to the “false allegations” stigma associated with women reporting violence (or threats of it), ” because they want to get custody,” this report seems to have some merit.
  1. “Jenifer said she hung up the phone because she was in fear for her life and believed Richard would carry out his threat,” said the document, used to bring the felony aggravated assault charge against Lyons.  {AS FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS SHOW, YES HE WAS CAPABLE OF AND WILLING TO COMMIT MURDER WHEN HE FELT WRONGED OR WAS ANGRY OR ??  SO HERE, SHE DROPS THE “911” METHOD OF SELF PRESERVATION AND, if I may add, protecting her children, WITH HER KIDS OPTS FOR THE “FLEE” METHOD.   Amazingly, a charge was actually filed.  For why, possibly, read on.
  2. When he went to get a diaper bag in another part of the house, his ex-wife grabbed her two children and fled, the affidavit said.  {{I have done this flee while he’s in the other part of the house routine, often enough}}
  3. HERE COME THE RESPONDING OFFICERS:  In March 2005, four Wichita police officers responded to a report of a disturbance with a knife at his ex-wife’s home in the 900 block of South Waverly, in southeast Wichita.   {{Officers KNOW domestic violence wih a weapon can be lethal.  They didn’t send one custody evaluator, one parenting educator, one mediator, and one guardian ad litem, they sent FOUR officers, and I BET they were armed…  Yet women are left to face this, sometimes weekly, without adequate protection.}}
  4. At the home, officers found signs of a disturbance, and when they tried to arrest Lyons, he punched two officers, the document said.

Not one but 2 officers.  Tell them to thank Wade Horn, George Bush (Jr.), former President Clinton, present President Obama, (well, adjust for the year), and others for those punches to the face.  Father-engagement.  Healthy Families. . .. You’re in it. . . . . . .   Were these male and female officers, I wonder, and which ones got punched.  But in an incident, it could easily be any of them.

Moving on in our sequencing:

5.  Prosecutors initially charged him with two counts of misdemeanor battery against an officer.

6.  he agreed to plead guilty to the more serious charge of aggravated assault.  (good move, as they saw evidence, and he was already heard on tape threatening to cut her.)

7.  The lesser charges (above) were dismissed.  Is this called a “plea-bargain?

8.  His ex-wife obtained a protection-from-abuse order against Lyons.   (((WHEN?? see last post on police reporting of incidents).  Now?  Or had she earlier?  Criminal, or civil?)

 

NOW — figure out this timeline if you can:

9.  Lyons pleaded guilty to aggravated assault (See 6, above.  WHEN?  WHAT MONTH 2005?) and

10. served several months in the county jail followed by about 16 months in a state prison.

March 2007 is 24 months from March 2005 (date of assault).  Ergo “about 16 months” plus “several months” possibly does NOT add up to 24.  How many people do this kind of mental math when reading leading bleeding headlines?  

March 2005 (arguing, resulting in 911 call, threatening to slit wife’s throat in retaliation for calling 911, with 2 kids, one of them a toddler girl, in the home, Mom + 2 flee for safety, 4 police come, 2 of whom are punched) – March 2007 is most definitely 24.

The question is, what is “several” months?  Is it 8, or 9 (8 + 16 = 24, right?)   WHEN did he plea-bargain?  After punching officers and threatening to kill wife was he then RELEASED in this foul mood?  If he threatened to slit her throat and assaulted people who tried to help in March 2005, what kind of response might we expect after being sentenced, if he was released on bail?

11. He was released on parole on March 2, 2007.

12. His sentence and parole supervision ended on April 11, 2008, records show.

 

What this section of reporting does is to reassure that his crime (of — see above) was indeed punished properly.  Or was it?

13.  In April 2005, about a month after the incident involving his ex-wife, court records show Lyons was living at the house where he is accused of shooting Deputy Brian Etheridge this week — first with a rifle and then with the deputy’s own gun.

Omittting the obvious — after arrest (i’m going to hazard a guess that the 2 punched officers or their colleagues eventually handcufffed the guy) he was free on bail or own recognizance until arraignment and incarceration

YES, you read it right, finally.  Threaten to slit her throat, punch TWO responding officers, and get out scot free, for a few months.  This is an interesting sentence (I don’t operate under press deadlines, but still . . . . .  the sentence bridges four years of time:  2005 & 2009!)  Well, not quite scot free.  He was punished with not seeing his daughter, “temporarily.”  Wonder what time frame THAT word spans.

14.  At another point in 2005, {{Can we get a hint which month?}} Lyons temporarily lost visitation with his 1 1/2-year-old daughter because of the incident involving his ex-wife.

When I filed for a DV restraining order with kickout, and we had the guns, knives and assaults thing, but not on officers — we got ALMOST 7 days with no visitation, as I recall.  Perhaps at the most 14, as he had to find a place to live.

 

Now here is about the slain officer:

  1. Sheriff: Deputy was ambushed
  2. Suspect in deputy’s shooting had violent past
  3. Marriage came as a surprise to Johansson
  4. Deputy was quiet, funny, passionate about his work
  5. Opinion Line (Sept. 30)
  6. Robbers strike as police look for killer
  7. Deputy’s funeral set for Friday
  8. Sedgwick County Commission remembers slain deputy
  9. Opinion Line Extra (Sept. 30)
  10. Wichita man arrested on suspicion of animal cruelty

 

Sheriff was Ambushed

A black band around the badge of Sheriff Bob Hinshaw. The badges are in honor of deputy Brian Etheridge, who was shot and killed in the line of duty on Monday.

WICHITA – Richard Lyons set the trap shortly before noon on Monday by calling 911 to report a theft at his house.

He then hid in the shadows of a tree and brush in the backyard of a house in the 3600 block of South Rock Road with a high-powered rifle, authorities said Tuesday. He waited for a law enforcement officer to show up.

That happened to be Sedgwick County sheriff’s Deputy Brian Etheridge.

“It does appear to have been an ambush situation,” Sheriff Bob Hinshaw said Tuesday of the shooting death of Etheridge, 26, the first Sedgwick County deputy to die in the line of duty in 12 years.

Lyons, 27, was shot to death a few hours later in a field not far from the house in an exchange of gunfire with law enforcement officers.

“It’s scary,” Hinshaw said. “It could have been any law enforcement officer… this was just a call to 911 to get any officer to respond.”

Investigators spent Monday night and Tuesday collecting shell casings and other evidence, Hinshaw said, piecing together a chain of events from what was left behind.

Based on that evidence, Hinshaw offered this account:

Lyons called 911 at 11:42 a.m. Etheridge was dispatched to the address just east of McConnell Air Force Base and radioed his arrival at 11:51 a.m.

When no one answered his knock on the front door, he asked dispatchers for contact information for the caller. He then walked around to the backyard of the house and saw no one.

Lyons was hiding in the shadows on the bright, sunny day, and opened fire with a .30-30 rifle — a weapon commonly used by deer hunters — when Etheridge turned his back as he was either approaching the back door or returning to the front of the house, Hinshaw said.

The bullet hit Etheridge in the back, penetrating his body armor and knocking him down. Lyons approached the fallen deputy and tried to fire his rifle again, but it malfunctioned.

He took Etheridge’s gun and shot him in the leg before disappearing.

Etheridge radioed for help, and scores of law enforcement officers from throughout the metropolitan area converged on the scene.

The wounded deputy was alert and communicating with the first officers on the scene, Hinshaw said, but their priority at that time was his medical care — not gathering information about the suspect.

Escorted by patrol cars, an ambulance raced Etheridge to Wesley Medical Center, where he underwent surgery.

Authorities established a one-mile perimeter around the house and urged residents inside that area to leave if possible.

Wichita Police Chief Norman Williams said authorities had information indicating Lyons was likely inside the house, so that address remained the focus of their attention even as law enforcement officers combed outlying areas within the perimeter.

Tear gas was deployed twice into the house in attempt to flush the suspect out, Williams said, and SWAT team members were preparing to blast open the front door at about 5:15 p.m. when authorities were notified that the suspect had been spotted hiding near a tree row in a nearby field.

Agents from the Kansas Highway Patrol and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were patrolling a field in a Humvee when one of the officers spotted Lyons’ leg as he lay on the ground.

They stopped the Humvee, and Lyons stood up and fired at the vehicle with the deputy’s handgun. He then began running, firing several more shots as the ATF agents and KHP officers ran after him.

The law enforcement officers returned fire, striking Lyons “multiple times,” Hinshaw said.

Lyons was taken to Wesley Medical Center, where he was pronounced dead at 6:10 p.m.

Investigators hope to talk to neighbors and relatives of Lyons, Hinshaw said, but he doesn’t expect every question raised by the shooting to be answered.

“We may never know what the motive is,” he said.

Results of the investigation, including the use of force, will be presented to the District Attorney’s Office for review.

Flags at Wichita City Hall and other city buildings have been lowered to half staff in honor of Etheridge. They will remain at half staff through Friday, the day of Etheridge’s funeral.

“We’re just really shocked and saddened by what has happened,” Mayor Carl Brewer said. “It has affected all of our law enforcement agencies.”

Brewer said the city is providing counselors for police officers who were involved in the shoot-out and others who may be shaken by the violence.

“Every time they make a stop or enter a house, they don’t know what’s going to happen,” he said. “This demonstrated just how much risk there is.”

Reach Stan Finger at 316-268-6437 or sfinger@wichitaeagle.com.

 

FIRST 911 — from a woman — consequence, she’s threatened and has to flee for her life, BUT her ex-husband IS jailed — for about 2 years, or less.


SECOND 911 — from the formerly jailed young man (27 yrs old is young) — his ambush.  SOMEONE was going to pay.  Was Etheridge (the officer killed) a responding officer in the former arrest, or just anyone in uniform would do?  Was he upset at what had happened in prison?

Was this suicide by cop?  Sounds like possibly, to me.

 

WOULD IT HAVE PLAYED OUT DIFFERENTLY IF THE COUPLE HAD STAYED TOGETHER, OR WOULD SHE BE A STATISTIC, NOT THE OFFICER?

ANYONE WANT TO DO A PSYCHOLOGICAL WORK-UP ON THIS ONE (PLACE BESIDE THE WORK-UPS ON PHILLIP GARRIDO, AND HIS WIFE?)  WAS IT UNEMPLOYMENT MADE HIM DO IT?  WAS IT THE CHILD SUPPORRT ORDER?  WAS IT ACTUALLY TAKING CONSEQUENCES FOR CRIMINAL ACTIVITY?  WAS IT HIS LACK OF A FATHER IN THE YOUTHFUL HOME (FATHER CONTACTED DECLINED TO COMMENT).  DID HE NOT HAVE A PLACE IN SOCIETY, WAS THAT IT?  WAS HE ON MEDS?  was he FORMERLY ON MEDS AND NOW OFF MEDS?  

WOULD’IT HAVE BEEN BETTER TO, AT ABOUT $20K/PRISONER/YEAR (??) KEEP HIM IN  LONGER, OR INDEFINITELY?  

DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I SAID EARLIER ABOUT “COLLATERAL DAMAGES” OF DV (OR SIMILAR PHRASE) IN YESTERDAY’S POST?

 

I do have one comment, here:  Something sounds narcissistic in the mix.  This person was supposedly a hell-raiser from an early age, but didn’t get help.  Possib ly being a father was a shot at sanity, but I think that the child support order was probably NOT a good idea for such a person.  It would’ve been better for all to let her do welfare.  She’d probably get off it quicker without the threats to her life than with them.

 

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RESOURCES IN KANSAS:

http://www.ksag.org/page/domestic-violence  (Attorney General Site):

Domestic Violence

The new Domestic Violence Unit within the Kansas Attorney General’s Office seeks to keep our families safe, stop domestic abuse and end the cycle of violence that threatens our communities.

Online Resources:

(Be sure to catch this “get inside their head” speculation (many didn’t apply to my case, i know):  date:

Source: The Battered Woman by Lenore Walker, Harper & Roe, 1979.  (I’m comforted to know that the Attorney General has the latest psychological profile of batterers and their victims — only 30 years old…..) 

  • Believes all the myths about battering relationships  {{NO one questioned me, and I hadn’t heard these…}}
  • A traditionalist about the home, strongly believes in family unity and the prescribed sex role stereotype  {{The alternative being, punishment….}}  {{BY THE WAY, this now describes the Health and Human Services Dept., in general, on this matter….}}
  • Accepts responsibility for the batterer’s actions  {{SAYS WHO?}}

Resources for Law Enforcement

 

Child Exchange and Visitation Center Program – (CEVC)

This program provides supervised child exchange or supervised child visitation to children and families at risk because of circumstances relating to neglect; substance abuse; emotional, physical, or sexual abuse; domestic or family violence; etc. The state portion of funding can be used to fund the local match required for receipt of federal child exchange and visitation center grants.

Mighta been helpful for Jenifer Lyons . . . . . 

The Essential Elements and Standards of 

Batterer Intervention Programs in Kansas  

The Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer Intervention Programs were developed over 

seven years through the hard work of many professionals who are dedicated to ending 

domestic violence in Kansas.   The Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

convened the initial work group and wishes to thank the following organizations for their work 

during this process: 

Developed and/or Reviewed by representatives from the following: 

Alternatives to Battering, Topeka 

Correctional Counseling of Kansas, Wichita   {{MAYBE Mr. Lyons got this and didn’t take kindly to it?”}}{{Or, the problem was, he DIDN’t get it?}}

Family Crisis Center, Great Bend 

Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board 

Halley Counseling, P.A., Girard 

Johnson County Office of Court Services 

The Family Peace Initiative, Girard 

Kansas District Judges’ Association 

Kansas Attorney General Carla Stovall 

Kansas Attorney General Steve Six 

Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence 

Kansas County and District Attorney Association 

Kansas Department of Corrections  

The Mental Health Consortium 

Office of Judicial Administration 

Sexual Assault/Domestic Violence Center, Hutchinson 

Wyandotte Mental Health Center 

Family Crisis Center, GreatIn 2007, The Governor’s Domestic Violence Fatality Review Board (GDVFRB), chaired by 

former Attorney General Robert Stephen appointed a subcommittee to review and update the 

Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer Intervention Programs. The GDVFRB adopted 

these as best practice standards in providing batterer intervention programming in Kansas, and 

recommended that the Office of Attorney General implement a training and certification program 

for providers of batterers intervention programs. 

Attorney General Steve Six readily accepted the recommendation to train and certify batterer 

intervention providers in Kansas using the Essential Elements and Standards of Batterer 

Intervention Programs in Kansas.   

For More information about this initiative, contact the  

Director of Victim Services in the office of 

 Kansas Attorney General  

Steve N. Six 

120 S.W. 10th Avenue 

Topeka KS 66612-1597 

785/368-8445

 

“FATHERHOOD  IN KANSAS (google, results 124,000)

 

ACCESS VISITATION IN KANSAS:

Child Custody, Support and Visitation Rights – Kansas Bar 

Visitation, often called “access” is the right of the parent who does not …. Child support and visitation are considered by statute in Kansas to be two 
http://www.ksbar.org/public/public…/child_custody.shtml – Cached – Similar – 


Crisis Resource Center of SE Kansas –

Child Exchange and Visitation Center. 669 South 69 Hwy.  Wichita Childrens Home Child Access. 810 North Holyoke 
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/…/access_visitation…/ks.html – Cached – Similar – 


Kansas Governor Mark Parkinson website  Funding Source, The Federal State Access &Visitation grant program is a formula grant program to states and 
http://www.governor.ks.gov/grants/grants_savppp.htm – Cached – Similar – 

 

  1. Overland Park Visitation Attorney | Leawood KS Parenting Plans 

     

    Visitation & Parenting Plans. Kansas Visitation Lawyer  custody or non- residential custody, your children have the right of access to both parents. 
    http://www.cavlaw.com/PracticeAreas/Visitation-Parenting-Plans.asp – Similar – 


    You will have access, at our Download Site, to the legal forms you need to modify custody-visitation in Kansas

    These forms are the most current versions 
    http://www.custodycenter.com/MODIFYCUSTODY-KS/index.html



    Following an emotional breakup, many moms allow or deny visitation by whim, {{OR WHEN HE THREATENS TO SLIT ONE’s THROAT< CASE IN POINT}}
    leaving the dads without regular access to their children. 
    http://www.kslegalhelp.com/Divorce-and-Family…/Paternity.shtml – Cached – Similar – 



    YES, THERE WAS A DIRE LACK OF SERVICES FOR MR. LYONS…

(2 more headlines) Distraught and Distracted? A Domestic Dispute (or, the economy) made them do it? These 2 men seemed Organized and Coherent (“Cool, calm & collected”) before, and after, 3 planned murders, apparently.

leave a comment »

 

Good afternoon, Plano, Texas and other visitors, I hope you are well today.  I include a headline contest below for viewers of the 2nd article.  Submit via comments.

Unfortunately, 2 (more) bleeding headlines.

 

(1)  California, “not a hot-blooded event”

 

The day before the killing, he delivered flowers and candy to her, and said they could just be friends….after a 13-year relationship

Follow up to the “distraught by economy” “domestic dispute” version of a double-homicide this week:  She was trying to end a co-habiting relationship, and, unfortunately, worked in a toll booth on a busy bridge.  When jogged up and shot her to death, there wasn’t a ready exit. Yet the first article portrayed it as a “domestic dispute,” a real knee-jerk, inappropriate phrase.  Before I could point this out in a post, Demian Bulwa of the SF Chronicle straightened us readers out in a follow-up article:  This murdering man set up the situation, and the unidentified 2nd man murdered was a friend of the girlfriend, a kind male who had given the woman a ride to work (which, did the murderer have work?  So, she goes to work, and is killed there…)

I did no follow-up research, but reading the first article, could’ve laid money, if I had some, that it was indeed a cold-blooded assassination.  Even so, the article below uses the word “rampage.”  No, the DC Sniper was a rampage.  The Columbine shootings, maybe not.  This one.  He didn’t shoot bystanders, or motorists.  He had two targets, and made them.

Folks, that’s ALSO typically how domestic violence goes.  I hope someday we “get it” that having a nice chat with someone doesn’t mean a lot, even when it’s daily for years, in these matters.  Do we just not KNOW each other, and know how to assess character any more?  Or characterize an incident after character just showed up, with a loaded gun (and apparently — below, a knife too).  

 

Bridge killer set up slayings, prosecutor says

Demian Bulwa, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, August 13, 2009

08-13) 13:51 PDT RICHMOND— Nathaniel Burris, the man accused of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend at the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge toll plaza, set up the rampage {sic} by slashing a tire on the man’s pickup truck so he could blast {kill.  the object was to kill.  The decibel level was not the main point} him with a shotgun as the victim waited for a tow service, a prosecutor said today.

(selections from the article):

The pickup truck belonged to 58-year-old Ersie Everette III of San Leandro, but was driven to the toll plaza Tuesday afternoon by Burris’s ex-girlfriend, Deborah Ross, a toll taker, said Contra Costa County prosecutor Hal Jewett.

Everette arrived later, having been dropped off by a co-worker after getting off his shift as a Golden Gate Transit bus driver, his family said.

Jewett said Burris, 46, punctured a tire on the truck, apparently with a knife, before Everette showed up, then hid where he could watch Everette though a pair of binoculars.

When Everette arrived and saw the damage, he called AAA for help, Jewett said. He was still waiting at 5:30 p.m when Burris approached and shot him once from close range, the prosecutor said.

{{I am so sorry that this individual, it appears did not suspect that his truck might have been chosen for a reason, rather than say, random violence.  Or that some other solution could’ve been had for fixing the tire.  There are down-sides sometimes to NOT being on alert.}}

According to police, Burris then jogged across traffic lanes to Ross’ toll booth and shot her several times before fleeing in a van that belonged to his employer, an airport shuttle company. He was arrested early Wednesday after he was spotted in the van on Interstate 80 in Placer County.

{{Can we deduce this man, driving for an airport shuttle company, did not have a criminal record?}}

Characterizing this crime as a tragedy is an understatement, particularly with the calculated and deliberate way he committed these crimes,” said Jewett, who heads his office’s homicide unit. “This was not a hot-blooded event but a cold-blooded series of killings, and we think the charges reflect that.

Ross, 51, and Burris were in a relationship for 13 years before she broke up with him just before the killings, Ross’ relatives said.  {{how much “just before”?}

The day before the shootings, Burris delivered flowers and candy to her in the Richmond townhouse a mile east of the toll plaza that they had shared, and said they could remain friends, Ross’ relatives said.

{{Just be friends after that long a relationship?  In general, don’t you believe that, ladies!  Well — are you SURE you know that guy?  If you were so sure, how come after years, the answer is, separate?}}{{and I do NOT know if tying the knot would make a difference or not.  At this point, I just do not.}}

{{Flowers and candy — if these aren’t normal, consider it a red flag?}}

Richmond police Sgt. Bisa French, a department spokeswoman, said it is not clear whether Ross was romantically involved with Everette.

{{Whether he was or not, he was probably perceived as such.  As helping her.  1. He was male, and 2.  he helped her.}}

Everette’s relatives said today that he and Ross had been engaged and had talked of marriage.

{{wait a minute — she broke up with him JUST before the killings, yet was ready to marry someone else, perhaps?  Although the two that were living together did NOT get married. . . .  That must’ve upset Burris….}}

Ross’ relatives, though, said the two had merely been friends from an Oakland church where Everette was a deacon.

{{Probably she shared about some of her troubles with Burris?  Was Burris going there too?  Was there a history of violence, or etc.  Were there really no indicators, or were people just not alert?}}

One of Ross’ sisters, Jane Walker of Oakland, said she was shocked to hear of the new allegations involving Burris.

“Oh my God, that’s scary to think that you can know someone all these years, and that they would plot and plan something like that,” she said. “He deserves whatever they give him. He’s not the person I thought I knew, and I’ll never forgive him.”

{{If my own family had similar sentiments, after I filed a domestic violence restraining order with kickout, I would not be here writing this blog.  We’d probably both — he, and me — have moved on in life without further escalations, child-stealing, fights around child support, and all that.  PROBABLY.  I tell you one thing that would probably be different.  I’d still be working in my profession, and have the children here.  But my own family, like MANY families, didn’t “get” the reality of the relationship}}{{Sorry, in their pain about their sister, but the thought comes to mind that NOW they are aware….}}{{What is the lesson here?  All that glitters is not gold?  People are not what they seem to be?  Nice guys can turn violent — or have criminal thoughts and act on them?}}

 

Burris is expected to be arraigned in a Martinez courtroom as soon as Friday morning. He is being held without bail at Contra Costa County Jail, where he declined a request for an interview today. Richmond police brought Burris back from Placer County on Wednesday evening.

The shotgun used in the killings was found in bushes under a window at the home of Burris’ mother, authorities said. Ross’ relatives said the mother lives in Sacramento. Efforts to reach her have been unsuccessful.

 

Read more:http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/13/BAHO1982PG.DTL&tsp=1#ixzz0O6stJgMK

(2) Pennsylvania, I think

I’m running a contest for the most appropriate,

subject line for this article.  Submit in comments.

Non-sarcastic entries will be summarily dismissed

as utterly inappropriate:


Murder suspect wants to place kids

By Liz Zemba, For The Valley Independent Wednesday, August 12, 2009

 

A Fayette County man accused of running over over his wife with his car and killing her wants his parents to have legal custody of two of his children.

 

>>>YES, they did a good job raising this man, and would be great prospects for raising the children of the woman he murdered.  There are no other decent, mature adults around with terrific track records of children they raised, who wouldn’t be tempted to backpedal (or have a conflict of interest) on the issue that, their Dad killed their Mom, but was really a nice guy at heart. Which is going to be something, an issue, those children will have to deal with.  

>>>By the way one reason I didn’t post yesterday (other than aftershock off the tollbooth shooting, and other work) another case came up of a woman being recalled from iceland over a custody battle with a U.S. father.  Hoping to find out more about that situation, I ran across a “cold case” (so to speak) from the 1990s, in which two Mormon parents snatched their daughters baby and took off to Iceland.  (Hanes/Shelton/Zenith). This had uncomfortable reminders, as in my case, when family members get a certain opinion of a certain generation, and decide they’re better parents than others.  Add to the mix, the poor Mormon grandmother was on her 6th husband couldn’t conceive, and tried to persuade her own daughter to donate some eggs.  Maybe I’ll post that one — it has a runway snatch, shows how CHURCH folk often protect their own (case in point, when my kids were stolen, more than one church group appears to have helped try to sanitize the situation).<<

In addition, Ronald Lee Higinbotham wants the cousins of a third adopted child to have custody of that youngster.

 

Can we “just say no” when the guy has, allegedly, just killed a woman, intentionally, with a car???  How far does co-parenting (only she’s dead) and “Fathers, get involved with your children” GO?  How about setting a little standard.  I PERSONALLY think that if a man can’t stop hitting his wife, he should lose access to his kids, and stop sugarcoating it.  I didn’t think this 7-8-9 years ago, but now in retrospect, it would save society a lot of grief (and grief counselor social services).  Can we at least say:  “IF YOU MURDER YOUR WIFE, YOU’RE OUT OF THE PICTURE, THIS IS JUST “OVER THE TOP, out in left field, WAY out of line:  GOT IT?”  You want to murder her, and then participate in some decision-making process about your kids?  No!!!  Not only will we not follow your suggestions, we are not interested in them.  Someone who hasn’t murdered recently, or been accused of it, will make decisions regarding your children.  I know we aren’t all perfectly insightful, but I suspect you likely aren’t at this point, OK?

Then maybe the next person who had a domestic dispute, or felt a sense of loss when she left, or it was the economy — (or maybe it was overentitled narcissism? ???  In action?  Or, maybe misogyny, I mean we had a single man elsewhere just walk in a gym and start spraying bullets at women — not men —  hitting some and killing them….. to assuage his feelings of rejection.  Until he also killed himself…)

So, it’s  – – – No, No — you kill your wife, you lose custody privileges.  TIME OUT!!!   It’s called a deterrent to the next asshole.  (Am I allowed to call someone who (allegedly) ran over his wife and killed her with a car a bad name?  If he’s innocent, then I retract the appellation.  If not, then I don’t. ) 

Has this yet been tried, consistently, across the board, across the nation?  YOu kill the woman, you lose visitation privileges AND any whiff of joint legal custody.  What, is the man now suddenly (how suddenly?) repentant and “concerned” for his kids?  Was killing the wife part of how he expressed concern for his kids?

Has anyone posed these questions at a conference of experts yet?  I know Jack Straton of Nomas did in 1992 re Supervised Visitation.  Was he not on the list in the ones deciding these things?  He had a Ph.D., isn’t that an entrance requirement? (or, MFT, or being in law enforcement, or Esq., etc.)  

This culture is expert at turning its backs on and shunning mothers trying to leave, particularly women from communities that base a lot of emphasis on families (as mine did, although I had a leg in the professional world, which I FOUGHT to keep in there).  I mean, as I’ve pointed out before, the white house was real good at shunning the word “mother” and “motherhood” from its game plan (except in the context of home visitation nurses, or getting the kids back to Early Head Start and Mom back to school).  LOOK:  just TRY it, try turning the  back on men that murder — at least for a LITTLE while.  Give them some alone time to think about what just happened.

Higinbotham, 44, of Brownsville, is charged by state police with criminal homicide in the hit-and-run death of his wife, 30-year-old Carmen Higinbotham.

 

LADIES:  I can be wrong, but I recommended (based on some headlines that keep popping up in this topic) sticking to men within 10 years of you.  It’s not a guarantee, but it MIGHT be a deterrent to being used as a baby-maker. I know prime time is prime time (apparently she was 21 for the first daughter by him, and he? had previous children too).  But, in the U.S., there should be other situations you can help develop yourself in, for the kids’ sakes.

In a criminal complaint, state police allege Higinbotham drove his 2000 Hyundai Tiburon over his wife shortly before midnight June 20 on Route 40 near 7235 National Pike, then left her to die.

 

Not just into, but over.  Not his “estranged” wife, but his wife.

Yes, I think every one should trust this man’s judgment and follow his suggestions about the disposition of offspring. That way they won’t lose touch with the man who murdered their Mom, or at least people related to him.  AND anyone, well, who put adopted children into his care.

Carmen Higinbotham was the mother of six children, including two of her own, two stepchildren and two who were adopted.

According to separate civil actions scheduled to be presented in Fayette County motions court today, Ron Higinbotham is the natural father of two of the children – a 9-year-old girl and a 6-year-old boy. He is the adoptive father of a third child, identified as a 15-year-old boy.

The two younger children are staying in West Brownsville with Ron Higinbotham’s parents, Patricia Ann and Donald Lee Higinbotham Sr., according to one of the filings.

In a separate civil action, Higinbotham wants a judge to grant custody of the adopted 15-year-old boy to the boy’s cousins. The boy’s cousins, Eric W. and Maxine R. Rosie, of Smithfield, already are caring for the teen, according to the civil filing.

Attached to both filings are custody agreements, both of which have been agreed to and signed by Ron Higinbotham.

 

He sounds very coherent and organized for someone who did such a deed.  I wonder if he got help from a “healthy marriage promoting responsible fatherhood” funding, or whether he will get help from “mentoring children of prisoners” programs either to encourage father/daughter/son contact in accord with our national policy that the TRUE social crisis of our time is “fatherlessness.”

 

Well, this is part of its face, and part of how SOME fatherlessness gets started.

He remains lodged in the Fayette County Prison without bond. {That’s reassuring, for now}.  He faces a preliminary hearing scheduled for 9 a.m. Aug. 28 before South Union Township District Judge Joseph George Jr.

 

{{I’m just a little speechless on how to summarize this one…. Help, readers…Analyze, comment, suggest: how could that question even come up?}}{{well, he has a right to file whatever civil action he wants to.  Just sounds real organized there, real together, or real, he got some help in that matter.  So how come women can’t get help on child support enforcement against a former ex, under current policy, if he falls into the “Father’s Return” policy target audience, eh?  90% of the “help” evaporates once a case gets into family law, and believe me, the word is out on that one.


I would’ve been SO much better not looking for help, at all, and just enrolling immediately in some law courses, while working, with children in the household, rebuilding a business, trying to establish boundaries, newer, healthier relationships, advocate for my daughters’ educations, after they’d been forced back into inferior situations (by this same persion) and healing from all that prior abuse.  I should’ve been sitting in a legal classroom rather than calling nonprofits, agencies, and so forth, the people assigned to take care of these situations.  Of course I’d have to do this during school hours while I was working, because women that work when are looked down upon in this venue for not being a homemaker.  They are also looked down upon for BEING homemakers, a situation that often puts them in need of child support, and vulnerable to secret bargaining with the access/visitation-mongers.

I made another serious mistake during a brief period of a single, evening job, duration about 2-3 hours, when both children were teens.  I said to my daughter, go ahead, go with your friend to her youth group.  BIG mistake.  Churches might as well have a target on the outside for stalkers and as a source of great, submissive, and needy 2nd wives, or people that will help such people down the road apiece in their quests.

That was SUCH a brief time, and it quite backfired for my situation. God bless the churches in this matter – — they are real faithful to those who come through the front doors, and real watchful also, to safeguard their flock from within and without (like the churches I was in while being battered at home those years).

 

After the emotions surrounding the latest femicide, homicide, aghast, we didn’t know, surprise, shock, grief, etc. (if there’s still some lost in the public bloodstream/ psyche), THEN what.  What action to take?  What insight to gain.  What policies to question.  What prevsiou assumptions to question about who you know how well?  Any – – – or none?  What’s the bottom line.

 

Here’s what the Bible says.  Of making many books there is no end, much study is weariness of the flesh.  Hear the words from a wise masterbuilder:  

Fear God, and keep his commandments:  this is the whole (duty) of man.

Ecclesiastes 12, end of the book.

 

From the mouth of Solomon son of David, whose father set the way for him to build the temple, lived a lavish life, possibly leaving descendants (more than possibly) in Ethiopia, had no end of women (wive and concubines both), even with all that concluded “vanity of vanity, all is vanity” and in the end helped burden and take down his kingdom, in great part through burdensome debt.  

He then had a son, Barack (EXCUSE me, Rehoboam), who when cautioned to ease up on the federal spending said, listened to his younger, progressive, utopia-minded advisors and retorted, “you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet, we will stimulate yet more economy” and under whose realm the kingdom split, possibly because of this.  Or because (it’s said) of all the other gods all those wives, making allegiances with other kingdoms, brought in.

It’s possible I have the facts (and probably I have the quote) quite wrong:  feel free to look them up, almost any version,or language, at 

http://bible.cc.

 

“The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, given from one shepherd.  And further, by these, my son, be admonished:  of making many books, there is no end; and much study [including blogging] is weariness of the flesh.  Let us hear the conclusion of the matter:  Fear God, and keep his commandments for this is the whole of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good, or whether evil.

 

I’ve been in the legal system now almost 10 years.  One  thing I have noticed — there are very, very few situations that don’t correlate to situations already described in the Bible, if you understand principle, the heart of the matter.  Our culture is in many ways as polygamous as any other, and as sexist.  There is still war, there is still poverty, there are still many gods, and there is still no utopia.  

BUT – – –  BUT – – — in looking at the 10 Commandments (Exodus or Deuteronomy), nearly every one of them has a correlative in some criminal law, except the sabbath.  There is no law about adultery, that I know of, but men still kill when they feel cheated on, so I’d say that’s a caveat.  This is not related to whether or not they themselves may or may not be cheating.

AND, moreover, a person who does not believe there is a God, or there will be a judgment and that their secret places are going to remain secret – — who really, really doesn’t think that someone will find out, or if through cleverness, deceit, immunity, or simply accumulating cronies, and power — criminal behavior won’t be caught — that person is dangerous.  

Thou shalt not kill (any complaints with this one?)

Thou shalt not bear false witness (any complaints with that one?)

The two outside ones:  Thou shalt have no other gods before me –and thou shalt not covet — are probably the hardest.  

The Catholics get around the 2nd one, no graven images, by omitting it, and then patching up the 10th one to come up with 10 total.  I saw this engraved in stone, and thought it was an anomaly, til I heard George Carlin’s version of the 10.  (If anyone has a video link please SEND it!) 

Honor thy father AND thy mother — well family law just shot that one to hell.  …… in the name of “co-parenting” we will ignore the behavior of one parent and reward the other.  . . . OK. . . . . . .  

 

Is it really that complicated?

$2.4 million for designer families in California, and cut the shelter money (but not the money to the DV coalitions nationwide).

I found out yesterday that of that $2.4 million, it was taken from TANF funds.  Go figure!

Oh, and that about $2 million was going to a Poverty Court for the homeless in SF, rather than, say housing.  They have holding cells though (see “poormagazine.com”), for homeless people who are being a nuisance and committing crimes or misdemeanors.  This should of course be a blog.

We are supposed to have as a nation a degree of self-discipline and self-control.  To encourage that, we are so confused about religion in the public schools, we supposedly eliminate this.  Then put back in Character Education to replace it.  The 10 Commandments are thrown out of a courthouse (after a lot of arguing), but the faith-based groups have a welcome home when it comes to both making and enabling policies.

Whatever happened to inalienable rights, and let us figure the rest out, for example how to get up, sit down, go out, come back, and raise our kids?  If we break a law, then punishment, if we don’t, then none.  

Although I did vote, and did catch a good deal of the last Presidential Election, I have not had a reprieve from “family court matters” yet.  I did, however, notice the Messianic promises of our current president (for whom, by the way, I voted.  And by whom, presently, as a former single “female-headed, father-absent” household, I feel betrayed.  I did not expect this person to confuse his background with the background of women who left because of violence and don’t feel like re-engaging.

For one, we also don’t, some of us, want to end up like the woman on the road above, or the woman in the tollbooth.  We don’t want our children to be emotional OR literal orphans as to their mothers.  WHAT is so hard to understand about that, National Fatherhood Initiative (and your nonprofit, governmental-agency offspring)? And why is the OVW (Office of Violence Against Women) curtsying towards this movement, as I last heard in an NCADV policy alert about funds to shelters being cut — a high-ranking woman in the office visited President Obama’s Town Hall on Fatherhood.  Take a stand with the rest of us and stop giving an audience to doctrines that get women killed.  Stop talking about “preventing” violence and do the right thing once it happens – – stop TALKING about accountability and let’s say that killing and beating and stalking and all this really IS wrong.

 

And let’s get that message into the family law system, or get the people running the place out of their offices and make them spend a few days in a shelter, or in a soup line, and ask women there how they got homeless. (The former was done, at least an overnight, once in NYS, I heard). OR, let’s get the homeless and others from the shelters (not just a single, sanitized spokesperson, or maybe two) and see what they look like, into these conferences — EVERY one of them — on what to do about all the poor folk.  We will personally explain (without threats) what we think of all this, and about being threatened ty the system after we have been threatened by individuals for thinking that we can think, and THINKING that it would be better to totally separate the batterer — not the reporter — from minor children for a least a very significant season, and too bad if this is sad for him, he should’ve thought before lashing out with kids around.  Or without them.

A recent joke (well, not that recent) going around a certain county, where they help people who lack food EAT, that the county was seeking volunteers to count the homeless.  They felt that this count might be better done by a few of them (and for pay, too).  

While I realize that there’s not an identified presence in any system for Burris, or that I know of for the other person here, I still say, let’s re-route some of those diverted funds that discuss “what to do” into “doing.”  For example, a year ago, I would’ve been content with a SINGLE (let alone 3 in a row) unemployment checks.  All I wanted then was phone and internet sufficient to keep going in a business I was already jumpstarted.  Years of living so marginalized through this system (NOT “the economy, I guarantee you in this case”) and with total chaos in relationships made building anything much up (with weekly visitations, any one causing an incident?) a moot point.

To “solve” this I now have no access to either child and am expected to buck up and do it again, and forget that for the past many years, each successive time I did so, it escalated and was stopped.  What was that, family entertainment?  

(end of whine).

The question is not, is the topic getting national attention.  It is.  The question is, what use is being made of all the funds that follow the loudest, or best connected, speakers?  A nation of non-investigating sheep is going to get sheared.  Then complain about the cold.  Complaining about the cold doesn’t make it much warmer.  Find out who are the sheep-shearers, and take the scissors.

http://usaspending.gov

http://taggs.hhs.gov 

And your local county business offices, etc.

Cross-check data between the two databases (which ain’t easy; yesterday I saw a missing $2.342 million in one state, marriage funding, from one database, different recipient names, one listing of programs is by program number, the other alphabetical by program name, but done inconsistently.  The years covered are not the same.  A program which receives MILLIONS in funding, and has for many, many years is not searchable in one.  The other one, you can search awards by number, but not get a description, however it appears to have more spreadsheet type functions, the other alllows one to sort on many more fields, but not total reports, etc.

(that’s only a start)

etc.

 

 

 



Until you have talked to a law enforcement officer, with guns, holding the immediate future or your children in (his) authority, realized he knows who has custody, and watch him and his friends turn down your requests to honor this, and thereafter ask a district attorney to do th esame thing:  Honor and existing custody order and file a report to get them back — it’s just something, that’s all.

 

And then just watch how aggressive and persistent the follow-up is when it’s serve and collect vs. serve and protect, same area.  Who were all those laws for, exactly?  ??  And why can’t our country do a little better than a single abusive family system did the prior decade?  Or better than a few religious institutions, in this single matter, single case.

 

Ah well, of making many books . . . . . . 

Don’t forget the headline contest, though….

 

 

 

Golden State $$ Deficits: What doesn’t trickle down from DV Coalitions (to victims), bubbles up instead to supporting “Father Involvement”

with 5 comments

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 at
publicpolicy@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.
Now many of us going through this “where are your kids” routine (see blog buttons to right)” know, as you will if you visit some sites, that a key issue in the violence against women movement is the decade-plus backlash to it, which is the fatherhood movement.  [[just a little heads-up on this matter for the uninitiated]].  They know it, we know it, and there’s a lively (and caustic) ongoing debate and blogging counter-blogging “thang” going on.  However, it’s not a laughing matter, either financially or otherwise, although one CAN get some good satire out of many of the claims.  As I do below today.
But please tell me, why on this same email about Governor Schwarzenegger’s outrageous fund-slashing, is THIS:
In This Issue
National Call with White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
Domestic Violence Budgets Take a Beating
Help Protect the VOCA Fund
Vice President Announces New White House Advisor on Violence Against Women
President Holds Town Hall on Fatherhood
Ex-CUUUUUSE me ???    ????  This is talking to the 6/19/09 Town Hall, i.e., Father’s Day…..

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.
Is this a test to see which women leaving violence are actually AWAKE, and which are drunk on their own professional level within an office.  Is this a gullibility sensitivity test?   

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:

Here’s another Schwarzenneger ‘reassuring’ budget cut idea for women leaving abuse — release 27,000 prisoners, early. They’ll  use GPS on them, or something…

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 ? ? ? ? 
gs

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 Coalition 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 victimsDomestic 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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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  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.  )

 

Interface Children Family Services

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?) ” . . . .

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?
 

» Supporting Father Involvement – Redding September 16, 2009
(REMEMBER, this is supported, I believe, by Calif. Dept. of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention….)
HOW / /  / did I know?  (been around the block a few times).  Here’s one clue:  the word:  “FAMILY” is code now for FATHERS FIRST.
http://www.familyresourcecenters.net/initiatives/index.php
Supporting Father Involvement
Announcing: Journal of Marriage and the Family Article Published August 1, 2009       

Press Release:
NEW STUDY MEASURES BENEFITS OF MORE INVOLVED FATHERS

Children face greater risk when agencies focus only on moms, overlook dads

Family 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) – – 

 

sKids kissing their father

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?}}

 Family Resource Centers 

{{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.

 

 

The Golden State’s Gold Rush, 1998-2009, Healing Families, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood

with one comment

FYI:  In re budget crisis……

For your viewing pleasure and information.

http://www.taggs.hhs.gov/AdvancedSearchResults.cfm

 

This unbelievably patronizing budget, focused on healthy marriages, head starts, responsible fatherhood, parenting classes, and forcing adults who separated — often for the woman’s, or the man’s own safety and sanity —  to stay joined at the hip (through “access/visitation grants — more on this below), and thereafter trying to manage “high-conflict relationships” — through the court system – is (collectively) the truly most IRresponsible father(land) I have yet met.  

Most irresponsible fathers will affect a family line, and those individuals who come into contact with members of that family line, through work or otherwise.  This, however, respresents an unbelievably presumptuous and dishonest treatment of the portion of the American public that, by maintaining taxpaying employement or employEES, including many who populate and staff its institutions, pays its bills.

At some point it is simply responsible to admit that a relationship has failed, and separate.  ESPECIALLY in cases involving battering, domestic violence, or other forms of abuse.  Or  even, say, ongoing promiscuity  — or refusal to participate in supporting the household — on the part of one or both partners.  Generally speaking it’s one more than another.  One person has been “used.”  This is a horrible example for any children involved, and a real drain on the community, which often has to make up the gap.  But the principle of cutting one’s losses can come to the rescue, and stop the process before another family is dead, or homeless, or traumatized out of social functionality.

When it comes to hazardous JOBS, if there is an alternative, a person is allowed to of his or her own free will, QUIT.

I admit that some people take relationships casually, and perhaps when these people are identified, their LOCAL communities should address the issue.  But good grief — to try to force this on an entire NATION, and bill the entire nation (those who pay taxes) to fund the concept that there should be a chicken in every pot (yet we have vegetarians), and  a biologically related FATHER in every child’s life, no matter whether this is good for the kid, or the mother or not — that’s budget suicide, and sometimes suicide for him, and death for the Moms too, or children.  This is the story the headlines are telling us.  Some people don’t handle stress and relationships well, and are better off kept away from the person they hate to the point of having committed crimes against their partner.  Rather than face their personal demons, they externalize, blame (“demonize”) someone else, and then attack and attempt to destroy them, and people associated with them.

I am sorry to say this, but this at times includes the children.  When a situation has become dangerous to a parent, then to suddenly proclaim “Kids need their Dads no matter what!” is social insanity.  And, presently, policy.  

Why not when it comes to hazardous marriages?  WHY??  oh WHY??? is the Federal Government encouraging the States encouraging the Courts (with help from “faith-based” organizations and “Community Action Organizations” and other nonprofits of dubious parentage) to rake divorcing families over the coals in order to recreate a United States in which EVERY child has a Dad in his or her life, and EVERY mother has either a MAN in her life (if he’s alive), OR the Government telling her how to raise her children and educate her children (and by virtue of this, her lifestyle?   To be permanently punished for a poor choice of spouse or partner, when one has otherwise behaved in an upright and responsible citizenhood fashion, is abusive, and a sign Federal Government In Loco Parentis having totally forgotten its own origins:  “of, by for the people” and “consent of the governed.”   It has lost its mind — or, has NOT lost its mind, and is of a mind to leech a living off its own people by creating a constant source of conflict, between the courts, promoting this “fatherhood” thing (alongside most fundamentalist religions) and the nationwide school curriculum saying “It’s Elementary” (etc.) that some families have two parents of the same sex, and anyone who disagrees is committing a hate crime.   

It seems to me that in both institutions – courts, and schools — a habitual undermining of basic civil rights, as well as promotion of a certain “religion” (in one place, the nuclear family, in the other, the dismantling of the traditional nuclear family [if indeed this ever existed], both practically and as to teaching), and at the other end — as people come of age to procreate, which appears to be a more engaging activity than the studies in many public schools — as if an afterthought, now that some of these parents are on welfare, this same government then wants to now teach them how to be parents, especially Dads.  Moms are taught by default how to make babies for government studies and programs; the fodder for Ph.D. “Child Development Scholars” and other therapists.

OK, now that that’s out of my system, how this relates to

the “Gold Rush” in the “Golden State,”. . . .

 

I’ve posted below, for only ONE state, and only TWO “Categories of Federal Domestic Assistance” (“CFDA”), and from only ONE major U.S. Exeuctive Branch Department, “Health and Human Services.” These are (some of) the many types of grants given for  redesigning the U.S. family.  Apparently the also significant U.S. Dept. of Education didn’t do a good enough job the first time through (either that, or it’s them “foreigners” (meaning, any group whose feet hit these shores en masse after your particular ethnic group did, except Native Americans…).  We need to constantly make and remake the family til we get it right one of these days.

Again, this is only SOME of where your funding for the local public schools, homeless assistance, or law enforcement, or other social services went.  It went in large part into social engineering programs.

OH, by the way, these programs are also compromising due process in the courts ~~even in the family courts which exist primarily to compromise evidence for conciliation to start with!~~ so they are affecting civil and legal rights under the U.S. Constitution.  That we let this happen is probably a factor of the educational system (and NOT accidental over the decades….), which teaches us neither, really, how government NOR the economy actually operate.  Nor is it real good at uncensored history, especially the history of its own self (dating to a little while after the Civil War, and before women got the vote).

So, this time, I searched:

  • CFDA #s: 93086 (healthy marriage), 93597 (Access Visitation Grants to states)
  • California Only (California has largest court system)
  • All Years, All Recipients, All etc..

I usually cannot get the chart to confine itself to the margins of this post — it goes off into the “blogroll” area and becomes unreadable.

It’s better to view the original site; to this end, welcome to a research tool.  Don’t you want to know WHY some fathers are committing homicide/suicide in desparation over the economy, or (overentitled?) outrage at being ousted, or because they have been publically humiliated in some fashion their psyches could not or would not handle.  Why a decade after this started, can’t we keep up with the family fatalities before the next generation of irresponsible (because, and ONLY because, according to this viewpoint, they were) fatherless Dads is born? 

(Present CEO of the nation that styles itself as leader of the ostensibly Free World excepted).

NOTE:  Mothers are used to being put down, humiliated, forced to beg, and treated like second class citizens for so long, we are not typically going off the deep end over loss of social status by murdering our kids, our spouses, or if they’re not available, someone else associated with them will do.  Women as a whole or men as a whole are not culprits.  We come in different colors, income levels, temperaments, and psyches.  ON THE OTHER HAND, given this, a governmental attempt to define us, our relationships, and our children, is going to be resisted.  It’s a recipe for ongoing conflict, and economic drain.  I suggest ALL U.S. Citizens take a serious look at this.  Here’s ONE underestimated tool.  

In almost seven years in the system, I didn’t find ONE entity apart from this site, point me to this federal department.  One humble but FULL website did.   http://www.nafcj.net.  The site didn’t get my attention (no gov’t grants helped its design, or press), but what it said did.

MOST organizations that say “prevention of violence” in them or “stop abuse” or “battered women” or even “family court reform” or something similar, don’t even mention this TAGGS site or point us to investigate its activities.  Father’s groups naturally wouldn’t, or they could no longer claim that concerns about certain social epidemics just “emerged.”  They did nothing of the sort — they were urged, publicized, promoted, and proclaimed, from Top Down, in typical government style.  I have now gotten to the point of finding out UP FRONT before I deal with any nonprofit or “let us help you” group, who is funding them.  You should too.  Ignorance ain’t bliss.  And it’s got to be a sin (faith-community or no faith-community) to fail to inform women in trauma filing protective orders about all the cooks in the kitchen.

SO . . . .. 

ARE YOU A U.S. CITIZEN OR RESIDENT?  THEN

THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED

 IT IS A RHETORIC RADAR.  IT IS A DOGMA DETECTOR.  

IT IS A GULLIBILITY REDUCER**

EDUCATE THYSELF!

http://taggs.hhs.gov

**

For example, when Glenn Sacks, Jeffrey Leving, Esq.   Sen. Evan Bayh, or President Obama — or any noble-sounding nonprofit (or government agency) such as American Coalition for Fathers and Children  [Doesn’t THAT sound worthy, and united and concerned about, well, FAMILIES??] — writes, blogs, or receives high-profile press coverage stating that we need MORE money to stop the woefully underfunded fatherhood movement (as if this was a new crisis the U.S. (i.e., taxes) hadn’t already poured millions into, without addressing, for example, how the US being the world’s largest jailer MIGHT relate to why SOME kids are fatherless) you will realize when they are simply lying.  

Or, whether they are actually quoting each other and playing Good Cop, Bad Cop {{pretending to fight with each other and be more separate in intent than they actually are}} to confuse the viewers (see ACFC link above).  Broad allegations and statements are made without links or cites, such as this, (date, 2007):

AUTHORS:  Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick:

The biggest problem with the Responsible Fatherhood Act, however, is that it reflects its authors’ misunderstanding of fatherlessness. Obama says he seeks to “make it easier” for men who choose to be responsible fathers, but his bill ignores the biggest roadblock fathers face—CLAIM: a family law system which does little to protect the loving bonds these dads share with their children.

FACT:  The duty of any COURT system [[HINT:  JUDICIAL branch, not LEGISLATIVE — remember this??]] is to protect the existing laws, not re-write them.  To determine and allocate consequences for people who violate laws, especially intentionally and repeatedly.  

To make sure that due process happens and evidence is considered as to whether the EXISTING laws have been (a) observed or (b) violated.  There are also RULES for many courts, to aid in the process.

FACT:  The primary characteristic of the “family law SYSTEM” is the prominent use of outside the courtroom decision making.  Even the Acronym of this organization “ACFC” is modeled after another organization “AFCC” which title means “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts,” an international organization of dubious tax-compliance history until someone caught them operating out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse without a separate EIN (IRS Tax) # — i.e., until they got caught in an audit — and drenched with psychologists, mediators, & custody evaluators holding international!! conferences, with judges and attorneys (conflict of interest there, anyone?) publishing, promoting, and proclaiming all kinds of theories (and making alliances) that the average low-income litigant is naively unaware of, not invited to, and not encouraged to know about.   All of this is patronizingly, ostensibly, for the greater good, or the country, the families, and I suppose apple pie, too.  As such, these experts don’t trouble to tell ignorant litigants about their alliances, or how much profit is made from the conferences, books, trainings, and publications. 

IRONICALLY, IN 1992, per this source, the courts are drenched with:

2.Due Process Violations 

a. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was 

separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in 

1994. 

b. Attorneys quit prematurely in violation of procedural and ethical laws. 

c. Orders issued after ex parte hearings an/or in chambers meetings or upon 

the judge’s discretion without proper notice and evidentiary hearing. 

d. Removal of testimony from the court (where it should be) under the guise 

of mediation and evaluation.There is no control over the mediation and 

evaluation processes, no public debate of the issues, and no record of evi- 

dence. Once an evaluation report is issued, the court makes few discre- 

tionary decisions and rubber stamps the report. 

e. Presumption that the parents are “equal” upon dissolution in spite of evi- 

dence to the contrary

 

Or, whether (possibly) having used one of themselves for a specific purpose, they then turn and backstab the same person.  Kind of like a high-conflict, divorcing bitter spouse might.

Now you, too (I ALREADY DID), can have a catharsis (SHOCK) of understanding of WHY there is “Disorder in the Courts” and certain systems appear broken, when they aren’t really.  They are doing exactly what they were designed to do — create a cash flow and ongoing transfer of wealth from the taxpaying public into the hands of the “experts” and away from two working parents (whether cohabiting, married, or not) to children, their offspring.

 

Here’s the “TAGGS”  site.

Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System

(You didn’t expect to pass Big Brother 101 without learning a few acronyms, did you?)

Welcome!

The Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System (TAGGS) is an extensive tool developed by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of Grants. The TAGGS database is a central repository for grants awarded by the twelve {{12, count’em, 12}} HHS Operating Divisions (OPDIVs). TAGGS tracks obligated grant funds at the transaction level.

NOTE:  To actually find out what those transactions were used for will take a little more legwork, locally.

 

What’s New

Several new search pages have been added and grouped under the new Search menu.

 

  • TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report – The TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report is now available on the Annual Reports Page. The annual report contains summary information about the HHS Grants Programs tracked by TAGGS. The annual report is available in Microsoft Word format.
  • TAGGS Advanced Search – The new TAGGS Advanced Search enables a very refined search through more than 500,000 grant awards. Criteria include keyword, award title, recipient name, agency, type, title, recipient name, and many other selections in a variety of combinations. Search results can be output and downloaded in Microsoft Excel format.
  • Abstracts Search by Keyword and Advanced Search – The two new Award Abstract Searches provide a search through more than 85,000 Grant Award Abstracts by keyword or by using the Advanced Search. The TAGGS Abstracts Search by Keyword search performs a full-text search of each available abstract based on the entered keywork. The TAGGS Abstracts Advanced Search enables search criteria such as keyword, agency, type, year, and state to be used in many combinations.
  •  

     

    A search of all states resulted in nearly 1,500 results, which I doubt wordpress could handle the pageload.

     

    I find the pattern below (try this link for a better view — OR, select the CFDA #s 93597 & 93086 ONLY, for California, and with the column titles you see below (scroll to bottom of the Advanced Search page to select) and it should come out the same).

    Before you actually LOOK at this, consider yet another Fatherhood “whine,” dating to (originally) 06/30/2007 — after Father’s Day THAT year…):

    Yet most child custody arrangements provide fathers only a few days a month to spend with their children, and fighting for shared parenting is expensive and difficult. Custodial mothers frequently fail to honor visitation orders, and while the United States spends nearly $5 billion a year enforcing child support, there is no system in place to help enforce visitation orders. {{False}} In such cases, fathers must scrape together money for an attorney so they can go to court , and even then courts enforce visitation orders indifferently.

    According to the Children’s Rights Council, a Washington, DC-based advocacy group, more than five million American children each year have their access to their noncustodial parents {{male, or female?}} interfered with or blocked by custodial parents.”

    WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS?

    This is from:

    Mike McCormick is the Executive Director of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children

    Glenn Sacks’ columns on men’s and fathers’ issues have appeared in dozens of America’s largest newspapers. Glenn can be reached via his website or via email at Glenn@GlennSacks.com.

     

    ACFC Washington Office 1718 M St. NW. #187 Washington, DC 20036 
    Telephone: 800-978-3237

    @@@

    Results 1 to 81 of 81 matches.

    @@@

     

    Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City County Award Number Award Title CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2009  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0910CASAVP  FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 942,497 
    2009  OFA  Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul  ORANGE  ORANGE  90FR0003  THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  OTHER REVISION  EDWARD C HARTMANN  $- 148,172 
    2008  ACF  BILL WILSON CENTER  SANTA CLARA  SANTA CLARA  90FR0096  RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  SPARKY HARLAN  $ 243,469 
    2008  ACF  Brighter Beginnings  OAKLAND  ALAMEDA  90FR0099  PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARBARA BUNN  $ 250,000 
    2008  ACF  CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC  LONG BEACH  LOS ANGELES  90FE0065  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  KIMTHAI R KUOCH  $ 450,000 
    2008  ACF  CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC  SANTA ANA  ORANGE  90FE0080  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  REGINA LINDNER  $ 550,000 
    2008  ACF  CENTERFORCE  SAN RAFAEL  MARIN  90FR0004  HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CHARLES GREENE  $ 481,554 
    2008  ACF  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0076  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  HERSHEL K SWINGER  $ 500,000 
    2008  ACF  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0088  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  HERSHEL SWINGER  $ 1,000,000 
    2008  ACF  CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER  LOS ANGELES  SHASTA  90FR0071  PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  VICKIE KROPENSKE  $ 250,000 
    2008  ACF  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  SAN DIEGO  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,400,000 
    2008  ACF  Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc.  FRESNO  FRESNO  90FR0053  POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  LISA M BROTT  $ 250,000 
    2008  ACF  EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0056  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JOSE VILLALOBOS  $ 1,100,000 
    2008  ACF  HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  HOOPA  HUMBOLDT  90FN0001  INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  LESLIE M COLEGROVE  $ 146,750 
    2008  ACF  Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program  EL CENTRO  IMPERIAL  90FE0075  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  MARY CAMACHO  $ 515,615 
    2008  ACF  Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry  SAN DIEGO  SAN DIEGO  90FR0016  SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JOHN R HUGHES  $ 268,349 
    2008  ACF  PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0092  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  TANYA MCDONALD  $ 550,000 
    2008  ACF  PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC.  PITTSBURG  CONTRA COSTA  90FE0012  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  FRANCES GREENE  $ 550,000 
    2008  ACF  Relationship Research Foundation, Inc.  IRVINE  ORANGE  90FR0058  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  M.P. P WYLIE  $ 250,000 
    2008  ACF  Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  90FE0015  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CAROLYN R CURTIS  $ 549,256 
    2008  ACF  THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  Berkeley    90FE0024  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CATHERINE M REED  $ 550,000 
    2008  ACF  VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC  VISTA  SAN DIEGO  90FR0024  VCC CLUB DE PADRES  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARBARA MANNINO  $ 250,000 
    2008  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0810CASAVP  2008 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 957,600 
    2007  ACF  BILL WILSON CENTER  SANTA CLARA  SANTA CLARA  90FR0096  RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  SPARKY HARLAN  $ 243,469 
    2007  ACF  Brighter Beginnings  OAKLAND  ALAMEDA  90FR0099  PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARBARA BUNN  $ 250,000 
    2007  ACF  CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC  LONG BEACH  LOS ANGELES  90FE0065  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  KIMTHAI R KUOCH  $ 450,000 
    2007  ACF  CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC  SANTA ANA  ORANGE  90FE0080  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  REGINA LINDNER  $ 378,020 
    2007  ACF  CENTERFORCE  SAN RAFAEL  MARIN  90FR0004  HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARRY ZACK  $ 474,555 
    2007  ACF  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0076  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  HERSHEL K SWINGER  $ 500,000 
    2007  ACF  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0088  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  HERSHEL SWINGER  $ 1,000,000 
    2007  ACF  CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER  LOS ANGELES  SHASTA  90FR0071  PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  RICHARD N HUME  $ 174,034 
    2007  ACF  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  SAN DIEGO  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,400,000 
    2007  ACF  Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents  EAGLE ROCK  LOS ANGELES  90FE0085  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DR DENISE JOHNSTON  $ 384,951 
    2007  ACF  Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc.  FRESNO  FRESNO  90FR0053  POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  LISA M BROTT  $ 250,000 
    2007  ACF  EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0056  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JOSE VILLALOBOS  $ 1,100,000 
    2007  ACF  HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  HOOPA  HUMBOLDT  90FN0001  INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS, EARLY INTERVENTION, PRESERVATION EM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  LESLIE M COLEGROVE  $ 146,750 
    2007  ACF  Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program  EL CENTRO  IMPERIAL  90FE0075  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  MARY CAMACHO  $ 399,253 
    2007  ACF  Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry  SAN DIEGO  SAN DIEGO  90FR0016  SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  JOHN R HUGHES  $ 268,349 
    2007  ACF  PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0092  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  TANYA MCDONALD  $ 550,000 
    2007  ACF  PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC.  PITTSBURG  CONTRA COSTA  90FE0012  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  FRANCES GREENE  $ 550,000 
    2007  ACF  Relationship Research Foundation, Inc.  IRVINE  ORANGE  90FR0058  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  M.P. P WYLIE  $ 250,000 
    2007  ACF  Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  90FE0015  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CAROLYN R CURTIS  $ 549,256 
    2007  ACF  THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  Berkeley    90FE0024  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  CATHERINE M REED  $ 550,000 
    2007  ACF  VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC  VISTA  SAN DIEGO  90FR0024  VCC CLUB DE PADRES  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  BARBARA MANNINO  $ 250,000 
    2007  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0710CASAVP  2007 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 950,190 
    2006  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0610CASAVP  2006 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 987,973 
    2006  OFA  BILL WILSON CENTER  SANTA CLARA  SANTA CLARA  90FR0096  RESPONSIBLE FATHERWOOD WORKS- PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  SPARKY HARLAN  $ 207,469 
    2006  OFA  Brighter Beginnings  OAKLAND  ALAMEDA  90FR0099  PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  BARBARA BUNN  $ 250,000 
    2006  OFA  CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC  LONG BEACH  LOS ANGELES  90FE0065  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  KIMTHAI R KUOCH  $ 450,000 
    2006  OFA  CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC  SANTA ANA  ORANGE  90FE0080  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  REGINA LINDNER  $ 550,000 
    2006  OFA  CENTERFORCE  SAN RAFAEL  MARIN  90FR0004  HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  BARRY ZACK  $ 481,555 
    2006  OFA  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0076  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  HERSHEL K SWINGER  $ 500,000 
    2006  OFA  CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FR0088  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  HERSHEL SWINGER  $ 1,000,000 
    2006  OFA  CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER  LOS ANGELES  SHASTA  90FR0071  PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  RICHARD N HUME  $ 249,034 
    2006  OFA  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  SAN DIEGO  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,342,080 
    2006  OFA  Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents  EAGLE ROCK  LOS ANGELES  90FE0085  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  DR DENISE JOHNSTON  $ 461,186 
    2006  OFA  Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc.  FRESNO  FRESNO  90FR0053  POMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  LISA M BROTT  $ 250,000 
    2006  OFA  Council of Orange County Society of St. Vincent De Paul  ORANGE  ORANGE  90FR0003  THE ST. VINCENT DE PAUL ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM IS A RESPONBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM PROMOTING HEALTHLY, MARRIAGE, PARENTING AN  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  EDWARD C HARTMANN  $ 388,193 
    2006  OFA  EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0056  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JOSE VILLALOBOS  $ 1,100,000 
    2006  OFA  HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  HOOPA  HUMBOLDT  90FN0001  INSTITUTE WRAP-AROUND SOC WITH INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION TO DEVELOP STRATEGIC PL  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  NORMA MCADAMS  $ 146,750 
    2006  OFA  Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program  EL CENTRO  IMPERIAL  90FE0075  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  MARY CAMACHO  $ 479,031 
    2006  OFA  Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry  SAN DIEGO  SAN DIEGO  90FR0016  SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  JOHN R HUGHES  $ 268,449 
    2006  OFA  PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER  LOS ANGELES  LOS ANGELES  90FE0092  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 3  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  BENJAMIN HARDWICK  $ 550,000 
    2006  OFA  PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC.  PITTSBURG  CONTRA COSTA  90FE0012  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  FRANCES GREENE  $ 527,664 
    2006  OFA  Relationship Research Foundation, Inc.  IRVINE  ORANGE  90FR0058  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  M>P> WYLIE  $ 250,000 
    2006  OFA  Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  90FE0015  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  CAROLYN R CURTIS  $ 549,256 
    2006  OFA  THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  Berkeley    90FE0024  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  CATHERINE M REED  $ 549,999 
    2006  OFA  VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC  VISTA  SAN DIEGO  90FR0024  VCC CLUB DE PADRES  Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants  DEMONSTRATION  NEW  BARBARA MANNINO  $ 250,000 
    2005  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0510CASAVP  2005 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 988,710 
    2004  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0410CASAVP  2004 SAVP  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  NEW    $ 988,710 
    2003  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9801CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $- 250,805 
    2003  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9901CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $- 139,812 
    2003  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0310CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 970,431 
    2002  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0210CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 970,431 
    2001  OCSE  CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES  RANCHO CORDOVA  SACRAMENTO  0001CASAVP  SAVP 2000  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $- 987,501 
    2001  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0010CASAVP  SAVP 2000  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 987,501 
    2001  OCSE  CA ST JUDICIAL COUNCIL  SAN FRANCISCO  SAN FRANCISCO  0110CASAVP  SAVP 2001  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 987,501 
    2000  OCSE  CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES  RANCHO CORDOVA  SACRAMENTO  0001CASAVP  SAVP 2000  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 987,501 
    1999  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9901CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 987,501 
    1998  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9701CASAVP  SAVP 1997  Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 1,113,750 
    1998  OCSE  CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  SACRAMENTO  SACRAMENTO  9801CASAVP    Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs  SOCIAL SERVICES  UNKNOWN    $ 1,113,750 

     

     

    Does the word “Demonstration” raise an eyebrow for you?  Are you curious what a “Demonstration Priority Area” is, and whether your residing (if so) in one either aided or compromised due process in your particular family law case (if such be), or exercise of your civic duty of fatherhood (if such be).  

    I wonder why a subset (Program Office OCSE) of a subset (OPDIV “ACF” — and ALL of these grants were ACF grants) of a subset (HHS) of the Executive Branch of the United States Government (Legislative, Executive, Judicial)– which the “OCSE” (Office of Child Support Enforcement) indeed IS — it IS in the Executive Branch of the US Government — is doing distributin cl

     

    I wonder whether this information is posted at courthouses, or child support offices, like an “under Construction” would be at other sites?   I didn’t realize til, well, recently, that the last X years I spent in the family law system were part of someone else’s Demonstration Grant.  This is what we get for minding our own business, and failing to secure enough excess time in our daily schedules to ALSO mind the business of our elected representative governments, both Federal and State.  

    We farmed out government to the government have ended up (our children, basically, and incomes) becoming someone else’s family farm.

    Suggestion:

    If fewer categories (column titles) are chosen, a search will produce interactive recipient names, or grant #s, and this will tell more about

    the individual activities.  And gets pretty interesting . . . . . 

    . . .  Dang it, I just slipped into bureaucratic passive and Impassive; the language is like a pheronome, or like stale air, if you hang around it too long, you begin exhaling in the same manner:  categories are chosen (I didn’t act), searches (not my choices) produced, just like a domestic dispute “arose” between two individuals, during a, er, ACF-facilitated “ACCESS” exchange between parents. 

     

    I find it interesting that the “OCSE” is administering these grants designed to help noncustodial parents get more time with their children.

     

     OCSE is the “Office of Child Support Enforcement.”  I thought it wasn’t about the money, but about the best interests of the children, who need both parents in constant contact with them.  For example, nonpayment of child support is NOT a basis for withholding visitation of a child from the noncustodial parent.  Women are certainly told that loud and clear when pursuing child support arrears.  

     

    Unfortunately, some parents can’t be trusted alone with their children.  For example, some kids get killed or stolen on overnight visitations which are not supervised.  On the other hands, some unsupervised parents (mostly Moms) also supposedly cause severe emotional distress to their children by actually following through when child abuse or other violence is reported, causing more “high conflict’ between the parties.  Which is “bad.”  “Bad” protective parent:  Here, let us order some parenting classes for you….A common, but costly solution appears to be switching the custody to the other parent, and forcing the reporting parent to pay to see her offspring.  

    But one way to withhold visitation from a designated parent is if she (most likely)  cannot afford to pay to see her own children in a supervised visitation situation that arose AFTER something else (such as child abuse, or other domestic violence-related issues) has been reported or investigated.  I know mothers who cannot afford to see their children, after a custody switch. It does not seem to work both directions AFTER a custody switch (possibly enabled by some of these grants’ services).  Where’s the “healthy families” in that scenario?

     

    If these whole movements (Healthy Marriage, or Responsible Fatherhood & Access Visitation, meaning, it supposedly takes a Village to raise a Child and BOTH Parents (especially Dads) to also do this, which the taxpayers should then fund) are about the CHILDREN and our SOCIETY, then somehow it seems a little odd that the agency entrusted to do this is the CHILD SUPPORT branch, not another one.

     

    The fact, and that history of the matter is that it went kind of like this, as to finances:

     

    1.  OOPS!  Welfare roles are too high!  (Personal Work and Responsibility welfare reform)

    2.  Let’s go Collect Child Support — get those paternity tests and those deadbeat Dads.

    3.   OOPS!  A lot of them are in jail, and others just don’t want to pay, they’ve moved on in life?  What can be done?

    4.   Enter “Access Visitation” grants, in hope that more time with kids will result in more child support collected.  It’s all for the kids, after all.  If they get more time with the children, we will (artificially) “flex” the amount of child support actually due.

    4B.  And the multiple assorted professionals all along the way, all of who are also of course in it for the kids and not the money.

    5.    Who picks up the tab, in the long run, and what is it?  When custody switches are involved, then a parent who historically had been struggling or learning to manage a life (including a work life) around the children will then restructure the life differently, while the parent who just GOT the child will either restructure his (or her) work, or delegate the care of the child to someone else.

    6.  Did I mention Head Start yet?

    By the way, a lot of the funding below is what i call “Designer Families,” i.e., the US Government is actually studying US families (at the expense of the same families) to determine what they DO look like, to run some tests (see “DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS” below) and then report back (not to the consumer — to the experts, of course) on what the tests showed, and then expand the scope of the practice.  This, FYI, is business (perhaps not YOUR employer, but government) business as usual.  Something you don’t learn in grade school, or often in high school, unless your parent was a Senator or a Sociologist.  

     

    Well, two can play that game.  Who wants to come out and play?  

    Want some answers?  

    Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?

    Let’s do it.

    At least it would make some more interesting dinner conversation (assuming you still have dinner), or at a commuter bus stop (assuming you still have a job) than the latest office politics, or doom and gloom.  You can say, “Did you know that I now spend one-quarter (one-tenth, etc. — adjust according to your payscale) of my work day, which keeps me away from spending quality time with my kids, earning money for the government to spend getting other people who won’t or can’t pay child support to spend more time with their kids, in hopes that they will?  Or to keep them married when otherwise they’d divorce? Or just leave?”

    Or you could say, “Where do you think the HIGHEST grant for reducing abuse, poverty, drug use, and other social ills (i.e., promoting healthy marriages) went to in our state?  

    They’ll probably name Los Angeles,  San Francisco, Oakland, Richmond, Sacramento (or other  urban area known for its homicide rates, or radical agenda).

    And then you can surprise them with your inside knowledge:  

    No:  “Leucadia.”

    Leucadia?  You’re kidding!”

    “No, I’m not.  California Healthy Marriage Coalition, out of Leucadia, California got $2,400,000 last year alone to, er, well — well, they’re not in favor of same-sex marriages, let’s put it that way.  I don’t know where they stand on domestic violence, but they say — well, another group run by the same person says — he needs unconditional respect, and she needs unconditional love.  And those dang feminists, you know, are putting CONDITIONS on how he expresses his love, or whether they continue respecting him, in the form of these anti-violence allegations, and so forth….”

    “In 2006, The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received a five-year, $11.9 Million grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages

    {{{FYI:  “Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California.  Each of CHMC’s funded partner organizations is a coalition consisting of many other FBCOs through which they deliver Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes, enabling CHMC to reach California’s diverse population by traversing the key demographic dimensions of geography, ethnic/cultural differences, and agency-type FBCOs. “}}

    As a result of these efforts, CHMC expects to see a decline in the divorce/marriage ratio, a reduction in child abuse, domestic violence, poverty, criminal behavior, and an improvement in physical, emotional, and mental health.”

     

    HEY!  IF I SAY I EXPECT TO SEE SOMETHING, CAN I GET A FEDERAL GRANT, TOO?  

    I WILL MAKE UP A NICE NAME, AND USE BIG WORDS, STARTING SMALL WITH A DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM, AND THEN EXPANDING NATIONWIDE.  SEE BELOW FOR A TYPICAL PATTERN. . .

    Now I’m curious.  Let’s see where they are on the $11.9 million….   In 2006 I was definitely on the wrong side of the politically correct agenda, obviously, in that I was trying to get UNMarried, complete a safe separation begun years earlier…. and retain housing . . . .  (Searched on “Principal Investigator,” pulled up an unrelated “Stoica”).  Well, maybe not a relative…)  (the name “Stoica” I picked out arbitrarily — well, actually because of the size of the grant — from the larger chart below).

     

     

    Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2008  ACF  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  Other Social Services Organization  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  93086  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,400,000 
    2007  ACF  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  Other Social Services Organization  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  93086  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,400,000 
    2007  NCI  GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY  WASHINGTON  Junior College, College & University  R03CA117467  AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER  93394  NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION  ADRIANA STOICA  $ 75,350 
    2006  NCI  GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY  WASHINGTON  Junior College, College & University  R03CA117467  AKT1 AND ERBB2 – NEW MOLECULAR TARGETS FOR HORMONE RESISTANCE IN BREAST CANCER  93394  NEW  ADRIANA STOICA  $ 77,600 
    2006  OFA  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  Other Social Services Organization  90FE0104  HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1  93086  NEW  DENNIS J STOICA  $ 2,342,080 
    2005  OCS  California Healthy Marriages Coalition  LEUCADIA  Other Social Services Organization  90EJ0064  COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM  93009  NEW  DENNIS STOICA  $ 583,475 
    2005  OCS  Orange County Marriage Education and Training Institute  ANAHEIM  Other Special Interest Organization  90IJ0201  COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – HEALTHY MARRI  93009  NEW  DENNIS STOICA  $ 50,000 
    2004  OCS  Orange County Marriage Resource Center  ANAHEIM  Other Social Services Organization  90IJ0121  CCF TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING – MARRIAGE  93647  NEW  DENNIS STOICA  $ 50,000 

     

     

    The next RESPONSIBLE CITIZEN behavior then might be to ask, for example, what a particular grant recipient is doing with some of the funds, either on line, or hey, give them a call!  Say, “Hey!  $50,000 is more than I make per year, and a good part of this is being garnished to pay child support already.  Can you tell me what your group did last year with YOUR $50,000 — and who’s on the payroll?  I’d like to see a line item listing, or a few cancelled checks perhaps.  I mean, I work hard (yes, I’m sure you do), and I’d just like to know where my taxes are going.  Thanks!  Send the printout to _________________).” (And then install a security camera….)

    Note:  In the example above (where I picked  one of the larger grants in the big chart, and searched on Principal Investigator)

    In the next post (or so), I will, possibly, show how well all this Healing Families and getting Dads responsible has reduced Violence Against women SO much (in the same time period) that we really don’t need (?) VAWA to keep funding shelters, and other things to help them stay alive, or in one piece.  The momentum of the emerging (still???) Fatherhood movement and Responsibility Movement and Shared Parenting Movement, has really worked, and we now have significantly less separation violence, fewer family wipeouts, and children in the care of the other parent, with help in care of possibly a new girlfriend, or boyfriend, are faring better.  Like the 7 year old boy who was just taken off life support in Massachusetts, after his Dad came back into his life, possibly under one of these programs (although I didn’t investigate further on that one, I admit), after only 8 weeks summertime fun with his father.

     

    In the matter of Designer Families by Federal Fiat, I think we do need to take a closer look.  How’s your state doing?

    “Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout.” Maybe–MAYBE, Forget the Restraining Orders, Remember 2nd Amendment? Or, toss a coin…

    with 2 comments

     

    Part II of II on “Responsible Citizenhood” is in labor.  

    The waters have broken, and there is a flood of information and synthesis of concepts gushing forth on many topics, and my brain is dialating.   They will have to be posted in stages.

    Translation:  I am being a Responsible Citizen (see prior posts) and exploring who is my Congress, the Constitution, who is funding whom, and finding all kinds of juicy information on whose idea was it to reinstitute a national religion called Fatherhood, funded by all of us.  I have also located a few new (to me at least) search tools How many thoughts have been provoked!

    But, this (relatively) recent news alert reminded me, that Part of Responsible Citizenhood might entail learning how to handle a gun, and being willing to use it during a home invasion.  Even a home invasion by an estranged husband:

     

    Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout

    by Michael Rubinkam

    Let’s look at this headline again.  This woman fought him off, and neither she, nor any of her offspring got killed.  If you look up the articles and read the details, she made a mistake, which, if you read below and see how WIGGLY Pa considers the “PFAs” when it comes to what they mean, is almost understandable.  But once the situation became clear, she took QUICK action to protect her children, get free, and call for help.  

    This is not, folks, how it often plays out.  Who knows whether, God, fortune, or luck played a role, but we DO know this woman didn’t stop to debate, and she also didn’t panic and go dysfunctional.  May I propose that this woman listening to her INSTINCTS and acting on them may have prevented a higher body count.  LESSON ONE:  Don’t jerk around with someone who has just crossed a boundary.  Don’t second guess instinct.  And (next time) don’t compromise one INCH on an existing protective or restraining order — it sends a mixed message, and could lead to this.

    May I propose something else?  I suggest that lawmakers and courts consider that women are people too, and smarten up to having us believe the fiction and play the slot games with any intimate partner who has been battering us in the home, or threatening to, etc.  May I suggest that instead of — or in addition to — DISarming him, they somehow ARM her, and if she’s not trained how to do so, get her some professional responsible training.  It could be mace, it could be pepper spray, but constitutionally, it could be a gun, too, at least in the home.  

    Given the options, she has hope, luck, prayer, and walking around the neighborhood with her instincts on alert, her antennae up, and then trying to also rebuild a life.   “LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.”  Now what was that first one again?  

    Detriment:  May give a whole new picture of “motherhood” to “fatherhood” people who don’t believe women should be allowed to separate, do not have equal rights, and VAWA should go back to where it came from.      

    In this above statement, I omitted the comma between “fatherhood” people and who don’t believe.  This is generous on my part, because I am conceding that there could be people all excited about and promoting fatherhood who DON’T believe these things.  In fact, I don’t really believe this.  I think that what the “fatherhood” movement is about is that the genetic / gender / biological composition of a family and household (one man, one woman, both married) is more important than the character or behavior of such families.  I am not the only person who believes this.  Some data is here (hover cursor for my comment.  Note:  This dates to 2002, almost 7 years ago.      .http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf. 

    Now, when I married, I picked someone of the opposite gender, rather than someone of the same gender and, when it came to wanting children, either adoption or a sperm donor.  This is probably because of how I like my sex, and the other versions didn’t concern me.

    However, when I realized that my opposite-gender person’s main concern was my gender and household function ONLY, and not me as a person — and began physically punishing me for showing up as a person like him, and expecting to pursue some personal goals, not only the laundry/cleaning/nursing/f____ing role (in addition to supporting him in his business, and — if I wanted necessities — also working myself in and/or outside the home for pay) — I made a determination that behavior was the determinant, not gender, or a two-parent status.  The MAIN reason I did this was because we had children, and it was a damn lousy role model they were being exposed to.  The children were of my gender, and they were being taught how this one was somehow inferior and equipped with fewer rights, if any, and no boundaries or ability to say NO without taking retaliation for it.  THAT’s a lousy role model, and he got himself evicted, not after several warnings.  

    I suppose you would like me to get to the story here, how THIS woman saved her life, her children’s life, but alas, not the pursuing policeman’s life, or her husband’s (although I lay that one as his responsibility — no one forced him to threaten his wife with a gun or kidnap his child, or place himself above a clear law he knew was in place upon him).

     

    YATESVILLE, Pa. (AP) — Hobbled by a broken ankle, the estranged wife of a man killed in a shootout with Pennsylvania state troopers managed to fight him off as he threatened her with a gun before he kidnapped their 9-year-old son, the woman’s friend said.

     

    The order of events is a little jumbled in the paragraph.  The AP wanted it out fast, I guess, and so we get this:

    • A. Her ankle was broken
    • B. She was estranged from her husband
    • C.  He was killed by PA state troopers in a shootout (i.e., he was shooting back).
    • D.  1.  She fought him off 2.  while he threatened her with a gun.
    • E. He kidnapped their 9 year old son.

    Having been through a FEW of the events above (not including the shootout), let me put it, I suspect, chrono.

    • B.  Cause of broken ankle — don’t know and probably not relevant.
    • D.2 He threatened her with a gun
    • D. 1 THIS MOM FOUGHT BACK.
    • E. THEN (having been fought off), he grabs their son and dashes off (probably in a car).
    • C. State troopers, apparently, caught up with him, and I’ll gol-dang bet he shot first.  Predictably, they shot back. 
    • Thank God the state troopers had some firearms training, so HE got killed, not his wife and not the son he kidnapped, this time.

    First of all, let’s deal with the grammar dishonesty (gender bias?) with B.  “She was estranged from her husband” which has an element of the truth, and distorts the actual context.  This is such common press practice in domestic violence homicide (or incident) reporting:

    LEGALLY, it appears he’d acted first, and she had responded with a “protection from abuse” order.  Unless the news disagrees with the judge that is THE most relevant factor in the case, apart from this incident.  It most certainly is prime factual,  legal and emotional dynamic CONTEXT of the incident.  “She was estranged” could’ve been, she got tired of his dirty socks around home, she wanted to pursue another affair, or he did; he refused to work OR was an alcoholic, she was bored, he was using drugs or alcohol, or they had other “irreconciliable differences.”  “She was estranged” already must minimized the truth.  If a protective order was in place, and these reporters are not aware enough yet that this produces LOTS of hot news leads in the form of crime reporting, they need to review the job descriptions — or their editors do.  (To tell the truth, I didn’t notice this the first time through the story myself, although I have always thought it an odd phrase).  

    B.  THEY were estranged.  or, better,

    B.  “In _____ (date) (or how recent), she obtained a PFA (say it:  “protection from abuse“) order (in what court, or county), forcing him to leave the family home.

    It is so typical of abusers, abuser enablers, and for that matter, the bulk of the family law system, to IGNORE THE ACTIONS and TALK ABOUT WHO “WAS” WHAT RATHER THAN WHO “DID” WHAT.  IT”S PSYCHOLOGY NOT EVIDENCE.  THIS IS NO ACCIDENT!

    From the 2002 California Family Court Report (link above):  (under “Loss of Due Process”)

    A. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was 

    separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in 

    1992. 

     

     

    Alas (and the emphasis of other articles on this event) — – Mad Dad was not in a compromise mood, and shot at responding officers.  Terribly, he got a cop, too. Again — and these officers WERE brave, and they DID stop a kidnapping in process.  

    That’s about a recipe for suicide by cop.  Whether or not he had thought THIS far ahead, one thing is clear:  He’d pre-meditated far enough ahead to bring a gun and point it at his wife.   

    I experienced a decade of being exceedingly afraid of my husband in the home, being traumatized, and eventually being sure enough (because he talked about it often enough, fantasizing about this, and telling me, so, or otherwise bringing it up casually in conversation:  “I’ll just have to kill you.”  At this time, both our children were under 8 years old.)  This has caused economic devastation upon me, my daughters, and people associated with both him, and us.  It has wasted taxpayer funds year after year (in family law, where our case shouldn’t have been at the time) and taken almost 20 years of the prime working years of my life and trashed them repeatedly, under threats, stalkings, intimidations, sudden appearances at my home, and in general, one hell of a mess.  He is still only working part-time, if that, doesn’t pay taxes (I don’t because I don’t earn enough), he is not financially independent yet and, because of this and unfortunately, neither am I.  Our state is broke (supposedly) which is headline news, and is getting people very short-tempered in general.

    I wonder, and I DO reflect — SUPPOSE I HAD FOUGHT BACK, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THREATENED BACK:  IF YOU EVER DO THIS AGAIN, YOU’LL BE MISSING A BODY PART.  OR DEAD!    And then dropped everything until I had learned self defense.

    Or, I had told been less committed to my marriage vows, and dumped his ass out on the street — in other words, brought it to a head earlier.  WHY did I not do that?  (a number of reasons:  #1.  VAWA and awareness of DV laws was not commonplace.  #2.  I’d never had a similar experience where I had to set a boundary with a violent man before, and wasn’t acquainted personally with such situations.  #3.  self-defense and handling a gun is not a typical part of the public school education, and not exactly promoted, as in, exercising 2nd Amendment rights, in general.  We are not hunting our food, but buying it, for the most part (or growing it).  I was not raised in urban areas, where awareness of guns and gun violence was commonplace, but in more rural; people shot deer, or sometimes squirrels, not people!  I also wasn’t raised on TV.  

    School rewards taking orders and obeying rules, at least theoretically.

    And that’s not “feminine” behavior.  

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    WHAT IF MEN UNDERSTOOD  – – – REALLY UNDERSTOOD  – – – THAT EVEN WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP, A SMACK WILL BE SMACKED, BACK, HARDER, BECAUSE IT’S SO OUT OF ORDER?   WHAT IF WOMEN WEREN’T SO DESPERATE TO SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY, OR FOR SEXUAL ATTENTION, OR TO HAVE A MAN ON THE ARM, THAT NONE OF THEM COMPROMISED?

    WOULD THERE STILL BE FAMILIES AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?

    Maybe the fatherhood guys are “right.”  Maybe  (from that perspective) if men are not needed to provide for and protect women,and defend them from other suitors, stalkers, or rapists, or to help them, particularly when they are more vulnerable, pregnant and raising young kids, the differences between the sexes (as to functions in life) would so blur, that, well, the drive to achieve and provide would diminish, the wheels of the economy would crumble (and a lot of faith institutions also), and life just wouldn’t have that same glow, or afterglow.

    Without the primal urge, there would be no skyscrapers (9/11?) or cathedrals, and no empires, multi-national or otherwise.  Maybe.  life just wouldn’t have that zest and drama.  Newspapers would need to find other ways to sell the products, if there weren’t crises to report. 

    Well, that’s a larger topic.  But it seems a natural question:  If the nuclear family ain’t what protects, and provides for its young, the only alternative is for equality of income.  NOW, Papa Obama and the majority of  Head Start, Zero to Five, Administration for Families and Children, (sorry sir to pick on you, this wasn’t your idea to start with) might be out of work.  ONLY if the ONLY way to produce income is a “job” that MUST be done outside the home, ONLY then is it essential to have the other functions of raising a family:  care, daytime feeding, and education — to be done by someone else, institutionally.  

    However the people so vigorously promoting this solution ONLY (and highly suspicious of, say, the homeschooling option which is a lot more fluid, lets mothers network and find each other’s long suits, collaborate locally to find the best teachers (including some of each other, as well as hired professionals), and fire the lousy ones — now THAT’S a plus) and actually have a better understanding of who their children are, and possibly better relationships with them, not rigidly defined ones) — these people — and I coudl show you, or you could look for yourself — are THEMSELVES either inheriting wealth, or have sufficient assets to go fund ggovernment policy, publicize and drive various programs through and teach THEIR young how to own businesses and produce passive cash flow, themselves.

    Then who would work in the businesses they own?  There has to be a steady population — and the majority of the population — that does NOT know how to live independently from the government, or the “employee” situation — or life would, well, it just wouldn’t work right.  Who would work the factories, produce the many, many terrific products we enjoy in this country, the material prosperity, the varities of fast foods (and agencies pronouncing that fast foods are bad for you), and all that?

    (Along with the domestic violence kidnappings, suicides by cop, traumatized kids, and sometimes dead people, that go along with when this doesn’t work out so well…..).

    Well, that dialogue is what I get for thinking.  It’s Monday night quarterbacking, I guess, “what-if” scenarios.  I cannot turn back the clock in my own case.  The fact is, if I hadn’t been who I was, probably the genetic and particular DNA of my two wonderful daughters (who are probably not reading this, yet), and with whom I am NOT spending any more time, would not have been born.  I have already determined (and she’s spoken with me recently) that woman number two was targeted for a certain gullibility and in a certain venue, for use to get the kids away from me.  He’s out on the loose again, troubling me, because I’ve been contacted, and her, because of what that indicates.  

    HOWEVER, the rest of this post, below, shows how the local Women’s Resource Agency describes why women should keep coming, keep asking for “PFA” orders and keep playing the odds, because, it’s after all, only about ONE out of THREE cases that violates these orders, and “NOT ALL” do “WHAT HE DID.”

    Well, in school, 66% is not a passing grade.  Last I heard, 70% was.  We are talking 66% success rate when the other 33% (add your decimal points later) might get killed and result in this.  We’re not talking about graduating from high school, but living out a normal lifespan, and not in terror, trauma, or having to before a child is ten, witness a homicide.  Or two.  Or being kidnapped.  About officers NOT having to make that sacrifice, and THEIR children lose a Daddy also.  How is THAT “promoting responsible fatherhood.”

    I think that the time of restraining orders may have passed, and that we probably need to focus on both attitudes, cultural values and self-defense techniques (including weapons if necessary) that make it ABSOLUTELY clear that any such violation of a personal boundary in the form of a HIT will be met with equal, and to make a point, slightly greater responding force to emphasize the unacceptability of it.

     

    I think local communities will have to figure out processes, not “states” they wish to achieve.  And this requires being realistic about restraining order and a valid understanding of what abuse IS.

    I have one:  ABUSE is violating personal boundaries (and, most time, state criminal laws) in order to establish a “giving orders” situation between what should be intimate partners.  As such, it qualifies as “two-year-old” behavior and should result in the adult who has regressed to it, and thinks that 2009 is, in fact, closer to 1920 (when women finally got the vote) should be treated like the two-year-old mentality of, the world should conform to you when you don’t like it, without your submitting to some process of negotiation, compromise, or humility.  I would like to add that, as I recall this, I always wondered why our daughters didn’t go through the famous “Terrible Twos” {is this an Americdan term only?  I don’t know…}  rebellious stages. I remember this at the time also.  It could be that we weren’t dumping them off in daycare, where they needed more attention, oir it just possibly could’ve been that we had a much larger Terrible Two in the home, in the form of their father, and they knew this.

    Only when it’s UNacceptable throughout society to beat women, and terrorize anyone, will this stop.  The only acceptable reasons for doing anything like this in defense of life’s essentials — and these do not include maintaining a status quo in which the abuser’s world is perfect, and his ego cannot handle rejection, the need to apologize, or occasional value conflicts.  The heart of any really good intimate relationship would do real well to closely resemble what’s written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which most of us (and our legislators) have apparently forgotten.

    I happen to be a Christian, and my faith tells me about when this will, and will not happen.  I have had to often re-evaluate the duality (us/them) and domination (Christ came once and was humbled/crucified voluntarily, but will return in authority as king and by force put down all rebellion, bringing in world peace), and I assure you, in the many, MANY years I have been around and working (through music) in several faith institutions, the music is terrific, but within white (in particular, but not only) Protestantism, nondenominational especially, equality of women is “anathema” and these places are producing wife-beaters and wife-killers.  They do not communally or prominently acknowledge the laws of the land in their hearts, and many (those who do not ordain women, or and hate even the concept of them in leadership, let alone of gays, or lesbians) , despite sometimes sheltering a battered woman, or helping her (i’ve been helped a few times recently), they will NOT stop sheltering the doctines and attitudes that produce more batterred women, and more overentitled men.  this is behind the “fatherhood” movement, and it produces a form of social schizophrenia, in which we have a public school system where “God” is not allowed, or prayer, yet public policy where “faith-based” advice and policies are promoted.  Well, which is it, folks?

    That’s all the psycho- social-analysis for this post.  What’s below (written earlier) relates more directly to this particular domestic violence double-homicide, kidnapping, assault, and tragedy which began with “she was estranged,” and a look at the neighborhood response.

    What probably kept that woman and her children alive was her willingness to fight back.  What put her at risk was compromising the existing restraining order (including drop off at curb), and (possibly) her not having the means or intent to, at ALL times since it was issued, NEVER compromise it AT ALL.  ONE means might be for her husband to have understand that she understood her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, and having it in the home, AND her willingness and intent to act on it, if even 3 yards of  a restraining order was violated.  This sends a clear message, and would put that man back in a place to reconsider whether he wants to test the limits, or can talk or plan, or manipulate his way out of obeying that order.  

    The courts need to do more to communicate this necessity to women who have just separated.  They need to understand that NOW, it’s OK to take a personally aggressive stance and back it up with a willingness to act if boundaries are violated.  That IS, after all, WHY the “United States of America” is no longer a British colony, or any other colony (so far), and we might do well to keep communicating this principle to our young, boy and girl alike. Not to belabor the point, but our schools absolutely do NOT, do this at this point, and I say, intentionally so. You can’t “manage” people so well who understand their self-worth.

    However Susan Autenreith may have been raised, at the crucial time, she found something within herself to say No, and stand up to this.  Having made a mistake, she didn’t condemn herself or try to talk out of the situation.  Gun meant FIGHT BACK, YELL DIRECTIONS TO HE KIDS, &  CALL FOR HELP.

     

    How Logical Is This?

    ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    About that MOM?  

    Let’s go chrono, OK?

    Not all (female) readers have been through the process of, say,

    (1) childbirth,

    (2) being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, battered, and in short abused, or other situations which tell you “Danger! Danger!,”

    (3) filing and getting a PFA (domestic violence restraining, or etc.) order with kickout, indicating “Danger!  Danger!” to all and “STAY AWAY!” to Dad, (and, you can’t buy guns, either, or own them), and then 

    (4) IMMEDIATELY after these at least actions (applying for a temporary, filing with judge, getting it signed, serving the husband (which then in effect throws him out of the house in some manner), going to court for a hearing to have it made permanent, having it made “permanent” (i.e., facing the ex in that court hearing), and meanwhile attempting to explain this to one’s children in terms they can understand why he can’t live here anymore, then — with a restraining order in effect — typically the NEXT stop is the mediator who will then proceed to act as though there wasn’t really, any serious domestic violence (other than, meetings may be separate) and say, “OK, so long as it’s peaceful communications around the children” and then design some visitation plan any other divorcing couple might have, even the most amicable divorces.  Which appears to have happened in this place.

    In 1992, Jack Straton, Ph.D. (NOMAS:  National Org. of Men Against Sexism) recommended a cooling off period.

    So far, no one has figured this out, evidently.

    (5) Agreeing, after this, to a custody/visitation exchange plan which basically has a split personality:  

    Hey, he  was so dangerous, you had to get a judge to tell him  to stay away, and order no weapons in the home, BUT . . . .. BUT . . . . . it’s OK to give this same, by now pretty distraught or indignant/upset man access to the fruit of his loins, regularly . . . .  After all, what about a child’s right to bond with both parents?  

    This, I say, gives the man, the woman, and the children a mixed message.  I have also learned (the hard way) since, the courts ALSO are getting contradictory messages (and funding) about these matters.  IS domestic violence a crime, or not a crime?  

    And so we get cases like the Autenreiths, where Dad didn’t LIKE having that protective order in place, and made this clear with a 9mm.  His girlfriend helped him get a gun.  Again, his girlfriend.

    WHICH BRINGS UP THIS POINT:  Telling a man to not own weapons, and get rid of any he does own, doesn’t prevent him — in the least — from grabbing one from a friend who has one (or in this case, a girlfriend buying one for him.  I believe this is called a straw purchase, and laws exist to address this, but still, it points out that generally there is a way around the law for those who intend to find one).

     

    (How long were they separated?  How hard is it for a man with a plan to get around a piece of paper?)

    in order to STOP the cycle of abuse which, without intervention, generally does one thing — escalate, until someone is killed, or more than one, 

     

    WHAT ARE THE ODDS?  HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THAT MAN?  HOW WILL HE RESPOND TO THE PFA?

    =======

    HERE IS THE RESPONSE REGARDING “PFA’S” TO THIS PARTICULAR ASSAULT, BATTERY, CHILD-KIDNAPPING, THREATS, CAR CHASE AND DOUBLE-HOMICIDE.  I HAVE EMPHASIZED ANY AREAS  THAT SHOW UNCERTAINTY, LOOPHOLES FOR DANGER:

    WOMEN’S RESOURCES OF MONROE COUNTY (PA):  PFA’s WORK IN MOST CASES

    By Andrew Scott

    Pocono Record June 12, 2009

    A protection-from-abuse order [“”PFA”] may be just a piece of paper unable to stop the likes of Daniel Autenrieth, the Northampton County man who threatened his wife at gunpoint, kidnapped their son and led police on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal shootout in Tobyhanna.

    {To review:  PFA, then:

    • DEAD PEOPLE — 2, OFFICER, MAN
    • WOUNDED — 1, OFFICER
    • VERY TRAUMATIZED — 9 YEAR OLD SON, MOM, OTHER KIDS}}

     

    The fact remains that most people with PFAs filed against them comply with those court orders and don’t do what Autenrieth did. So although PFAs aren’t absolutely guaranteed to stop someone who’s unbalanced or really intent on doing harm, people who are being physically abused or feel threatened with physical harm in relationships still should apply for PFAs.

    {{Perhaps they should also buy a Lotto ticket?}}

    That was the message at a Thursday press conference at Women’s Resources of Monroe County in Delaware Water Gap. Women’s Resources is part of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which provides a network of advocacy, legal, counseling, medical and other support services for domestic violence victims.

    . . . 

    In Pennsylvania, PFA violators can face up to six months in county jail and fines of up to $1,000, depending on the severity of the violation, said Wendy Bentzoni, a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office.

    If a woman requests a PFA against her husband and he consents to the order’s terms

    •  Being evicted from the home he/she shares with the plaintiff/victim and having no contact with that person.
    •  Being evicted, but being allowed to have contact.
    •  Being allowed to stay in the home as long as there is no physical abuse or threat of physical abuse.

    In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.

    In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.

    Of the 450 PFAs granted in Monroe County last year, more than 125 were violated by defendants, Bentzoni said.

    {{OK, Let’s look at that.  Suppose it was 150.  150 violated out of 450 is 1 out of 3.  That means for every 2 that WERE kept (as far as they know — by whether or not a violation was reported or not) 1 was not.  How do you like them odds?  Your PFA has a 33.33% of being violated (in which case, see above for potential risk/fallout).  

     

    In some cases, getting a PFA filed against an abuser can worsen the victim’s situation because the abuser sees it as the victim trying to take power away from the abuser{{WHICH IT IS INCIDENTALLY}}, she said. Desperate to retain that power over the victim, the abuser might become even more dangerous.

    “Against someone with no fear of the law or jail, a PFA might not be the best action to take,” Kessler said. “In that case, we explore other options with the victim. The goal is to get the victim out of a vulnerable position.”

    If the abuser is the sole breadwinner for the victim and their children, fear of losing the abuser’s financial support also might deter the victim from applying for a PFA, Kessler said.

     

    Well, I know in my case it sure delayed getting one.  Often economic abuse can precede physical.

    Economic abuse can precedes and enables the physical AND IS PRE-MEDITATED.  If the targeted person can’t afford to get away, or see how they could conceivably do so, they will take their chances staying, possibly.  What a great choice — homelessness or increasing domestic abuse.  

    So, it seems to me if we want a less violent world, the most sensible thing would be focus on teaching children and young people how to become economically independent.  In a wonderful contradiction of intent, we DON’T!  The entire public schools system in the U.S.A., for the most part, consists of teaching children how to be submissive and take orders, leave the thinking up to the experts, who will grade them, and prepare them for this:  College, and Jobs.  Not, College and BUSINESSES.  Or College, and understanding the economic principles that would help them become business owners, investors, cash-stream producers, foundation producers, and independent thinkers.  How hypocritical.  

    And that includes independent thinking about how to survive financially should they choose to have children, or should they not choose to have children, but set up housekeeping (and sleeping) with a partner that might become sick, injured, or — face it – incarcerated.  They should not have to go nurse off Dad, or Mom, or Big Brother the Welfare State, in this case.  The goal should NOT be lifetime jobs, but lifetime progression towards financial independence.  They cannot do this if they aren’t studying people who have accomplished this, and the basic principles of wealth.

    We should also teach them not to let any partner or potential partner disarm them economically — whether it be job, or bank account, or credit, or access to transportation etc.  That any such action is aggression, and dangerous to their welfare, creating an artificial co-dependence.  They should know this going into relationships.  

    Now right there, we have a SERIOUS problems.  Many world religions don’t accept this, and are not likely to.  

    Well, maybe they should, in the US, then lose their tax-exempt status.  Believe me, I’ve thought of it.  Because if they are contributing to the climate of “It’s OK to dominate a woman by any means (or weapon) that comes to hand, because it makes you more of a man,” then they should have to fork over the taxes that society might need to take care of the resulting mess.

    And I’ll tell you another “secret” (not a real secret) — one I’ve been thinking about more recently.  The majority of these institutions are in a co-dependent and domination relationship within their own ranks.  If they didn’t dominate and under-educate them on their own sacred scripts (men and women alike), in the US, at least, many people would not be so dependent on spiritual, social, and emotional nourishment on the weekends and maybe ONE weekday.  But that is another post, and probably, blog.  

    We ought to teach, besides, reading math writing, sport and the arts (to put it roughly) the PROCESSES and VALUES OF:

    Self-sufficiency, Self-defense, and self-discipline, to the point of in-depth excellence and mastery in one primary area.  With that I believe will come sufficient self-esteem not to enter into too many co-dependent relationships. 

     

    I recommend reading John Taylor Gatto’s short book called Dumbing Us Down:  The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, in which he says, plainly, that the seven lessons he, as a teacher (and at the time NY State Teacher of the Year” actually is teaching is not “relevance” and “interrelationship” of subjects, but the exact opposite.  Specifically, in order from the chapter:  “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher,” they are:

    1. CONFUSION
    2. CLASS POSITION
    3. INDIFFERENCE
    4. EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
    5. INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY
    6. PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM
    7. ONE CAN’T HIDE.

    The next chapter is called the “psychopathic school” after which he details his efforts of getting a little girl who read beautifully out of a class of bad readers.  The girl (reading aloud beautifully) tells him how the administration had explained to her mother that she was, in reality, a “bad reader who had fantasies of being a better reader than she was.”  Then, the author relates how the principal tried the same thing on him:  how was he, a substitute to know whether or not this child could read.

    MY EXPERIENCE:  This actually is at the heart of the educational AND the family law system of “experts.”  My “sin” was homeschooling the children, and having fantasies (as do many single mothers leaving abuse) that we could make a sound decision on behalf of our sons and daughter, after we’d made just about the soundest one around — LEAVING the situation!  

    Consider this:

    Our form of compulsory schooling was an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850.  It was resisted — with guns — by about 80% of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost being Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard.  (p. 25, 

     

    There is more, but as I review those 7 lessons above, I can’t help thinking about the uncommon similarities between abuse — even it’s definitions — and the family law system, as well as the concept of using another abusive system to handle abuse by one person towards another in the presence of children.

    Is ALL conflict bad?  No, conflict involving true self-defense, or boundary violations.

    Is marriage, or an “intimate partner relationship,” a person as property contract?  A relationship as property contract?  I believe the law calls it a FIDUCIARY relationship.  As such, no one has a right to commit what in other context would be a crime, to protect loss of contact with this former sexual partner, parent of one’s children, children, or the breakdown of a relationship.

    WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT OF PFAs and RESTRAINING ORDERS, the enforcement should be thorough, immediate, clear, and strong.  The dialogue above illustrates why, in practice, it ain’t.  SO the conflicts go on, and escalate.

    I have taught lots of children (and adults) in lots of venues and classrooms, and non-class situations.  There are always rules ,and in-progress negotiation about common standards, there is always a dynamic flexibility within the group, there is the matter of consensus and critical mass.

    The superb choir that got me going into music was about 40 in number, and we stood in mixed quartets, holding our own parts, produced records, soloists, and in general moved mountains and kicked butt musically.  It was powerful stuff.  We rehearsed almost daily and worked to pay for some of our own needs (including uniforms, painting the room, and going to conferences).  We associated after school (and sometimes before) and in other venues than school; we ate, played, and attended concerts together.

    Since then, I have sung in (and sometimes directed) choirs numbering from approximately 12 up to over 100.  The ideal size (and one of the best choirs I was in) was about 18, or very maximum 20, if they were professionals and unified.  I have had a little choir of only 11 do amazing things, because it was small enough to be responsive.

    I have always thought it odd that the top ensembles are generally smaller than a typical public school classroom, and many of them not much larger than a large family, with a cousin or two.  It brings out the best when there is a unified goal that is reasonable (but still stretching limits) to the people involved.  The best choirs also were VOLUNTARY, not compulsory.  They chose challenging music (to keep the participants growing) but always taking into account that the audience might not feel so esoteric in general.  They mixed and matched, but they HAD to set a fairly high standard technically and musically – or in portrayal.

    How does this relate to the Wife who Fought Back?

    The system they were ensared in was too large, and is ruling and prognosticating by “the odds.”  MOST people (translation: men) do not violate the PFAs, after all, just over 125 out of 450 did in this particular area.  Therefore, the women should keep on coming, because what else could they do? It MIGHT not result in this, after all, NOT ALL men do what Mr. Autenreith did.

    And we have this growing crisis of “fatherlessness”?  That’s a fatherless family, and it just made a peace officer’s kids fatherless, too.  I wonder what kind of father the nine-year old will make, should he become one.

    I think the doctrine is becoming a little self-defeating, if not downright dangerous.  I mean, this is all about the children, right?  It’s all because children in single-parent families are at risk.


    Well, yeah, with some vigilantes running around the place . . . . . However, if she’d been armed and determined…

    I think we (Responsible Citizens) need to take a serious look at the Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher and ask, is this what we are willing to be taught, as adults, by our elected officials?  I mean, the same values ARE shared, it is the “Hidden Currriculum” overall, I’d say.  And it’s downright un-American, including “parenting classes.”  The government already had a shot at the majority of the children in this country, through the public school system.  If it were my kids, and the teachers failed, I’d go find me a new teacher and system.

    OH, I FORGOT TO MENTION — I DID.  AND MY CHILDREN WERE STOLEN ON AN OVERNIGHT VISITATION (UNSUPERVISED) PRECISELY BECAUSE I DID.  AND PUT BACK IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THEIR MAMA HAD ALREADY FIGURED OUT THAT THE 7 LESSONS WERE BOGUS.  

     

    This is a system that brooks no competitors.  It allows some, but scoops up any stragglers, and family law is a great place to find them, and weaken them for the snatch.




     

    Can we call it a day on these “Days” ?? What are they worth, to you?

    leave a comment »

    Hey, people – – can we talk?  

    You can see from the gadgets to the right (Feedjit, Statcounter, etc.)

    some people are at least zipping through the site.  Let’s talk, or load page-views and just snatch data from each other

    June 21st was Father’s Day.  In May was Mothers’ day.  In April, it was the next two holidays, and the other ones below

    are of older origins.

     

  • Father’s Day,
  • Mother’s Day,
  • Domestic Violence Awareness Month,
  • Child Sexual Abuse Awareness Month, 
  • Ramadan,
  • Yom Kippur,
  • Christmas,
  • New Year’s,
  • Easter
  • “9/11”
  • If it saved even TWO lives, would you give up the “Days”?

    Even if you worked at Hallmark cards, a flower shop, or a newspaper?

    Now, I realize that all religions require sacrifice, sometimes (often?) entailing blood, sometimes human, often children.

    But perhaps we could simplify, and get it down, nationally at least (or internationally?) to the long-standing world religions, and for good measure, “Bill of Rights” Day in the U.S., with particular emphasis on Amendments I and II, which entails that the Government shall protect our right not to believe in any god, or as a nation worship one, or have our money  — our offspring– poured out at its altar.

    Bill of Rights

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    I am beginning to think that part of every young person’s education should be memorization, by rote, of these amendments, and training in self-defense, by arms, not just karate.  A karate kick doesn’t stop a bullet.  

    (RECOMMENDED:  Intercollegiate Studies Institute //American Civic Literacy Program)

    Discussion continued, AFTER you take a good look at two children murdered by their father (along with himself, a.k.a. suicide) last year for this reason:  His (younger) wife dared to leave him, in May, and he wasn’t going to have them on Father’s Day, in June:

     

    Gallery image 2

     

    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/02/09/wife-tells-of-ex-husban-s-sick-plan-to-murder-kids-then-blow-her-up-after-father-s-day-115875-21109000/

    Twisted dad Brian Philcox – who murdered his two young children because he couldn’t see them on Father’s Day – planned a “spectacular few days of destruction” from beyond the grave.

    He drove Amy, seven, and three-year-old Owen to a country lane, attached a hosepipe to the exhaust, fed it through the window and left the engine on.

    All three died huddled in the back of his Land Rover at a North Wales beauty spot last June. 

    It was just the start of a day of horror that evil 52-year-old Philcox had carefully planned.

    He had booby-trapped his home in Runcorn, Cheshire, in an attempt to kill his estranged wife Lyn McAuliffe.

    And he sent a parcel bomb to her son Ryan, 18. Fortunately, none of the devices exploded.

    Speaking for the first time since the tragedy, Lyn, 37, said: “He had planned the whole thing for a spectacular few days of destruction. He wanted to blow me up in his house  before murdering his own children.

    “He also sent a bomb in the post to my son Ryan. He planned for it to arrive the day after Father’s Day, when me, the kids and Brian should already have been dead.

    And in another article:

    Gassed children unlawfully killed

    Those are the children above.  I’m a little unclear on when it might be “lawful” to kill children — on what grounds, self-defense?

        

     Mr Philcox had collected the children from their home in Runcorn, Cheshire in an arranged access visit last June {{2008}} the inquest heard.  // But after drugging them with chloroform from a padded envelope, he attached a vacuum cleaner pipe to the exhaust of his Land Rover in an isolated spot near Llanrwst in north Wale. // 
    The trio were found dead, poisoned by carbon monoxide fumes, sitting next to each other on the back seat of Mr Philcox’s car on Father’s Day.

    The 52-year-old karate expert had separated from his wife in May 2008 after eight years of marriage.

    The children’s mother, Lyn McAuliffe, 38, from Runcorn, Cheshire, wept as details of the deaths were read.

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

     

     

     

    A typical court order, at least over here (US), will say:  Children to be with their Father on Father’s Day, Mother on Mother’s Day, and then will specify the usual holidays — geared typically to the school year, which itself is generally arranged around (oddly enough) major Christian holidays, although Christianity, if not talk of “God” (as if real)  is out of favor in many educational systems these days.

    In my case, zero of these were enforced for the past almost 3 full years.  The last time I attempted to stick up for this, there was retaliation.  NONE of the “Shared Parenting” advocates seem too bothered when mothers, as opposed to fathers, are not seeing their children — sometimes removed on grounds of “Parental Alienation” (a.k.a., reporting child sexual abuse, or some other criminal behavior.  In my case the criminal offence, I gather, was expecting, and saying openly, to everyone involved (including agencies) that I expected my ex- to be held accountable to obey all court orders, like I was.  And to work, like I was…..”

     

    WHY I DIDN”T POST ON FATHER’S DAY:

    For one, grief.  This news article came across my inbox, and others.

    I am a mother.  I was unable to see my own daughters on Mother’s Day in:  2005, 2006, and 2007.  I did not make plans to blow anyone up or get vengeance.  I had a hard time, I’ll admit this Father’s Day  — especially that now I’ve done some research on the state of “Der Vaterland” religion in my country here — and did not post.  It was a hard day for many noncustodial mothers worldwide, which I know because we talk with each other sometimes.

     I also received another no-answer call, from a cell phone, from the same geographic vicinity as my ex, who has recently (though having won in court and happily ensconced with a new woman, and who would think in need of yet another “victory” or some sort) been both texting, calling, and at least once, showing up at my doorstep unannounced and unwanted.  This, in this context, is called Stalking. If it was not him, still, the fact that I should have to do a reverse phone lookup, because it was so disturbing and part of an unbroken pattern is significant.

    Here’s what the holidays meant for our family  — and I know many others who have divorced, not amicably — occasions for incidents.

    The national religion is, we are supposed to be happy, rejoicing, and ensconced in a family or extended family setting at these times.  Or in a soup line for the homeless, being charitable (or, eating).  

    Add to this, I’m a musician, and major music events occurred around them, they were also financial fiascos.  What should then, have been a joyful occasion became for me, a cause for anxiety and trigger to post-traumatic stress.   With good cause, too.  This was true BEFORE we separated, as well.  We  had to perform as a family.  My ex apparently had performance stress, and one of my most major, earliest (though not THE earliest) memories of an outrageous physical (assault & battery, now that I know the proper term) of me, while pregnant, happened seconds after a nice family dinner event around Christmas, with my relatives.  He had been embarrassed, somehow, and I was going to pay.  One kid was dashed into the bedroom and dumped into a crib so two hands would be free to punish me properly.  The other one had no choice, not having been born yet. 

     

    Let’s reduce the occasions for violent incidents!

    Let’s move away from nationalized, attention-deficit-friendly, polytheism and ADD closer to either monotheism, or atheism?

    It might give us more time to breathe, reflect, THINK, and memorize our national constitutions.

    Here — this is only >>one<< instance of incidents planned for Father’s Day.  There were others for Mother’s Day, for example, major political leaders in the US gearing up for the 10th Anniversary of Father’s Day (right around Mother’s Day), and (lying) to the public about how neglected and underfunded the concept of fatherhood was, and how we need to pass more laws, and send more money, of course, hire more experts, to protect the concept.

    Included in such proclamations are the usual (gag….) statistics on how female-headed (formerly called “single-mother” only we are now carefully avoiding the use of this word “mother” in public arenas, except YOUNG ones that might generate home nurse visitation programs, also part of the agenda under Health and Human Services, USA).  It’s no longer MOTHERS, it’s Children and Families.  And, of course Fathers.

    Absent from those statistics would be, for example, children such as Amy & Owen above.  They are no longer “at risk” for anything at all, except, depending on your version of reality and the universe, possible resurrection, or is it fossilization.  Their long-term futures are not going to be part of any Head Start, Healthy Families, or Low-Income Maternal/Parental bonding studies.  So if you are reading any of these studies, generally footnoted by a number of Ph.D.’s, LCSW’s, MFTs, etc. (as are some of the contrary studies), just remember — the statistics are skewed.  SOME kids never make it this far, and THAT is one reason why “FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS” can — yes indeed — be dangerous to children.

    Especially as mediated by  a court system that doesn’t take this possibility into account.

    Incidents like this arouse emotions in the rest of us — of course.   When people’s emotions are at high pitch is not always a great time to make major decisions, and it is DEFINITELY not a great time to analyze government spending.  SOMEONE’s money is going to transfer hands, on the basis of these things.  Some grants are going to get funded, adn for sure a few print newspapers were sold on the backs of those two kids, as well as the on-line search ratings.    

    Since I began this blog, I noticed that by the time I had one incident up, or narrated/commented on, another one had hit the news.  It was impossible to intelligently keep up commentary with all of them, let alone analysis:

    Search Results

    1. Brian Philcox Inquest: Killed Children Amy And Owen In Llanryst 

      Feb 20, 2009  A father “unlawfully killed” his two young children and rigged up a makeshift bomb at his house before committing suicide, an inquest has 
      news.sky.com/…/BrianPhilcoxLynMcAuliffe/…/200902315226750 – Similar – 
    2. Man who killed himself and his two children left ‘Bitch’ note 

      Feb 21, 2009  Lyn McAuliffe is helped into the inquest into the deaths of her two  Mr Gittins told Miss McAuliffe: ‘When Brian Philcox took Amy and 
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Man-killed-children-left-Bitch-note-rigged- homemade-bomb-wife.html – Similar – 
    3. Lyn McAuliffe: Birthday visit for tragic mum – Liverpool Echo.co.uk

      Feb 10, 2009  Brian Philcox 320. A WOMAN whose two children were gassed to death by her  Lyn McAuliffe, 38, said she would go to the graveside of her 
      http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/…/lynmcauliffe-birthday-visit-for-tragic-mum- 100252-22893336/ –Similar – 
    4. Daily Post North Wales – News – North Wales News – Mum of children 

      Feb 21, 2009  Karate expert Brian Philcox drugged his two children, Amy, seven, Philcox’s then wife Lyn McAuliffe had begun divorce proceedings 
      http://www.dailypost.co.uk/…/mum-of-children-killed-in-north-wales-will-not- forgive-dad-55578-22975841/ – Cached – Similar – 
    5. Brian Philcox: Philox killed kids and planned to kill 2 more 

      Brian Philcox, 53, of UK, devised a homemade bomb to kill his wife and mother of his 2 children.  Philcox later called McAuliffe to ask her to enter his home.  India News, Jade Goody, Jamie Hince, Jamie Lynn Spears, Janet Jackson 
      celebgalz.com/brianphilcox-philox-killed-kids-and-planned-to-kill-2-more- photos/ –Cached – Similar – 
    6. Mama Liberty

      Security guard Brian Philcox drugged his two children before killing them and himself on After the hearing, the children’s mother Lyn McAuliffe, 38, 
      rights4mothers.blogspot.com/ – Cached – Similar – 
    7. 26 February 2009 – Local Runcorn & Widnes news 

      Feb 26, 2009  Lyn McAuliffe describes Amy and Owen Philcox’s killer as evil and  Child killer Brian Philcox had glittering career in world of karate 
      http://www.runcornandwidnesweeklynews.co.uk/runcorn…/26/ 

     

    Now, the United States, and I believe other countries, are in the grip of a nationalized religion, but one that still hasn’t — other major world ones, stood the test of time — I mean, thousands, or at least hundreds, of years.  

    We have a nationalized public educational system, and it has to get organized around SOMETHING, as far as schedule.  Ironically –according to at least one of my readings on the history of this system — it was pushed and promoted in part as a RE-action by Protestant Christians against an influx of Catholic immigrants from Southern Europe, and/or Ireland.  I don’t think Jews or Muslims made honorable mention in this, let alone Hindu, Buddhist, or anything else.  There were also the Harvard Unitarians versus the mainline Trinitarians.  It was basically fear-mongering about the incoming religions (plus economic and sometimes military, force) backing it up.  A land grab was involved of church properties.  If you’re really interested, submit a comment, and I’ll submit some bibliography.

    So what do we have now, in the school schedules, and reflected in the family court visitation orders (schedules) as well?  Ironically, we have some of the most Catholic in origin holiday schedules:  Christmas, Easter, Halloween.  Google these, and you’ll get somewhere back to the time of Constantine, Rome, and recognize that they, too, had a national religion, and had to sort of, er, do a melting pot.  Polytheism was patriotic, monotheism was, well, unnatural.

    Jews, and later, Christians, protested, refusing to sacrifice and well, this was entertainment and gladiator fodder.  They were made examples of, and you can read history on your own times for a better version of the word “holiday.”

    I’m working on this theme, but it seems to me that any national religion pushed down the national throat — is going to produce a reaction, and reactionary elements, and they will kill.  There will be war.

    What I see right now is Male Supremacists versus “Ms.” and I see LGBT vs. Healthy Marriage enshrined, and I do mean that.

    I also see — and if you follow my blog, or others linked to it (see the buttons), or if you simply are motivated enough — how with ONE side of the mouth, our government is taking advice from “faith-based initiatives” on how marriage is ALWAYS just so wonderful, that we should play matchmaker, federally speaking.  What do do about cases like the young man in Tennessee, who had 21 children by 5 (or was it 15?) different women is a little unclear.  And a moot point — he wasn’t earning much.  A

    And from another Department (of Education), same Branch (Executive) — there’s a battleground for conttrol of our children in the K-12 school system, i.e., “It’s Elementary” and “Days of Silence,” spawning all kinds of nonprofits justice groups to track this, and defend that.  Generally speaking, the ACLU is probably going to come up the other side of, say, Pacific Justice Institute, who tend to defend the conservative Christian groups.  WHICH (in case you wondered), I’m not.  Primarly because they won’t stick up for women when their own are being beaten, nor was I raised thus anyhow.

    So what we have here is:


  • SYSTEMIC PROBLEM #1 (for sake of numbering them somehow)
  • Fatherhood, Healthy Marriage is, essentially, conservative — and has a religious base  They RULE in the courts (or will soon, if not yet).
  • Practically the entire public school educational system is quite progressive.
  • So you have a built-in war between the EDUCATION system (if you’re rusty, EXECUTIVE Branch) and the COURT  system (JUDICIAL BRANCH). One way to also conceptually phrase THAT war could be on the basis of sexuality (LGBT vs. Hetero, plus Dads Rule), OR, it could also be considered, Religion versus no religion.

  • APPARENT SYSTEMIC PROBLEM #2  – within the Health and Human Services alone (Executive Branch)

  • I want to know more about the origins of this department, currently our country’s largest.  This is the topic for a different post. My study (since my schedule was vacated, rudely, by certain governmental institutions, which cast me upon the (still incoherent, best I can interpret) mercies of other ones, I have both been highly motivated to find out HOW they got away with this, and how to stop the process.
  • I could readily, and competently, navigate the familiar waters of:  housing, working, parenting, and alongside that, negotiating for the best education of the dollar possible given our family history.  I also competently negotiated a household move with my work schedule, and even a moderate compromise within the family lines (I compromised school choice for my kids, believing at face value, this to have been a temporary situation, so long as I could thereafter make ends meet, only to find it had instead been a land mine….. a sacred cow . )
  • I could not, nor do I feel responsible for not having been able to, engage meanwhile in mind-reading of either people who had no business running MY business, nor institutions who also thought it was there privilege to do so.  As we had homeschooled (while I taught for public schools, private nonprofits, and among other homeschooling families), I had not yet been indoctrinated into the concept of “YOUR children are OUR property” mentality, nor the unbelievably condescending and negative attitude some schools hold towards parents who are neither on the PTA, the School Board, or the class volunteer list.
  • ANY family (I’ll be neutral and not say the more accurate, “WOMAN” or “MOTHER”) leaving an abusive situation has done so by virtue of some help from somewhere.  She is NOT in a position to understand, generally, that other than her most IMMEDIATE abusers, which may or may not include family of origin, faith community, or other immediate circles who didn’t report — as some of them are mandated by law to, in the US — that she should no more trust intervening outsiders saying “let me help you” than she did the person assaulting her “for her own good.”  
  • No woman, or kid, becomes independent and self-sufficient by having theorists and philosophers tell them how to live, OR, how to leave.  In retrospect, my / our civil rights were compromised every single step of the way — and I can identify this in my case, and in others.  As I protested, the resistance — not just individual (ex), and his new associates, but also corporate and governmental entities — to the concept that I was intelligent enough to make a choice, and that one of those choices was that any governmental intrusion into OUR life should begin with equal treatment under the law, and addressing violations of court orders.  Such violations are indicators.  Perhaps if women ran government, as we run the raising of lots of little kids (I mean, til they go to preschool, or such), we’d drop the massmanagement theory, and go to the, knowing individuals, and CALLING them on whether an infraction was intentional (i.e., testing the limits) or harassing/distracting/destructive, or simply unintentional and a mistake.
  • At every step of the way, as I began calling attention to these repeated infractions of my personal boundaries, the court orders, my home space, decision-making, and much, much more, the reactions escalated.  Hmm. . . . . . real indignation at the concept that a woman should NOT be passive, malleable, and dependent, in every way.  That she should deserve some privacy — for REAL — or that she might have a clue what’s good for her kids.  That she might not to choose to re-engage sexually right away, given the last man was dangerous.  And that, possibly if she DID, such might bring on further aggressions from the deposed male.  
  • Defending one’s borders, and boundaries, takes effort and time, and energy.  RIGHT, border patrol?  This is also true personally.
  • I personally think that the US Government has other business to do than transgressing mine, particularly because I happened to have shown up as female, and fertile.  It is not my patriotic duty to fork over children for categorization, education, indoctrination, or demonstration grants in Responsible Fatherhood, Healthy Marriage, or anything else that is not necessary for US to pursue:  Life, Liberty, and Happiness.  Now, when the government DID catch me briefly, and say, We will Enforce a Child Support Order, which I did not ask them to do, then it has a duty to behave honestly towards my children in that activity.  And failing to inform us about all the other initiatives (in place, as I have said repeatedly on here, since at least the 1990s, and many sources say, 1980s) is “Irresponsible Governmenthood.”

  • It is not my civic duty to fork over my time, life, or children to jump onto the petri dish to be examined and become fodder for the mental health industry if we resist, being either literate, or old enough to remember memorizing the Declaration of Independence in a public school.

  • My last few months of studying the Health and Human Services Department (a.k.a., following the trail of bread crumbs from when contact with my kids — and their child support — got lost in the bureaucratic woods of “help, stop!, protect! enforce! Beware! Advocate!” red tape in two (California) counties) — has shown clearly that in this last point, I and they differ.  180 degrees.  100%.  I have a high-conflict relationship with that philosophy, one that no amount of “in loco parenting” classes is likely to correct.  I value my sanity, and I tried the placate, duck, and appease method for a long time in my marriage before we got to Call it by the right name, Restrain, Protect, (“CPR”) philosophy.

  • THIS CREATES BUILT-IN CONFLICT AND POVERT – for some, and professions — for to.  

    See my (hopefully) upcoming post(s) on Responsible Citizenhood (Parts III, IV and V) and

    “Survival of the Fittest:  Study and Prosper, or Be Broke and Be Studied” a.k.a.,

    “Multiple (Life) Choices in a New Brave World:   (1) Etymologist or (2) the Bug on the Plate”

     

     

     

     

    NOW – I have a recommendation (See top of post):

     

    Can we reduce our specialty days, in the courts, and in the educational systems to perhaps FIVE? or SEVEN?

     

    And no two in the same month:

     

    • One for atheism.
    • One (or you say how many) for polytheism.
    • One, or at most 3, for each of the three monotheistic religions:  Judaism, Christianity, Islam (In chrono order).  Or, Christianity, Islam, Judaism (in alpha order).  Or . . . . . 

     

    (Kind of like mono and poly unsaturated fats, right?)  

     

     

    Or, extend the school year, and shorten the work week, as Friday, Saturday and Sunday characterize these weekly holy days, right?

     

    (The naming, versus numbering, of the days of the week is itself a pagan concept.)

     

    And teachers, you will have to find some other “themes” (such as skills development?) around which to build the school year, not, respectively, (Sept.-June):

    Labor, Halloween (DV awareness), Thanksgiving, Hannukah-Kwanzaa-Christmas, Presidents, Martin Luther King, Jr., St. Patrick, Easter (SA/CA/PAS awareness), Veterans & Mothers ((although the parallel seems appropriate in some contexts…), Fathers, and Hallelujah, summer vacation — or school, depending on how well your children concentrated the above in one piece).

     

    No WONDER pharmaceuticals are needed to keep kids focused.  

     

    Independence Day (July 4th, US), is coming up.  Now, I know the above is ludicrous — but I hope I showed at least that these federally-sponsored (that’s your tax dollars, USA) institutions:

     

    • National Holidays
    • PUBLIC School
    • Courts
    • Government Institutions (at least a few of them)
    • Religions

     

    are all intertwined.  These institutions also affect the workforce.  

     

     

    WHAT LEVEL OF ATTRITION (translation:  Crime, death, waste) IS ACCEPTABLE? IN ORDER TO JAM A NUMBER OF RELIGIOUS BELIEFS INTO SEVERAL OF THESE INSTITUTIONS, CAUSING “WARS” AMONG THEM, AND WITHIN SOME OF THEM, MEANWHILE PROCLAIMING THAT CONGRESS IS NOT, IN FACT, MAKING A LAW ESTABLISHING A RELIGION?

     

    Let’s talk profession — remember the  joke:  What is the “oldest profession in the world”?  (Put one of two possible answers).  Now you just saw the oldest religion too.

     

    Sex, for money.  So who is being sold what?

     

    I note that Mr. Philcox, having been booted out of the house (guess that was HIS religion) opted –quickly– to kill his entire family and himself, and partially succeeded.  Guess we know what religion THAT was.  He picked up a single mother (who had a son at around age 20), about 15 years his junior, and quickly made some babies, was aggressive towards the son NOT of his gene pool, and when  those who WERE of his gene pool were not allowed to live with him, apparently, he wiped them out.  Possibly Darwinist?

     

    Would you give up at LEAST:  Mother’s and Father’s Day to save a few children’s lives? 

     

    Note:  This might affect which Congressperson you elect next term.  There is no “motherhood” initiative, but there sure as hell– and it’s been hell on Moms, and kids — a “Fatherhood” one!  And I already posted who voted for it, in both Houses of the Legislature.

     

    Or do you believe that female-headed households are dangerous and should be eliminated, by hook or by crook, or by pipe bomb?  

     

    You know, some prophesies are self-fulfilling, and at this rate, unless some major institutions are somewhat re-arranged (NO, I am NOT advocating the overthrow of anything United States — particularly not the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and due process in all 3 branches of government), it looks to be heading towards Armageddon.

     

    PERHAPS — just PERHAPS — if we could dissolve some of the more monolithic aspects here, and allow a bit more fluidity and dynamic response to actual situations (within the scope of, of course, law), there would be fewer reactionary fundamentalist factions proclaiming, pronouncing, warring, and killing — or stealing.  Kids, and dollars.

     

  • Nature (specifically, nipples) vs. Shared Parenting: Family Law Inanity in Australia, too…

    leave a comment »

     

    Humor me here…. 

    Sometimes I have a bit of an inferiority complex when I read the generally higher level of discourse in news articles outside the U.S.  This began years ago when I was corresponding with a certain UK group  concerned about the British system which they said was, unfortunately, adopting  practices that had already failed in the USA.  Not that this STOPPED such practices, but the Brits & Scots were complaining too on a number of lines.  California was specifically named.  I’m not a West Coast native, and didn’t quite duck my head in shame.

     

    What IS it about California?

    I don’t know whether it’s hiring former actors as and Governors, if not later President, or whether it’s Hollywood per se, or it’s maybe because the pride from having succesfully detached from England a few hundred years ago filled American think tanks with hot air, or whether educational policy — what IS it, then that causes “educated” people to lose their grip on reality, and really stupid stuff to erupt, Krakatoa-like from this part of the Pacific Rim, and drift transcontinentally, via Internet, El Nino,  (sorry wrong medium)or in the winds of change, and drop its dusty thinking world-wide, gunking up thousands of otherwise sane and at least semi-functional lives?

    (More realistically, the dust driving the Dust Bowl of idiotic legal behavior, if you read yesterday’s post, is more likely Gold.  Which I could also blame on California in another century, I suppose).

    Maybe it’s reverse psychology — if it IS absolutely In-ane, or otherwise quack science, SOMEONE will declare it “scientific” and a market niche is born.  Hence, PAS is now being taught in Spain, I heard, by people already discredited in the US, and we already had the Judge in Toronto making decisions on breast-feeding vs. shared parenting.

     

    Thank God, Inane, Insane Behavior is not Indigenous to the USA!

    Now here it is in Australia too.  Finally I can hold my head a little higher as an American, because another continent(‘s legal/judicial system) has sunk to our shameful, dogma-driven level (drivel?), when it comes to Fatherhood, Healthy Marriage, Co-parenting, Joint Custody with severely aggressive batterers (resulting in family-cides) and Judges (??) making decisions as to how healthy an INFANT (and Mum) are allowed to be.

    Given the chaos, progress, or perhaps it is liberality that is “U.S.,” especially on the West Coast, the headline “Breastfeeding Mums forced to share care” (below) has someone like me naturally wondering at first whether this piece was about one such same-sex marriage and two Mums sharing parenting.  Gee, I hadn’t thought about THAT one yet.  My confusion is understandable, I hope.  First of all, I’ve been in family court system for many years and found out the most words in there are topsy turvy to start with (for example, “mediator,” which means, a person whose favor one must win, within 45 minutes of a first encounter, after which, the hearing process is a simply a shoe-in…), or, say, the word “family” to start with, the composition, schedules, members, relationships, and prosperity of which typically ends up different going out than going in.  The word meat grinder comes to mind…

    Moreover, being as I am from the home of the brave, the land of the free, and one of the several US states that legitimized, at least for a period, same-sex marriages, and is working HARD at promoting the concept at elementary school level, the words “Breastfeeding Mums (plural) forced to share care” brings up images of an individual case, not an entire class of cases.  Perhaps if they had said “with whom” these Mums (and how many of them) were forced to share care, I might have had an easier first-glance assessment.  Don’t point the finger at me, I already know anything goes from a number of angles.

    However, on actually reading the article, it appears to have been heterosexual couples uncoupling, and thereafter, as children were involved, they must go through the system and face the same old insanity — every time a couple parts, a family law judge will have to play God and juggle priorities.  Added to the complications, the children involved were not yet weaned.  No matter, a decision is here…

    Breastfeeding as parental alienation”? If so, then the judge could simply penalize the mother, about $250,000, for not sharing nuturing well enough with the children’s father, as a Canadian judge did recently.  I wonder if it was the same Toronto judge that ruled on how long the mother could breastfeed, and what her real motivations for doing so were.  Family law judges are well-known for mind-reading and intention assessing.  

    In short, there appears to be no area of life which judges are not deemed to be expert to pronounce upon.  If they lack expertise, no matter, experts are at the beck and call of the court to add the appearance of logic to decisions.

    By the time my children are grown and I am 100% divorced, and hopefully into a new profession not subject to first-trimester-abortion-by-child-napping or frivolous lawsuits, I will probably have experienced every emotion, and aspect of life possible, and should probably head for a judge-ship.  I will keep a coin handy for flipping during the more difficult cases, and hire a private security guard in case I mistakenly rule AGAINST a battering or child-abusing, indigent, law-breaking, stalking or kidnapping parent, thereby alienating my colleagues in the courts.

    (HEY — even the best of us have our fantasy life, right?)

     

    Back to the topic of allotting nipple-nudging time  in a co-parenting plan.

    IMAGINE being that judge:

     

    Do I, as judge:

     

    wield my ??-appointed authority over litigants’ health, wealth, lifestyles, and divorce, choose:

    • (A) Growing baby’s health and Mom’s, as already determined by clear medical evidence (and milennia of practice, world-wide) and bend shared-parenting laws to accommodate breast-feeding, knowing (as the average adult, I hope already does) that breastfeeding is indeed in the best interest of the child on a score of physical, emotional, psychological categories, for BOTH Mom post-delivery, and breast fed babies tend to be smarter, healthier, less obese, and more disease-resistant, as well as cow’s milk has several contraindicators (first of which is, it was designed for herbivores, not omnivores, and for large-boned bovines, and more)**
    • {{**Certain exceptions apply, as when Mom is abusing a substance, or possibly is so traumatized or stressed out that cortisol, adrenaline (i.e., stress hormones) are flooding her system, and as such, her nursing infant’s.  GEE, what circumstances might engender that?  (a)  possibly violence in the home?  (b) possibly knowing that her nursing infant’s/child’s saftey and future, and her relationship with this “fruit of the womb” is  totally in the hands of a family law judge?}}

    OR, do I, as judge:

    • Go with more recent, and far fuzzier (but currently more popular, at least with the generally dominant gender) psychological assertions that”Fathers are Nurturers Too!” and “Female-Headed Households innately are poorer, and more dangerous, and in short to blame for society’s ills” dogma (imported, I believe, from Southern California legal experts, aided by some conservative think-tanks/foundations, and policy-makers who help drive policy from Washington D.C.).  To this, I suppose I should add “Breastfeeding Sucks!” and any Mum who won’t just give it up is overly bonded to her infant, and a parental alienator — doesn’t she care about her kids’ emotional needs for two parents, especially a father? 

     

    •  Which is it?  History, or Recent Theory?
    •  
    • Do I want to risk criticism from the medical establishment (which has set a clear “Go Thou and Nurse” policy, which my government has already endorsed) or
    • Do I want to compromise potential funding (this blogger comments from her USA perspective) from the post-Dr. Spock, feminist-defanging doctrine from about 1980s forward, which the globally mounting drumbeat of fatherhood mongers claim is endangering their offspring’s health by removing the radiant glow of Dad’s presences from Kids’ lives?

    Another possible fulcrum of the Decision See-Saw might be:

    • Do I want to show I share common sense with the rest of the public, therefore possibly compromising my ambience of near-divine, esoteric insight (I’m JUDGE, right?  and no common bloke), or do I want to throw my clout around?

    (And DO I CARE that newly-divorced, or restraining-ordered, irate fathers are still dropping kids (excuse me — GIRLS) off bridges, or otherwise killing them, if not themselves also, on visitation, throughout my country, and others).

     

     My imagined judicial angst probably didn’t last long, if it ever arose.  There probably was no wavering, no virtual see-saw.

    This is FAMILY Court.  It’s a no-brainer:  Given the obvious, do the opposite:  Throw the kid in a carseat, share “parenting”, and “let’em drink (cows’) milk half the time and breast milk the rest.  Or make Mom pump extra for 3 days a week.  Why cry over spilt milk from both sides?   

    Moreover, throwing in some inanity shows who’s the boss in court.  The next uppity woman who comes through here will know better and make our lives easier.  Don’t they know, men don’t like to WAIT in certain matters??

     

    With judicial rulings -and poorly prognosticated legal concepts — like this, who needs Parenting Education (or for that matter “Healthy Marriage” promotion)?

    The only other sarcastic “Good Grief!” leverage I could get from this article is to comment that with examples like this, we really don’t need “Healthy Marriage” education in either Australia, or the USA!  Just make them read the news…

    MY CONJECTURE:  Any couple that separates before a child is weaned either (and very possibly) had domestic violence as an issue (in which case, sole custody would be more advisable) or wasn’t too bright to start with – – if they read newspapers, they would surely learn, as of 2006 in Australia, that any child conceived would go through carseat, attachment, and digestive hell unless the parent stuck it out a little longer.  Or, she was indeed using him to get a baby.  (Not that men have never done this of a woman, either….)

    A close friend of mine who is as thoroughly disgusted with my case’s many years in court, not to mention child-stealing, unprosecuted, after I’d just stabilized the household, believes — and it appears to be serious — that people should have breeding licenses.  In the current climate, I think a thorough course in the legal system (including recent fads) and the domestic violence statistics, plus a thorough understanding of the cost of attempting to separate, when kids are involved, should be requirements.  

    Chalk this one up to the hands of the anti-VAWA people.  No one in their right mind would subject a child to this, it’d  be better to stick it out, and have a safety plan each time someone loses it emotionally in a relationships, than to send a growing human being through this official-DUMB.

    Please forgive me, but one more shot:  Surely this shared parenting law could NOT have come from legislators who actually breastfed before; it’s like salivating — your body acclimatizes to supply and demand, and let alone jerking the child around emotionally, how about them breasts?  (or, to become a judge, possibly, one must act like a man, including as to schedule, and therefore women judges would skip the attachment phase, use formula, or get us to pumping in the lady’s room between hearings?

    Incidentally, and Mums would also know this — what comes out the other end is MUCH less offensive when it came from a human teat, not a cow’s one, via pasteurization, or formula, which isn’t even that healthy.  So there could be additional causes for grievance, as in, “child was habitually returned to mother with a real stinker.”  Good grief!  Let the kid nurse.  When it’s older, it can see Dad more, and will recognize him well enough.

    The legendary , proverbial “King Solomon” — who was noted for taking his inherited kingdom down in good part by too many expensive wives and concubines (no, that was NOT a sideways snipe at the US Congress)(perhaps) supposedly saw two women (were they breastfeeding?) who claimed one child; the other one had been rolled over and smothered to death in sleep.  Threatening to enforce “Shared Parenting” by “raised sword” the real Mum piped up and said, “let her have it!” and the real wise king recognized the real Mum, and she got her baby back.

    Guess what with all them wimmen in his life, he knew a thing or two about nursing, even vicariously.  Or, he’d remembered the story of Moses.  Their cultural baby factories, I guess, included wet-nurses, not nurturing Dads vying for kids’ allegiances and affections. 

    OK, I’m through.  If you’d gone through the co-parenting with a controlling personality, thereafter losing your  kids scenario (I did, if you’ve read other posts, and at a   huge cost, and after a very dedicated motherhood lasting til they were more than half raised), you might be tempted (as I was, and obviously succumbed) to make a point with this Caroline Overington article from “The Australian.”

    (The headline is the link also.)

    Breastfeeding mums forced to share care

    Caroline Overington | June 10, 2009

    Article from: The Australian
    THE Family Court is placing infants who have not yet been weaned from the breast into shared care arrangements with their separated parents.

    A study by academics at Flinders University has found that infants less than a year old are spending one week on a diet of cow’s milk, and one week nursing at the breast, so that parents can share their care, as recommended by the Howard government’s shared parenting law.

    Others are spending up to three hours a day in a car, shuttling between homes.

    The shared parenting laws, introduced in July 2006, are attracting complaints from a range of professionals at the coalface of family law.

    The study on the shared care of infants after divorce was conducted by Linda Sweet, of the Flinders University School of Medicine, and Charmaine Power, an associate professor at the School of Nursing and Midwifery.

    Their report said the shared parenting law placed “expectations on both parents to participate equally in care, regardless of the child’s age”.

    The report said there was “ample evidence that breastfeeding is the best form of nutrition for infants” and the Australian government’s dietary guidelines espouse breastfeeding as the optimal food for children for the first six months of life.

    “It would be expected that breastfeeding infants would not be ordered into substantial shared parenting arrangements, ” the report said. “However, many infants regularly are.”

    One mother, “Georgianna” , separated from her husband when their child was seven months old. The magistrate ordered week-about shared parenting, saying the boy could have his nutritional needs met by means “other than breastfeeding” .

    “Georgianna’ s milk supply became erratic as a result of these week-long absences,” the report said. At the time of interview, her son was receiving breast milk while with her, and cow’s milk while with his father.

    “Trish” separated from her husband when their child was five months old. The court ordered shared parenting of seven days a fortnight, but no overnight stays, with dad. The distance between the homes meant the child spent three hours a day in a car seat.

    The authors concluded that “national and international guidelines on optimal duration of breastfeeding” have less sway with judges than the benefits of time with fathers. “This in itself is not a bad thing, and all women in our study encouraged father contact,” they said.

    Breastfeeding was at issue in a Family Court matter heard in Cairns last year, involving a couple who had been married for less than a year when they separated. Their daughter was five months old. The mother was committed to “attachment parenting” and demand feeding, and would not allow the child to stay overnight with her father.

    The judge said the mother had “no time set for the child to be weaned** and allowed the father to see the child only when a mothercraft nurse was present (the father had an annual income of more than $280,000, plus a $350,000 annual bonus, so hired help was no problem).

    The judge said the father “wanted to take the child out and have her stay overnight but could not “because the mother insisted that the child be breastfed”.

    The judge said the shared parenting act made it necessary to “consider whether it would be in a child’s best interests” to spend such limited time with her father, and concluded that overnight visits should begin three months from the date of the hearing.

    Five months, turn that faucet off, folks!  Right?

    Department of Human Nutrition and LMC Centre for Advanced Food Studies, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.

    There are differences between at what age industrialized countries recommend that cow’s milk can be introduced to infants. Most countries recommend waiting until 12 months of age, but according to recommendations from some countries (e.g. Canada, Sweden and Denmark) cow’s milk can be introduced from 9 or 10 months. The main reason for delaying introduction is to prevent iron deficiency as cow’s milk is a poor iron source. In one study mainly milk intake above 500 ml/day caused iron deficiency. Cow’s milk has a very low content of linoleic acid (LA), but a more favorable LA/alpha-linolenic ratio, which is likely to be the reason why red blood cell docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) levels seem to be more favorable in infants drinking cow’s milk compared to infants drinking infant formula that is not supplemented with DHA. It has been suggested that cow’s milk intake can affect the later risk of obesity, blood pressure and linear growth, but the evidence is not convincing. There are also considerable differences in recommendations on at what age cow’s milk with reduced fat intake can be introduced. The main consideration is that low-fat milk might limit energy intake and thereby growth, but the potential effects on development of early obesity should also be considered. Recommendations about the age for introduction of cow’s milk should take into consideration traditions and feeding patterns in the population, especially the intake of iron and long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids and should also give recommendations on the volume of milk.

     

    **Perhaps instincts, observation, judgment might play a role?  Perhaps the father’s substantial income was a factor in his failing to realize that waiting can be a virtue, at times?

    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

    Object lesson:

    Show a 2nd grader a picture of a calf and a baby.  Now ask the 2nd grader what the calf eats (grass).  Then ask the same child where milk comes from (“cows.”)  Ask them to talk about the differences between a Cow and a Person.  Pick a female dairy cow for the example.

     

    Object lesson, courtesy Google Search on this phrase:

    The Milk Of Human Kindness: Uses For Human Breast Milk

    Every year, the citizens of the United States drink on average 21 gallons of milk. Most of this milk is from cows. Ever since I heard that PETA wanted Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream to use human milk, I have been researching about the advantages and uses of it. Here is what I have come up with.

    {{I think this is actually worth a post.  Yes, I sucked onto this thread of thought and am not letting go until

     

     

    What a nice comic break– some posts are “no-brainers,” when their subject matter clearly already is.  Just show the article and have a bit of fun.  

    A certain  sense of personal wellbeing (admittedly not very empathetic), comes from realizing that even YOU, had YOu been judge (or, legislator) wouldn’t have been that inane, or cruel to a little, nonambulatory child as to switch its diet, regularly, and hope its intestines and still-plastic brain can figure it out:  is it time to suck (and what), or to sit in a carseat, unnurtured by either male chest or female breast, for 3 hours at a time?

    With nipple confusion beginning for age one, ADHD is sure to follow by the time he gets to Australia’s equivalent of Early Early Head Start.

    On the bright side, if the worldwide intent is to produce confused, passive, detached kids, adolescents, and adults (perchance,lawmakers?), who can’t digest food right, let alone information, this WOULD be the way to go.  Get ’em before they know who Mom is.  Or Dad.

     

    Meanwhile, “Part I of II” on ‘Who’s Funding My Goverment?” is still forthcoming;

    I have been researching.  Some leads were hot, some were disconnected.

     

    Court-ordered dysfunction does not, really, proceed from well-intentioned intelligent weighing of right vs. wrong, but rather pays versus doesn’t pay.  Just imagine the parenting coordinator business that will come from these scenarios.  Child winds up with digestive problems, or a split personality, because Dad can blame Mom for breastfeeding (Breastfeeding as Parental Alienation?) and Mom can blame Dad for compromising baby’s long-term mental and physical health (and be closer to the truth, on that one).  More business for civil litigation.  Will he get lowered child support payments becauase he actually has to PURCHASE nutrition for the little one?  

     

    The possibilities are endless, which of course is the point.

     

    Rhetorical Questions about the Rhetoric

    leave a comment »

    This was originally my long intro to the Boyhood project post.  Then I had mercy on the readers, and split the post in two, saving my sarcasm (and the graphics) for this one, and splitting off the more sensible discussion to the previous post (“Suicide, Incarceration — a guy thing..”)

    I have long felt that some of the difficulties the US Lower, and Disappearing Middle Class is experiencing today were intentional and pre-programmed.  I have long felt that the monopoly on public education had more causes than even the jobs bank it obviously is.  The dysfunction is necessary to the employee  / consumer / militaristic economy.  If I had to choose between causes, in my 50s plus (without further specifying!), I have debated with friends whether to go after the family law system dysfunction, or the educational system dysfunction.

    Again, the word “DYS”function depends on one’s point of view.  If that point of view is of having assets sufficient to generate wealth for onesself and one’s offspring (or sufficient to TEACH them how to do this), the “Dys” seems quite optional.   

    Anyhow I hope today’s post is a break from boredom, and taking ourselves too seriously in the supposed matter of He vs. She.

     

    MEN:

    Aren’t you BORED with all the postings about the domestic violence homicide/suicide/familycide statistics, and people who blame it on women (including some of the women killed) for leaving their men to start with?  (Same rationale would complain about runaway slaves over a century ago…)  Aren’t you BORED with all the pro and con drivel about Parental Alienation (It’s junk science.  It’s God’s truth. It’s abuse of children.  It’s used to counter valid accusations of child abuse, etc.)

    Aren’t even some of you bored with the “promoting responsible fatherhood” news articles (timed to Mother’s Day) reporting it as if it just sprang up unaided from the grassroots folk, or full-grown from the reporter’s sudden discovery of these issues, naked like Venus from a seashell, or for that matter, Athena, fully armed, from Zeus’s head?  **

    Zeus Giving Birth to Athena

    How many of you do not really buy the concept that feminism did the same, fully grown out and supposedly unaided, from women’s own heads?  

    Not even “Eve” (for you fundamentalist Bible-thumpers, if not readers) just sprang out of Adam’s side,  but was surgically (and  while Adam was unconscious, in a deep sleep) extracted by God for companionship, not for being treated and trained like a dog….

     

     

     (Although by the time of this version, ca. 1493 century,  before she was fully born, it appears she was getting lectured….).  By the time of, say, the Civil War, USA, the desired shape, state, and color of the future “Mrs. Adam” was at least per Steinhardt, pale, naked, innocent, inactive).

    Anyone who has been around competent dogtrainers realizes that abuse is not part of this, and that using a single woman individually for a punching bag, or ALL women verbally, for a rhetorical punching bag, and justifying it on some lofty ideal makes  — or should! — a public laughingstock.  

    Kind of like many women have their wombs surgically extracted, for profit, often for frivolous reasons, called “hysterectomies,” and they we are protrayed as “hysterical.”  Kind of like children are often surgically extracted from stable households, also for pay and on frivolous causes.  Doing this,  reporting this, and analyzing this is BIG business:  in fact, is driving institutes, centers, and majors in reputable universities around the USA.  (But, not the topic of this post). 

    No, the births of most ideas, & doctrines take time and don’t just drop onto the scene fully-formed!  Feminism, like “responsible fatherhood,” has identifiable benchmarks, history, and spokespersons.  

    WOMEN:

    Aren’t you BORED with the:  All divorced or unmarried single mothers receiving welfare or protesting abuse are:  lying about the abuse;feminazi lesbians intent on destroying, God, country, and the family; and  while we’re at it, so is VAWA. Are you bored with hearing how women (unless we are married, staying at home with 2.5 children and not on welfare) are all out to soak their exes and are gold-digging bitches who should’ve remembered their place in society, and in general, poor men?  {{Ignoring who went to the factories while men went to war in the early 1900s}} Or that we’re having babies to get child support or welfare?  Or that if one woman was caught making up a rape or child abuse report, or abusing a child, therefore we ALL are and should be suspect if we do?

    Are you bored yet, with the prolonged conflict, artificially generated, between the government-sponsored Healthy Marriage, Family, Fatherhood rah-rah in the court systems (and associated realms), and the sensitivity-training in the (almost bankrupt, and non-literacy producing) public schools, as to LGBT, how innocuous Islam is and awful right-wing Christianity is (In reality, the latter is drawing closer to the former when it comes to women).

    Are there others around who have questioned, like me, whether the REAL “divide and conquer” Family Law policies may not actually be Men vs. Women, but Haves vs. Have-nots?  The students with the material studied (i.e, populaces), And have noticed the uncomfortable resemblance between social and behavior sciences (including at times their history) and eugenics, and other atrocities that supposedly the World Wars I & II addressed and are skeptical that our “new, improved” system of compulsory education {design dating back to the Industrial Age, and formatted after Prussian military regime, with a mixture of anti-Catholicism for good measure} will teach children fair-mindedness, and good human values, and is NOT a replication of indoctrination systems from other, prior, totalitarian regimes?

     

    TERMINAL BOREDOM BY RHETORIC

    In my personal life, other than the DV, the frightening aspects, the chaotic and backwards financial policy of my years of abuse, the OTHER times I was determined to get out was when being subjected to yet another (long) lecture on:

    • Men rule, because of their Y chromosome (anatomical reference deleted)
    • Women should shut up, because they aren’t smart enough to have input into “the big picture.”
    • It’s been this way since Eve, which you are (when I wasn’t , alternately, “Satan”)

    I didn’t put it on my TRO, but death of psyche by conversational boredom was also a hazard of not leaving that situation.  No matter, the other valid reasons (including weapons, and use of them, etc.) were on there.  

    Face to face with this behavior, or publically exposed through the airwaves, it’s not funny.  It results in real blood and death.  There are similarities between this rhetoric and propaganda preceding genocides, or attempted genocides, in recent centuries.  Step ONE is to objectify and dehumanize the targets, and blaming them for society’s woes.  The next step is purging.  After a while, one becomes sensitive to the pre-purge talk.  People become aligned with group identities, losing their own in the crowd and gangs.  

    Anything that can draw us/you/them all out into humanity, which includes dialogue, embrace, empathy and accountability (ability to sometimes be part of a community, but to have a separate identity from this as well) will help reduce, I believe, the damages.  

    I used to function in the expressive arts (particularly music).  

     

    In the next post, I speak back to some more NON-sense, drum-beating, war-talk on feminism.    

    • For example, overlooking the topic of PTSD in returning war veterans, instead blaming women for trying to protect themselves from it, and their kids, in returning traumatized men.
    • For example, linguistic confusion with the concepts in the “Declaration of Independence” (let alone Constitution & Bill of Rights) with a concept so vague and all-encompassing as “Patriarchy.”  Fools! — King George was “patronizing” (a.k.a. “using!”) the colonies, a.k.a. he was pimping/exploiting them.
    • As to “Feminazi” (an attempt to associate Feminism with Nazi-ism.  In fact, the compass points the exact opposite direction:  Wikepedia, for what it’s worth, has this to say:

    Usage

    Feminazi is a portmanteau of the nouns feminist and Nazi. The on-line version of the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term as used in a “usually disparaging” manner, to describe “an extreme or militant feminist”.[2]

    [edit]Popularization

    The term was popularized by conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, who credited his friend Tom Hazlett, a professor of law and economics at George Mason University, with coining the term.[3] Limbaugh originally stated that the word “feminazi” refers to unspecified women whose goal is to allow as many abortions as possible, saying at one point that there were fewer than twenty-five true feminazis in the U.S.[6]

    In practice Limbaugh has used the term “feminazi” for much wider contexts. Limbaugh also used the term to refer to members of the National Center for Women and Policing, the Feminist Majority Foundation,

    and the National Organization for Women, which has over 500,000 members.[7][8][9] 

    [edit]Criticism

    Some consider use of the term “feminazi” ironic because feminists and other political dissenters were among the victims of Nazi concentration camps and Nazi work camps.[11]Gloria Steinem said in an interview, “Hitler came to power against the strong feminist movement in Germany, padlocked the family planning clinics, and declared abortion a crime against the state—all views that more closely resemble Rush Limbaugh’s.”[12] Many prominent German feminists like Helene StöckerTrude Weiss-Rosmarin and Clara Zetkin were forced to flee Nazi Germany.

    {{Comments:  In the “Non-Sense” counterpart to this post, I highlight the VERY militant talk from the masculinity-mongers.

    Other than Helen of Troy’s beauty (and was it really her fault?), I feel it safe to say, women are not launching ships and wars.

    Calling feminists militant is sort of the pot calling the kettle black…}}

     

    Seems to me that somewhere in there, freedom of religion was a force in some people brought to the U.S.  Slavery was another.  Fleeing oppression in other countries (or famine) was another.  Now, we are exporting oppression from the USA worldwide, and through a variety of institutions.  One has to ask, why?

     

    Mythology . . Violence. . . 

     

    More on “Athena”:

    Source:  http://www.richeast.org/htwm/Athena/athena.html

    “The birth of Athena, chief of the three virgin goddesses, can accurately be pictured if you imagine an earthquake measuring 8.6 on the Richter Scale, Hurricane Andrew and an eclipse taking place simultaneously. According to Murray (1895), the goddess of warfare was born from the mighty head of Zeus, with Hephaestos performing the delivery by using his tools to smash Zeus’s head open. Athena was the product of the union brought about when Zeus swallowed his lover, Metis, the goddess of prudence. Zeus was warned by Earth that the son they would have together would prove more powerful than himself and would be murdered by his son just as Zeus had murdered his father, Cronus. Zeus decided that he must prevent this and take action. Casually, he proposed that Metis play a game of changing shapes and when in the shape of a fly, Zeus opened his mouth and swallowed her. For a while after, Metis sat in his head and when it was decided that she was to have a daughter, Metis wove a grand robe. When Zeus started suffering from painful headaches and crying out in agony, Athena was delivered. She was fully armed and grown, sporting her aegis, a protective goatskin that contained magical powers.”

    . . . and Non-sense, diagrammed….

    leave a comment »

    1994-2009 , it’s about “Fathers,”

    and is beginning to remind me of the Viet Nam war.

    Began in secret, finally acknowledged, and I hope someday

    we will have something better to talk about, as a nation.

    These quotes are from June 2006

     

    June 2006 – THE WAR ON FATHERS: How the ‘feminization of America’ destroys boys, men – and women

    The June edition of Whistleblower magazine is a mega-eye-opener exploring one of the most crucial but little-reported (??) phenomena of modern America – what WND calls “THE WAR ON FATHERS.”

    The evidence of this almost unthinkable scenario is everywhere:

     In public school classrooms across America, in every category and every demographic group, boys are falling behind. Girls excel and move on to college, where three out of five students are female, while young boys – who don’t naturally thrive when forced to sit still at a desk for six hours a day – are diagnosed by the millions with new diseases that didn’t exist a generation ago. To make their behavior more acceptable, they are compelled to take hazardous psycho-stimulant drugs like Ritalin.

    This happens to be true.  But how is this a war on fatherhood?  And why should girls, or grown women, who are already socially conditioned to sit still; do for six hours a day either?  They are more likely to daydream and underperform in some response to this, or start intrigues, or other non-scholastically-engaged activity.   How is that any more acceptable for girls either?

    Boys are more than 50 percent more likely to repeat elementary school grades than girls, a third more likely to drop out of high school and twice as likely to have a “learning disability.” And the suicide rate among teen boys is far higher than that of girls.

    “What we have done,” explains Thomas Mortenson, senior scholar at the Pell Institute for the Study of Opportunity in Higher Education, “is we have a K-12 school system that seems to work relatively well for girls and does not work for a very large share of boys.”

    (And he cites the same study I just did! but with diffferent conclusions):

    I take issue with this “we.”  I was born in the 1950s, and I didn’t create the public school system, and, like “war”, it was not conceived, designed, or pushed to full fruition by women.  

    Common sense says that children are going to learn better where there is some personal relationship with the teachers, and their classmates, that has half a chance of enduring past a semester.  And for them to individually recognized for WHO they are, not only how they perform.  This will have to require some “down” time and informal associations as well.  Putting them in large groups to absorb the nationalized curriculum en masse is a recipe for failure.  Moreover, there possibly IS something to the different rates at which boys and girls tend (overall) to be literate and fluent; there already is among different children of the same sex as well.  The age-segregation thing — as the rule, and differences, the exception — is unnatural in almost anything but armies.  Good grief!  It doesn’t happen in families, and doesn’t always in corporations or businesses either.  Why do it in school?  That’s a recipe for gangs, which — face it — we have. 

    But declaring that situation, and this clear, systemic educational failure to be a “war on fatherhood” is ridiculous, and ignores that it fails girls just as well.  Any system rigged for one gender, or social class to succeed and another to fail, is failing allof them.  In fact one of the prime functions of this system, and characteristics, is to set children loose in large groups, where for sheer survival they must figure out a “gang” to belong to, a “type” to become. 

    And I do not at all approve of our current administration’s promises to “fix” something that has a design flaw — which has been already identified — it sorts by sex, and it also sorts pretty thoroughly by income.  It wastes parents time and energy (propping it up by involvement, or by fundraising).  It dumbs kids down, and slows them down.  I 

    For more information, please see “edwatch.org”  

    A mother’s lament/rant on the public school system.

    If you want to skip it this time, scroll down past the red ink, which it also has helped drown my household in, as a result, not to mention red tape.  I think there might be some forgiveness for my seeing some “red” on this issue!  

    Also, this post is not copyedited, I’ve had several “saves” so far, and the most current one is not posted.  I am not going to proofread here (on such a personal “hot topic,” but simply want the thoughts, references, and information out.

    I have participated in education in, around, before, and after public schools, as well as private, home, and some Catholic schools, and I’ve had my share of watching simply intelligent boys be labeled hyperactive.  IN one case, I had to throw out a 4-year old from a piano class, but he turned out to have been gifted, and I took him on as a private student.  I have taught boys bouncing off the wall (literally sometimes) but able to focus when they were allowed to be engaged — which singing tends to do, to some.  I have also had a daughter daydreaming in class while the entire class read aloud a book geared to several grade below her level.

    Jonothan Kozol detailed in “I Won’t Learn From You” how some kids get into “Special Ed” that really don’t belong there.  John Taylor Gatto wrote of his struggles to get a fluently reading you lady out of a slower classroom.  A book on “JUMP” (Junior Undiscovered Math Prodigies) writes of how he worked with supposedly “slow” kids and their successes.  There are many more profitable things that can be done when someone fails to learn than labeling and sidelining them.  By and large, public schools don’t do this.  

    My children were forced back INTO this system by a man cheated by it himself (it did not compensate for family lacks), who I’d just left because of violence.  I myself am still unlearning values I absorbed while in public school system (at which I excelled), one of which was slowing me down and undervaluing my strengths, and judging myself as a person by the things I was less adept at, rather than appreciating the strengths.  I know this affected how hard I pushed in my career, prior to marriage, although that came out pretty decent overall.  Now my kids are incorporating the same values.

    When we homeschooled, both children were vivacious, engaged, ready to talk to adults, and with time in their schedules to play also.  They were, in short, themselves, and felt free to relate to both parents, the custodial one and the noncustodial one.  We moved in and out of various learning situations with relative ease, which is typical, and adds interest to the school day. They saw sunshine every day, and not just during gym class or a hurried lunch.

    The style, motivation, and goals of us as a homeschooling family differed from the larger classroom, which teaches to the middle or bottom level.  As a parent, OR teacher, I’m never interested in my kids’ middle or bottom levels, but their top ones, and had a pretty good idea of where that was, because we lived in the same household, and I had adequate time to see them at work in a variety of situations.   

    They both excelled although had different learning styles.  I watched in horror, and shock, as my own offspring became commodities in a war against allowing them to continue in this fashion because a woman had made a decision to return to it after a non-relative non-parent, non-educator (by lifelong profession) told her to stop.  Watching them give up great activities to participate in classrooms where some teachers, let alone the average student, couldn’t put a paragraph together without grammar mistakes, where math was slowed down, and one daughter’s major concern was literally daydreaming in class (and missing something) because they were reading the entire book aloud in class to compensate for kids who otherwise wouldn’t do their homework. . . and that book itself was aimed at a reading level far below hers — this was like torture to a parent. 

    The school system took me out of their lives in any significant role — because we were a two-household family — and put me in a traffic jam instead, a place no single mother can really afford to be!  Time counts!  Our schedules were stressed whereas before they weren’t.  I have talked to wealthy professional mothers (same neighborhoods) who were equally stressed for the reasons of supplementing the school’s failures with after-school enrichments.  I tried to each some of their stressed out students too, and finally became more discriminating in who I would and would not take on as a private student.

    NOTE:  My children, after years of the School wars, would disagree, and sought peace, at any price.  As a parent, I note that they are not yet fully grown, and may (or, OK, may not!) think differently afterwards.  I know what it cost our family.  And as a musician privileged with 13 years of private lessons, which helped me get into a top liberal arts college — majoring in music — I know that continuity in an instrument is required for some mastery.  Mastery of any sort of skill that requires this sort of development opens doors socially, often far beyond grade school.  This also goes for other skills, such as language, athletics, gymnastics, or for that matter science interest.  

    To hold back multiple children from their long suits to help some children learn to read, write and count, sometimes under methods that are known to not work well (such as the deletion of phonics, for a period in US history, or the experimentation in math texts, about which I know something, and which a book called, appropriately (it’s a pun), “Class Warfare” addresses — has GOT to be a form of child abuse.  Many, many authors have already addressed this.  

    If someone wishes to look for a major source of social problems, it would make much  more sense to look at significcant institutions in our country, rather than half its populace — women!  And declare that they have declared war on the other half in all situations where they left a marriage.  Or to declare a new national religion:  Fatherhood!  The real war is much more likely to be: inherited wealth “haves” from up and coming “have-nots.”

    The Rhetoric of “Fatherhood” does exactly this:  It rides parasite style on existing situations (in this long post, I address two:  education, and war, with attendant PTSD), and co-opts them into the fire fanning the cause.  I have seen it also complain about the family law system in the ssame manner, calling it pro-mothers, when the facts are, it svery origin and design, by primarily men (southern California) is to prolong family strife (for an endless cash machine) and diminish the rule of evidence in favor of out-of-court situations where due process can be better violated.  I am talking about mediation, where there has already been criminal behavior.  

    Back to Education as a “war on fatherhood” (implying, by feminists):

    In 1990, John Taylor Gatto documented seven primary lessons this system ACTUALLY teaches.  Look them up!  Like me (I have scope and experience as a teacher, graduate, and having kids go in, out and back in to this system, while in my household, and have also dealt professionally with many parents, year after year, with kids in a variety of schools as well:  urban and suburban.  Beyond that, I read a lot!), as teh New York State Teacher of the Year at the time, he explains correctly in his little book called “Dumbing Us Down” what this system actually does, as opposed to its stated mission.  That he doesn’t mention “war on fatherhood” or unfairness to boys or girls may  have been because this was before the founding of the “National Fatherhood Initiative,” or it might have been because that’s not the situation.  He DOES mention that it breaks down family units and true communities, as opposed to false, and fleeting networks.

    Another author, Samuel Blumenfeld (I picked males, guys, OK?) wrote “Is Public Education Necessary” and narrated some of its history.  That’s  rhetorical question, folks!  Diane Ravitch has written a book called “the Language Police” and she worked FOR the U.S. Dept. of Education, a Dept. our Constitution said nothing about originally.  Other books such as Adult Illiteracy, The Literacy Hoax, and many others have categorized its failures. No matter, where there is a government contract, there is an ongoing proposition.

    I ran afoul of a recent product of the California Teacher Credentialing process in my own custody and divorce in the 2000s. The same personality took issue with my homechooling (which had been our standard) but none with the violence, not even while the RO was on, instead, characterizing my decision to homeschool as “emotionally violent.”  Say What??

     I was shocked !! at the prejudice and tunnel vision involved, and at the callousness to the impact on our family household (including its income) in these matters.  Our kids are not to be testing grounds for drugs, theories, or human behavioral management techniques.  They are not to be strip-searched, punished military style for something their classmates done, indoctrinated, sorted by sex and age, locked down, taken hostage, sexually assaulted (or harassed) by teachers OR fellow-classmates, or shot to death in or near a school, yet this has happened and continues to happen.  This is not what childhood is for.  

    Moreover, childhood passes fast, and it shouldn’t be squandered.

    I worked in and around homeschoolers — the student/adult ratio was enough to keep a watch on violence, abuse, hate-talk, and I guarantee you, these kids wouldn’t have thought ganging up on or about stoning me, as a middle school band teacher (female) recently was in this county.  I knew the parents of the children I taught.  I also know that these people have the power to hire great teachers and fire bad or unreliable ones.  I appreciated working with children who were intelligent and had some self-control, this was good for all of us.  Moreover, apart from a few relationships around music, the friendships with kids and parents alike that my children formed in this manner were among their most stable and long-lasting ones, lasting beyond a change of schools or personal interests in life.  They knew each other as PEOPLE in a variety of situations, which traditional school doesn’t allow. 

    And neither girls nor boys deserve to be locked up in one box, while parents work in another during daylight hours, when a better way is available.  I know the finances of this personally also.  It was totally impossible for me to accomplish, in my situation as a single mother with weekly visitation to Dad (in a nearby county) with my kids IN this system what I could had I been given permission for them to exit it.

    But the reason I could not relates directly to this school systems’ need to perpetuate itself, and pick off the stragglers who otherwise might put them to shame.  My kids experienced parental stealing by their angry father because I as a mother dared to say, this is NOT good enough for our children!  ANd that attitude — that doing this — came from the near-lethal (and I do mean that literally) combination of fatherhood promoters (such as these below) and the financial “ancillary interests” serving the public school system.  

    I will take on any one in fair, open, debate on-line on this matter, with some moderation.  This school system is cheating both genders, which should not be blamed on one of them.  Moreover, the school system is generally speaking “progressive” and leftist, while the federal government appears to becoming — through these HHS grants I keep speaking of — more and more influenced by conservative right-wingers, who like to keep their women under control, and in large part from supposedly religious bases.  Your blogger here has not only experienced this, but also read on the issue of domestic violence as addressed in conservative Christian mainstream press (i.e., Focus on the Family, Promise Keepers, etc.)  Books such as “Battered into Submission” and others address their silence on this plague — physical violence backing up other forms of violence, within personal relationships — is always a plague when it’s system- endorsed.  Dr Chesler addresses its format in the other fundamentalist religion, Islam, when she writes on honor-killings.

    When a school system is actively pro-LGBT and not very friendly to Christianity (as opposed to, say Islam), and a government agency is pushing a Christian agenda through, the natural consequence is conflict.  Both approaches are likely to engender a reactionary exodus from the system, or reaction to it.  Add to this, underperformance intellectually when a school is more about indoctrination that education, and we have a cesspool of conflicting ideologies and power struggles, both within the school and between parents and the schools.

     

    Most human beings don’t appreciate being the target of a mass label of any sort.  This is a way to sort fruit, cattle, or sheep, not people.

    Te American public, across the board, and is hostile to competitors, principally homeschoolers.  In other countries — such as Germany! — homeschooling is illegal, which should be a message to us all about what direction this is heading.  Our economy would be better off with private, market-based competition, and allow people to re-engage in their own communities.  Schools throughout Chicago have demonstrated alternatives.

     

    Here’s one tirade:

    The problem,” said David Kupelian, managing editor of WND and Whistleblower, “is that misguided feminists, intent on advancing a radically different worldview than the one on which this nation was founded,

    What would that worldview be — life, liberty, and the pursuit of manliness? . . . . .  “Puh-leez!”

    As I pointed out in my post of 06-01-09, the exact opposite appears to be true.  In general, baseline sanity (as with family court in general, when it comes to labeling) the ground-zero truth is often 180~ reversal of the proclaimed truth.  

    FOR EXAMPLE, HERE:

    I posted the original documents for us to look at, also, or links to them:  Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech, at the Lincoln Memorial (1776, 1863, 1963) all talk about JUSTICE.  In seeking freedom from being colonized by England, the signers pledged their lives and their fortunes as well.  In 1863, on the battlefield of a war, commemorating the cost of not letting the South secede and keep their slavery trade going — then-President Lincoln reminded his audience BRIEFLY of 1776.  The concept of slavery was supposedly anathema.  In1963, another civil rights leader said, that promise was made, but for a certain sector has not been realized.  Notably, both Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., were later assassinated.  All around this, women had been seeking to vote, at a minimum.  

    In 1994, VAWA said :  STOP! hitting and killing us because we are women.  Stop it!  It was not a “we hate you because you are men,” but a “what about justice?  We are people too!”  Anyhow, “Whistleblower” (the source) drones on. . . . 

    have succeeded in fomenting a revolution. And that revolution amounts to a powerful and pervasive campaign against masculinity, maleness, boys, men and patriarchy.”

     

    No, if along the way, manhood has become associated with the ability to oppress, we have a problem indeed.

    Also, in the process of patronizing feminists verbally, let’s get consistent.  Either they are misguided, and to be pitied and instructed, or they are wicked and evil revolution-fomenters, disturbing your peace and (Patriarchy), therefore to be hated, because they DO know better but are simply mean, nasty, family-haters.    . . . .   No wonder this is a call for mental health practitioners in the business; make up your mind!  Which is it?  Dumb, or bad?  And while you are deciding which one women as a whole are (that’s ALL women who want to leave their marriages, or protest abuse of them or the children, and expect protection from this, etc.  OR who not only expect BOTh to be (a) protected from assaults AND (b) to have the former assaulter continue to provide for his offspring (yes, you breed’em you feed’em, and it takes two, still, to start one…), for you own credibility that this is not a murder trial, but if it were, either the person would be deemed mentally competent, or not. This type of inflammatory speech, incidentally, isn’t, because it can’t choose between even those two. Among other reasons, which I hope to illustrate below, along with some sensible talk by men addressing issue that pertain, at least, to veterans.

    Intelligent discourse (exchange of dialogue, or consideration of ideas/theories) is not possible, really, around these kinds of propositions.  Add to that, we know now the Responsible Fatherhood Healthy Marriage Federal funding behind “teaching us our lesson,” so the poor and oppressed paradigm doesn’t really stick.  As well as (I hope to also show) some of the funding behind the media portrayal of these issues.

    “Issue highlights include:

    Note “war;” “win/lose” and fear-mongering vocabulary below:.  Get out the paint and drums:

    • “Banning ‘mom’ and ‘dad,'” by Joseph Farah, who exposes the latest in bizarre and dangerous legislation by the California legislature. 

    Did the word “bizarre” come from some of these access/visitation grants?  My ex used that one, of a very normal activity we were engaged in, although his description of it made it sound like Guantanamo.   Bizarre & Dangerous together conjure up some great images, if the intent is to play them emotions and other rabble-rousing.    (I am thinking he’s referring to Prop 8, or the attempt to switch the marriage registration forms from reading “Husband” and “Wife” to Party 1 and Party 2?   For gay marriages, I suppose, it could be simply “Husband and husband” (til further notice) and “Wife and wife” I suppose.  Or “Ms.” and “Mr.” — but in any case, I don’t think it’s nearly as bizarre or dangerous as the fatherhood movement, presently, which is affecting the justice processes in the U.S.

    • “The fathers’ war” by Stephen Baskerville, a troubling look at how increasing numbers of America’s military men risk all to serve their nation in wartime, only to be divorced by their wives and lose their children

     

    Let’s consider the phrase “be divorced by their wives and lose their children” in its proper context, as to Vets:

     

    Whistleblower author, you didn’t know that War messes with men, and women, both?

    Mr (or Dr.) Baskerville must not have served as infantry, or in actual combat?  And he doesn’t understand that PTSD happens?  And in a soldier, can become lethal, including to his own family?

    Let’s hear from some serious authors (not just serious about their own causes…).  Senator McCain (See US Veterans article below) served  in war — did Jeffrey Leving, David Blankenhorn, Wade Horn? ??  (We know about Clinton, he didn’t fight, and he didn’t “inhale”. either..)  

    NYTIMES:  Across America Deadly Echoes of Foreign Wars

    January 13, 2008, By DEBORAH SONTAG and LIZETTE ALVAREZ

    Individually, these are stories of local crimes, gut-wrenching postscripts to the war for the military men, their victims and their communities. Taken together, they paint the patchwork picture of a quiet phenomenon, tracing a cross-country trail of death and heartbreak.

    The New York Times found 121 cases in which veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan committed a killing in this country, or were charged with one, after their return from war. In many of those cases, combat trauma and the stress of deployment — along with alcohol abuse, family discord and other attendant problems — appear to have set the stage for a tragedy that was part destruction, part self-destruction.

    Three-quarters of these veterans were still in the military at the time of the killing. More than half the killings involved guns, and the rest were stabbings, beatings, strangulations and bathtub drownings. Twenty-five offenders faced murder, manslaughter or homicide charges for fatal car crashes resulting from drunken, reckless or suicidal driving.

    About a third of the victims were spouses, girlfriends, children or other relatives, among them 2-year-old Krisiauna Calaira Lewis, whose 20-year-old father slammed her against a wall when he was recuperating in Texas from a bombing near Falluja that blew off his foot and shook up his brain

    BAD WOMEN, SEPARATING FROM THEIR TRAUMATIZED, LEAN, MEAN FIGHTING-MACHINE HUSBANDS.  THEY ARE PARTICIPATING IN A “WAR ON FATHERHOOD.”

    NOW, IF IT HAD BEEN A FEMALE HEAD OF STATE THAT SENT THE US INTO IRAQ ON (FALSE PRETEXTS) AND THEN SAID, ‘WELL, WE’RE IN, WE HAVE TO FINISH THE JOB NOW — OR AFGHANISTAN, OR ANYWHERE ELSE,AND ALL THE FEMINAZIS WERE  EGGING HER ON, THEN PERHAPS YOU COULD BLAME FATHERS RETURNING HOME AND LOSING THEIR FAMILIES ON WOMEN’S WAR AGAINST FATHERHOOD.  SOMEHOW, IT DOESN’T RING AS REAL AS THESE ARTICLES, BELOW . . . . . 

    These men, and I bet some of then are responsible fathers, too, are actually DOING something about the struggle the veterans have coming home. . .

    (1)

    Odysseus in America: Combat trauma and the trials of homecoming

    By Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD;

    Foreword by Senator Max Cleland and Senator John McCain

    Book review by Helen A Williams, MS

    New York: Scribner; 2002. ISBN 0-7432-1156-1 352 pages. $25.00

    Those moved by Jonathan Shay’s first book, Achilles in Vietnam (1995)1–an inquiry into Homer’s Iliad as metaphor for the deforming effects of military combat on character–are in for another compelling read. This time, Shay examines The Odyssey and discovers that Odysseus’ adventures look a lot like the symptoms of what we now call posttraumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. Shay’s gift is to convey these symptoms as dramatis personae from The Odyssey cannibalizing the inner life of the Vietnam veteran.

    Jonathan Shay is a psychiatrist in the US Department of Veteran Affairs Outpatient Clinic in Boston, where he began his career in 1987 working with Vietnam veterans suffering with PTSD. Based on Shay’s work with these vets, his second book culminates in a plea for changing the way the US military organizes itself to fight a war–or, at least, for changing the way the military had organized itself through December 2001. The book went to press in 2002, before the war in Iraq began (in March 2003). 

    (2)

    United States Department of Veterans Affairs

    Boston’s Jonathan Shay Honored with MacArthur Fellowship

    VA PTSD Psychiatrist Given “Genius” Award

    September 25, 2007

    WASHINGTON — A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employee in Boston, Dr. Jonathan Shay, has been awarded the so-called “Genius Award” from the MacArthur Foundation.  Shay, the author of two popular books about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), has been a VA staff psychiatrist treating combat veterans with PTSD since November 1987.

    Dr. Shay is living proof that VA is providing our veterans with the best health care this country has to offer, especially for the treatment of PTSD,” said Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jim Nicholson. “Our veterans deserve — and VA is providing — world-class health care.”

    Shay was one of 24 Americans who each recently received a $500,000 grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, one of the nation’s largest philanthropic organizations, for “exceptional merit and promise of continued creative work.”  Shay combines a study of classic literature with 20 years of experience treating veterans inBoston to explain PTSD to both the public and health care professionals.

    In addition to publications in professional journals, he is the author of Achilles in Vietnam and Odysseus in America, two widely regarded books that helped spread the understanding that PTSD is an age-old battlefield injury by comparing the works of the ancient Greek poet Homer to the experiences of modern combat veterans.

    He also pioneered the use of certain anti-depression medicine, called “selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors,” for combat trauma, a treatment that now has broad endorsement for veterans with psychological injury.

    (3) The men in my family, in re: military service:

     

    The men in my family background did not come home and get betrayed by their wives, bad women.  This is how it went:

    One cousin went to Viet Nam  and served.  He came home, and had a wife and two kids and was an upstanding man.  He was done in, eventually, by Agent Orange and died, leaving THEM.  The other cousin was disqualified due to poor circulation.

    My Dad, I’m told, was held back here to work on a military-funded  project for a major research lab in NJ.  Naturally, as a kid, I was not privvy to on all of this.  Later, I learned more. from a book and the Internet than my own family ever shared.  One thing  I also learned, and remembered, is that behind MOST technological advances is a military purpose (and money).  He died early (65), why, I don’t know.  I am sure had he not died early, he might have put my ex in place when the battering began.  However, it’s also quite likely that childhood abuse was a factor in his life, and stress level overall.  DNK.  He overperformed and dedicated himself to study and work, and providing for us.

    My uncle served in the war, and I never knew him that well as a person to start with, he was always kind of sidelined in the family; he was very talented artistically, and I have some cartoons of his, sardonic commentaries on how inhumane the treatment of his soldiers.  He typically had a silly smile on his face (mental illness?  Fetal alcohol syndrome?  Smacked around as a kid by his Dad??) and never said much.  No one would talk about this.  He never married, and died early; I wasn’t told why.

    SIDE NOTE:  My Dad grew up with domestic violence, we were told.  I suspect some of it got to this uncle and may have accounted for how well he did in life, and how short a life he lived.  As he lived, so he died — though a niece, I was told next to nothing, then, or now.

    In-law:  My father in law served in Korea, and came back, at least, paranoid schizophrenic, medicated, and is described by my ex as uninvolved / depressed.  My sister in law described him as a drunk (she refused to ride home in the same car with him from the airport).  His household was definitely dysfunctional and he was most likely uninvolved as a parent because he was on medication and depressed.  Eventually, well after one son divorced, remarried & was jailed for incest, and another one got a restraining order with kickout for domestic violence, and I guess after a daughter had multiple kids with a man who wouldn’t support them, my father in law blew his life out with a bullet to the head.  Certificate reads “acute chronic depression.”  

    A brother in law I never met served in the military, came back, and remarried a woman with children.  He was the one jailed for incest — not long enough as far as I am concerned.  He since remarried almost 20 years older than than himself and judging an on-line  photo, and his track record, I’d say she was desperate.   

    This was NOT “women leaving their husbands,” and it was not woman’s war on manhood.  Perhaps THE logical conclusion of this version of manhood IS war.  Period.  Manliness  = fighting someone.  I don’t know.  I don’t go for it.  Not safe!


    • “The war on fathers,” by David Kupelian, an in-depth look at what’s really behind the feminization of America.

      Who knows — perhaps the “feminazi” (as we are called) came at one point from having to deal with generation after generation of war-torn fathers, brothers, orphans?  Perhaps these men were coming back and acting out what they’d lived in war. . .  And we protested.

      Anyone who wishes to blame the ‘feminists” for everything has an ahistorical perspective.  Where did we come from to start with?  Not wanting to be the new slave class?  Nationally speaking — and these FR guys DO obviously get national platforms to speak from — they own many of them, and pay for others (which can be traced at least in part) – – have externalized and targeted women as their personal “demons,”  For being women, for not going along with the stereotyped gender roles, for wanting to leave the home and work, even if the household is suffering for lack of their doing so, for failing to crawl low enough – —   A bigger, better man would face his own issues and think about maybe why she left. . . . . I know the man I left has apparently not done that yet.  He’s simply found more people to agree with him, and got them all worked up (and incited to action), also.

    • Why men are being attacked,” by Dr. Laura Schlessinger, who says: “It isn’t all about hating men – it’s largely about disdaining and dismissing them.” 

    I don’t disdain men overall.  For one, that’d be foolish — I work with choirs, and it takes all kinds to sing, deep voices and high voices, “SATB.”  Historically within music, I have worked with male and female, let alone straight and gay, old and young. The children’s choirs I hung out with, some were boys and girls, and some girls only, and some boys only.  It takes all kinds.  I married and had children, which indicates at least a nominal ability of some sort, and stuck it out for almost a decade.  I drew the line somewhere between the collections of weapons (more than one kind), destruction of my credit, attempt to keep me without transportation, and being concerned that a suicide was imminent.  Not to mention being physically assaulted in front of my own kids, and lectured, too.  Enough was too much.  

    Now, I want a little space, some peace, and sanity within the family court, only to find it is more interested in funneling funds to tweak the male/female family balance because of earlier concerns about welfare vs. child support and the establishment of what looks, sounds, feels, and is experienced like the establishment of a new national religion.  Now THAT, I object to.

    Those who have lived with certain personality types understand how setting a limit can be interpreted as declaring “war.”  

    I do reserve the right to determine when someone is talking sense, or nonsense, speaking treasures of wisdom or rubbish coming from sloppy, emotional, thinking.  I do reserve the right to not be assaulted in my own home — and for this, I eventually had to have one of us leave — him!  (we rented, don’t get all worked up about family property — I had chaos to deal with, from years of the chaos of violence.  And plenty of debt.  No assets — at all.  Period.  None, other than books, I suppose.  An old car…, and not the only one…)

     

    • “Has the bias pendulum swung against men?” Fewer college-bound, higher suicide rates, shorter life spans suggest males getting shaft.  (OR, maybe they are not doing something right?)

    NOTE:  I am ONE woman, not ALL women.  Most women I know are not “ALL” women.  To attack us  — to the point of killing! — because of perceived injustices by other women shows delusional thinking no different than attacking all people on the basis of race, national origin, or for that matter, body size, or faith.  The rhetoric simply makes no sound sense.

    • “Paternity fraud rampant in U.S.,” showing how 30 percent of men assessed for court-ordered child support are not actually the fathers of the children receiving the support. 

    Cites please?  And if this is so, it is likely made up for the ones who ARE the fathers not paying it.  Plus some fathers who are having custody switched and now their wives pay, or are jailed.  

    • “‘Shared parenting’ seen as custody solution,” a look at bills in New York that would require courts to treat mom and dad equally. (Courts have never done this, and do not do so now, thanks to the U.S. HHS  // ACF programs and many more initiatives from at least as far back as 1994, and ongoing.  Millions of dollars gone towards these initiatives.  See elsewhere on site.)
    • “Resolving the boy crisis in schools” by Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks, showing how today’s public schools are profoundly unsuited for the genuine needs of boys.         

      I lived and worked in Mr. Leving’s home greater metropolitan area.  

      I do not think he was practicing on the Chicago’s South Side.  I was there in the 1970s and 1980s working under a man who talked less and did more to help support and supplement inner city public schools through inspired excellence in music, the Unitarian church, to help boys AND girls get along together in mixed ensembles and non-age-level-separated situations.  Another unique (for his generation) thing he did, starting in the 1950s (before Maryland had fully ratified women’s right to vote, and told Congress so!)  was get some of the kids from the privileged Chicago Laboratory (private, upperclass) school  and others on the North side of town to function, at work and play, and on tours and rehearsals, with some on the South and West sides.  This was (the late) Rev. Christopher Moore. I came in from Oberlin Consevatory, and learned a thing or two as well.  

      I respect that man (shortcomings and longsuits) because I saw his work and service. Unlike Promoting Responsible Fatherhood, it’s not getting families killed or put back on poverty — except ONE child, “Virgil White” who was shot for quitting gangs through this group.  It enriched their lives and infused something terrific INTO these public schools — singing.  He also got kids OUT of the schools to sing together after school, and concertizing in front of a variety of others.  This group is still going, and infusing emotional, musical and other cultural life into the city, and the lives of the boys and girls (now  young men and women, or some gray-haired ones).  In 2007 they had their 50th anniversary celebration, brining across male — and female; young — and old – musicians from across the country and across time.   We (I came, too) sang for almost 3 days straight and filled the Lyric Opera House as to both audience and stage.   

      They also had something better (more noble) to focus on than gender, and gender alone.  OR marital status. Good grief.

      Guess why I was unable to bring a daughter along?  Not in small part because of what demagogues like these were pushing through Congress, and then down through the Health and Human Services Department by way of Child Support Enforcement (or non-, as the case may be), and other programs that were set in motion while I was:  1.  working to put music back in the schools, and not for high pay; 2. as a woman, pursuing a B.Th because it was part of my faith, and still doing music, and 3.  During marriage, getting slapped around, in marriage, in front of pastors, family, employers, and others without intervention.  And thereafter, in the family law system, when I was again attempting go rebuilding the profession marriage had trashed.

      I can testify that the family law and child support systems are in bed financially with several others, and that groups that helped weaken the VAWA laws and enforcement of existing family codes in place to protect women — and children — and men from beating on them and hounding them out of work — couldn’t/wouldn’t even stick for a mother whose kids were stolen on an overnight visitation, and refused to enforce child support collections diligently either before or afterwards.  

      So I went to that 2007 50th anniversary of this group (Chicago Children’s Choir, incidentally) without my daughters, and inbetween the 6th & 7th court hearings in one year, ALL of them jumpstarted with a felony crime that no one will take responsibility for to start with:  child-stealing.  

      Had they come, they would’ve had an eye-opener culturally (my daughters have scarcely left the state they were born in, to date) and seen adults respecting their mother, been musically inspired beyond belief, and heard a choir from South Africa sing also.  (A group from here has also toured South Africa, and some of them sung for Nelson Mandela).  Why should I, because I am female, and single, be prevented from bringing my offspring in front of such wonderful opportunities?  How does this figure into the “feminazi war on fatherhood” because I protested that injustice?  One daughter is accomplished musically, and still sings in a choir.  This would’ve been a great opportunity.  What kind of mindset would make that opportunity, for a lower-income single mother (which we became primarily through the courts to start with!), impossible for some growing daughters?

      We are indeed in dark times. To me, that’s just totalitarianism.

      I’d rather SEE a sermon — or hear a concert — than hear a sermon any day.  

      I think perhaps we need as a nation to start choosing our leaders from poorer backgrounds, uniformly, and not people who come straight out of college into law school, clerkships, judgeships, and privilege.  Our current President apparently didn’t, but what about the rank and file of Congress?  I think “royalty” is highly overrated, and the Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage is about neither topic, but about dumbing down the general level of conversation to TWO identifiers only:  1.  Gender and 2.  Marital Status, both of them to be considered privileged, when neither of them is really a character indicator.

      Humanity is much more diverse, as are the issues important to debate nationally.  And neither wealth nor poverty are, of themselves, sole indicators of how well a child is going to do in life.  Let’s get out of the fields of virtual self-fulfilling prophecies, and predictions, and take a closer look at PROCESS (as in, due process) in the court systems, among other places.

    i recommend a closer look at Tom Mortenson’s blog:

    “postsecondaryoppotunity.blogspot.com.”  There are valuable lessons on it, including one on the recent omission of the “family income” category in US Census work.  One of the most stratifying institutions we have today — and one that was supposedly in place to do the opposite — is the k-12 educational system.  Because of what comes out, only wealthier communities, or those where nonprofits committed to certain causes exist, to put it back in, as they still do ( from what I recall) in Chicago.  Moreover, the monopoly has to be willing to let go some of its privilege and acknowledge failure.  ONE of the failures is also character failure.  One character builder includes competence, but it is not the only one.  Another one is service, and participation in meaningful communities.

    I think it’s also time to look at the dependence of our national economy on the public school system. Whole sectors would have to be dismantled if it were, yet it is failing students.  I say this as a former teacher and parent, supplemented by experience and reading.  Childcare cannot solve everything, and boys in particular, need their mothers when they are very young, and to not be age and grade-sorted with girls, and then stigmatized because they are different.  And children who literally DO learn differently, should be allowed to — they are among the creators and inventors, we are drilling out of the population by reducing things to a standardized test answer.  Such kids need TIME and some freedom to experiment, and permission to fail also without stigma.  Edison did, after all! And Einstein.

    That’s all for today.

    This blog is becoming unwieldy (electronically), and I recommend that readers perhaps explore some of the links, and do their own research particularly on what our government is doing with tax dollars.  There are few subsitutes for a little direction and a lot of googling, mixed with real-life experience and informal, unmonitored conversations with lots and lots of people from many walks of life.

    If life is work, church/mosque/synagogue/single community organization, school, and commute — when does this happen?

    What are we living, working, schooling, and campaigning/worhipping FOR?  The right to direct someone else’s lives, or restrict their opportunities, or living one’s own, peaceably?

    Above all, children are not property.  Of all things, parents should know this.  Too many entitities are making merchandise of them.  When parents divorce, Sometimes it’s “no-fault,” but sometimes there are legitimate faults or crimes.  At this time, one size fits all does not work, and shouldn’t be forced to at public expense in the courts any more than it does in the school system.  ANy more than an employer should be forced to keep incompetent employees affecting its bottom line and public reputation.

    As a nation, the US Government is the EMPLOYEE of the American people, as well as employing many in the exercise of its authority.  It is in too many different businesses for sure, and has forgotten who it was to be Of, By, and For.  Looking at who is greasing the wheels of Congress, and presuming to speak for an entire nation without openly consulting them on its policies, this has gotten entirely out of hand.  

    Like most bulldozers, or for that matter outsized tanks, it lacks the finesse, and substitutes force.  and works best with a free rein in a large area.

    People who work primarily as employees, paying taxes, have been bulldozed over at teh behest of private foundations running institutes at major universities driving data for federal purposes not voted on.  It is paying salaries of judges who are sometimes caught with their pants down, or taking kickbacks, and trafficking in kids too (I refer to a federal judge in Texas on sexual harassment, a NJ judge on pornography involving kids,  and two judges who sent juveniles, improperly, to detention centers, in Pennsylvania, among others).  

    I’m tired of this — as a mother, and former musician (as to employment) both practices require finesse and a degree of freedom to work right.

    As to this post, I apologize for the length and its condition (not up to “snuff”) but hope that some of its links, references, and ideas may spark something in a reader for follow up, or to reconsider some of the rhetoric in light of, perhaps education, versus the gender or ideology wars.  Maybe there is a better way!


    Written by Let's Get Honest

    June 3, 2009 at 11:34 am

    That’s my USA: 1770s-Founding Fathers design a nation, including “Congress,” 1990s-Congress redesigns “Fatherhood,” [Omitting “motherhood”] while slaves and women try to fit in somewhere along the way

    with 2 comments

    And inbetween (1863, 1963), two major civil rights leaders (one white, one black, both male), remind the nation about the original proposition of Justice.  

    Meanwhile, before and after the Civil War, women ask to be included in the nouns referring to “citizens” and “persons.”  Somewhere around World War I, Congress passes this; with Maryland waiting til 1958 to send its acknowledgement in…

     

     

    Yep, that’s what I love about this country, the “USA”:

     

    1770s, let’s say 1776. . . . 

    Some forefathers held a number of  meetings (summits) and designed, among other things Declared Independence from Longstanding and Egregious Pattern of Oppressions, declared certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, protested and enumerated (specifically) some nasty things the Mother Country (England) and its King had done, and in an attempt to make sure the people had a voice in their own government.  They designed two houses of Congress to meet and make laws; an EXECUTIVE Branch to enforce & execute them (NOT write them) and a JUDICIAL Branch to judge fairly as to the enforcement of these laws.  

    This all based on the premise that no one individual or entity should have too much power over the people.  

    The concept of a national definition of “Happiness” I don’t think was set in concrete; but that life and liberty would enable men to pursue it, at least.  

    Keywords:  “Forefathers Design Congress”

    For “oppression,” compare “abuse.”

    SAMPLE:

    Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

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

    We hold these truths to be self-evident:

    That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

    • He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
    • He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.
    • He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.  ((NB:  The standing armies of our day & time may have other names, but are backed up by police force….))
    • He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.
    • He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

    Hmmm. . . . . Interesting . . . . . 

     

    1848 — 72 years later, women say, “Us, too!”

    Some women, referring to the Declaration of Independence meet in NY to demand equal rights, including the vote.

    Fighting for the Vote

    The first women’s rights convention took place in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in July 1848. The declaration that emerged was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it claimed that “all men and women are created equal” and that “the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman.” Following a long list of grievances were resolutions for equitable laws, equal educational and job opportunities, and the right to vote.

     

    1863 (87 years later….)

    President Lincoln remembers what 1776 was about

    Growing pains — some discrepancies of interpretation of the word “men” arise, and more discrepancies about the balance of powers between Federal and States.  

    President Lincoln — following a 2-hour speech, gives a memorable 2- MINUTE speech referring to the above:

     

    Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal”                  

    Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow, this ground — The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here.

    It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

     

     


    “With the Union victory in the Civil War, women abolitionists hoped their hard work would result in suffrage for women as well as for blacks. But the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, granted citizenship and suffrage to blacks but not to women.”

     

    1866-1868 –

    13th, 14th, & 15th, Amendments still not thought to include women:

    Constitutional Grants of Powers to Congress under the Civil War Amendments

    AMENDMENT XIII

         Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865. 

         Section 1.  
         Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. 

          Section 2.  
         Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. 

    AMENDMENT XIV

         Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868. 

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

          Section 2-4 [omitted]. 

         Section 5.  
         The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

    AMENDMENT XV

         Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870. 

          Section 1.  
         The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 

          Section 2.  
         The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

    ========

    1871 (95 years later) Congress has yet to acknowledge women as citizens or persons, in re: voting

    Petition to Congress, December 1871

    In the year following the ratification of the 15th amendment, a voting rights petition sent to the Senate and House of Representatives requested that suffrage rights be extended to women and that women be granted the privilege of being heard on the floor of Congress. It was signed by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and other suffragists. Well known in the United States suffrage movement, Anthony and Stanton organized the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) in 1869.

    (http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/petition-to-congress.html)

    1920 — US. Constitution 19th Amendment, gives

    women suffrage.

    Nineteenth Amendment 
         Passed by Congress June 4, 1919.  
    Ratified August 18, 1920. 

    Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. 

    Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.  
        

    Which countries granted women the vote first?  Do you see USA on here?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women’s_suffrage

    1958

    Maryland finally sends its acknowledgement that women can vote (now 38 yrs old) to Congress.

     

    1963  (187 years later). . .. 

     

    This man, speaking at the “Lincoln Memorial” remembers both Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence.

    Because of copyright (image is public domain), please review at link (title) for audio and transcription:

    I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.

    Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.

    But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.

    In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. 

     

    1966 –  N.O.W.   formed, and says:

    We, men and women, who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.

    The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.

    We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.

    NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.

    We organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to break through the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society. Enormous changes taking place in our society make it both possible and urgently necessary to advance the unfinished revolution of women toward true equality, now. With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.

    AND:

    NOW we have Congress Designing Fatherhood, trying to “equalize” the progress since, say, women got the right to vote, own property, sue their husbands in divorce situations, and become increasingly educated:

     

    1990s, before women’s right to vote turns 100, Fatherhood Fights Back . . . 

    The Fatherhood Industry – initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood, stigmatize absentee fathers

    Progressive, The ,  Nov, 1999   by Judith Davidoff

    Created in 1994 to “counter the growing problem of fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore responsible fatherhood as a national priority,” the National Fatherhood Initiative believes that “fathers make unique and irreplaceable contributions to the lives of their children.”

    In its first year, the group convened a National Summit on Fatherhood in Dallas. The purpose, according to the group’s literature, was to gather the nation’s “civic, business, and philanthropic leaders” together to “build a national consensus on the need to quickly reduce father absence.” The National Fatherhood Initiative provides technical assistance to the Governors’ Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, whose goal is to help “rebuild the institution of fatherhood” in the twenty-first century. And the group works with the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion,formed in 1997 to promote leadership in combating “fatherlessness.”

    1992/1993, Jack Straton writes about “what’s Fair to Children of Abusive Men?

    1994 – VAWA act passed.  Losing no time, 

    1994 — NFI Formed

    JUNE 1995? — Clinton, Fatherhood Executive Memo (see my blogroll), directing ALL Federal Depts & Agencies to review and revise their policies to include fathers.

    June 1998 — House of Reps passes a resolution (see below; I also posted the 1999 Congressional resolution earlier).

    http://bulk.resource.org/gpo.gov/bills/105/hr417eh.txt.pdf.

     

    AND SO ON, AND SO FORTH…

    The Declaration of Independence AND The Gettysburg Address AND the “I Have a Dream” speech contain complete sentences:  subject, object, verb.  They reference specific time and place and identified principles.

    • Several of the doctrines I find so damaging and hurtful to families in this nation, USA, today, do not even have a verb!  They are buzzwords, sound-bytes, with no nutrients inside.  They are enzymes, not protein, not fiber, not a healthy balance of nutrients.  When even the SUBJECTs (agents of the missing verbs) are missing, then we have no open accountability for either precipating the action leading up to the desired state:
    • “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.”
    • “Healthy Families”
    • “No Child Left Behind” 
    • “Personal Work and Responsibility Act” (i.e., get off welfare)
    • “Violence Against Women Act”
    • “Parental Alienation Syndrome”
    • “Equal Parenting” (a made-up word, attempting to eradicate the difference between “mother” and “father” and in essence, delete the word “mother” from public discourse, reducing us instead to “female.”), and, as I said yesterday,
    • “Explicating Domestic Violence in the Context of Custody.”
    • “Best Interests of the Child.”  (anyone have a DEFINITION of that??)

     

    We would be better off promoting justice, rather than “fatherhood” (but not motherhood”), to promote which requires UNDERmining the justice process, outside of plain view of the participants.

     

     

    That’s enough for today.  More of the same can be found at the HHS website.

    I will share some of the “funding” of the fatherhood movement (some, only) in a separate post.

     

    1998 H. Res 417 s

    Next thing you know, about 222 hundred years later

     

    DOCID: f:hr417ih.txt]
    
    105th CONGRESS
      2d Session
    H. RES. 417
    
     Regarding the importance of fathers in the raising and development of
                                their children.
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
                        IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    
                                 April 30, 1998
    
       Mr. Pitts (for himself, Mr. Turner, Mr. Rogan, Mr. McIntyre, Mr.
      Gingrich, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Gephardt, and Mr.
     Bonior) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
                    Committee on Education and the Workforce
    
    _______________________________________________________________________
    
                                   RESOLUTION
    
     Regarding the importance of fathers in the raising and development of
                                their children.
    
    Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well
            over 90 percent of children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not
            become delinquents;
    Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant
            development, and father-child interaction has been shown to promote a

    http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=9851889234+2+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve

    1998_H04249.pdf (application/pdf Object).

    The vote (Roll No. 212) was yeas 415, nays 0, not voting 18.

    REGARDING IMPORTANCE OF FATHERS IN RAISING
    AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR CHILDREN

    (House of Representatives – June 09, 1998)

    H. Res. 417

    Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of
    children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not become delinquents;

    Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant development, and
    father-child interaction has been shown to promote a child’s physical well-being, perceptual
    abilities, and competency for relatedness with other persons, even at a young age;

    Whereas premature infants whose fathers spend ample time playing with them have better cognitive
    outcomes, and children who have higher than average self-esteem and lower than average
    depression report having a close relationship with their father;

    Whereas both boys and girls demonstrate a greater ability to take initiative and evidence
    self-control when they are reared with fathers who are actively involved in their upbringing;

    Whereas, although mothers often work tremendously hard to rear their children in a nurturing
    environment, a mother can benefit from the positive support of the father of her children;

    Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 79.1 percent of Americans believe the most significant
    family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the
    resulting lack of involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

    Whereas, according to the Bureau of the Census, in 1994, 19,500,000 children in the United
    States (nearly one-fourth of all children in the United States) lived in families in which the father was
    absent;

    Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 90.9 percent of Americans believe it is important for
    children to live in a home with both their mother and their father’;

    Whereas it is estimated that half of all United States children born today will spend at least half their
    childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent;

    Whereas estimates of the likelihood that marriages will end in divorce range from 40 percent to 50
    percent, and approximately three out of every five divorcing couples have at least one child;

    Whereas almost half of all 11- through 16-year-old children who live in mother-headed homes
    have not seen their father in the last twelve months;

    Whereas the likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is reared
    without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent
    families;

    Whereas children of single-parents are less likely to complete high school and more likely to have
    low earnings and low employment stability as adults than children reared in two-parent families;

    Whereas a 1990 Los Angeles Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all
    mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children;

    Whereas almost 20 percent of 6th through 12th graders report that they have not had a good
    conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month;

    Whereas, according to a Gallup poll, over 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend
    less time with their children than their fathers spent with them;

    Whereas President Clinton has stated that `the single biggest social problem in our society may be
    the growing absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes to so many other
    social problems’ and that ‘the real source of the [welfare] problem is the inordinate number of out
    of wedlock births in this country’;

    Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion and the Senate Task Force on
    Fatherhood Promotion were both formed in 1997, and the Governors Fatherhood Task Force was
    formed in February 1998;

    Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion is exploring the social changes
    that are required to ensure that every child is reared with a father who is committed to be actively
    involved in the rearing and development of his children;

    Whereas the 36 members of the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion are
    promoting fatherhood in their congressional districts;

    Whereas the National Fatherhood Initiative is holding a National Summit on Fatherhood in
    Washington, D.C., with the purpose of mobilizing a response to father absence in several of the
    most powerful sectors of society, including public policy, public and private social services,
    education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community;

    Whereas both Republican and Democrat leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate
    will be participating in this event; and

    Whereas the promotion of fatherhood is a bipartisan issue: Now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the House of Representatives–

    (1) recognizes that the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement
    of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

    (2) urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children,
    to be actively involved in rearing his children, and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual
    development of his children and urges the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who fail to
    fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support;

    (3) encourages each father to devote time, energy, and resources to his children, recognizing that
    children need not only material support, but more importantly a secure, affectionate, family
    environment; and

    (4) expresses its support for a national summit on fatherhood

    %d bloggers like this: