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 ‘NFI

What’s Love — I mean Gender — I mean Gender Expression Discrimination– got to do with it? (Calif AB 887 & AFCC June 2011)

leave a comment »

“What’s Love Got to do with it?”

A film about the singer Tina Turner and how she rose to stardom with her abusive husband Ike Turner and how she gained the courage to break free.

[Yeah — how is beating a woman up related to loving her?  And what’s using her got to, either?]

I recommend seeing this (if you somehow haven’t, yet).  If not, at least hear the song:

This is a review of the movie.  If somehow, you are unfamiliar with the story/film, you might as well read it, to get a grip on how AFCC — a group renowned for minimizing and reframing exactly what this woman endured as a “high-conflict” and prescribing their coaches to coach victims of this type of brutality to learn now to get along with perpetrators of it [Or, we will take your children and give them to the other parent — or the state]– parodied the title  in a twisted perversion of the original reference — which is of a woman escaping brutal poverty and violence, a role model of success possible after confronting it.

This is hardly the first time AFCC did this, as I blogged earlier in “Clear and Present Danger — fuzzy usage by AFCC“, when a conference indicating that the “Clear and Present Danger” was not (as the California Penal Code stated it was) batterers, but lack of funding for their services.

Actually, that wasn’t fuzzy usage, but targeted usage — directly targeting legal language that addressed domestic violence, and switching usage.   Totally in accord with the organization’s stated purpose, which is the transformation of language — including the language of the criminal codes from state to state.  If, in the process, this also totally transforms the legal process, the courts (from judging law to dispensing therapy and counseling services, “Problem-solving courts” etc.) certainly (as defined by these helpful professionals), it was a worthy end to justify the means, right?

So o o o . . .. they next ask:

What’s Gender Got To Do With It?”

( a search of the phrase without “AFCC” shows how Tina Turna’s story has permeated the language…)

Many of the conference handouts I’ve been mocking and “outing”recently  (for the marketing schemes they truly are) are from this upcoming (like, next week) AFCC conference in Orlando, Florida.  I mean, what’s not to mock? including that it seems they take themselves seriously.

For example:  ”

This session examines the complex mental health challenges in some child custody litigants and the dilemmas they present for attorneys and mental health professionals working with flawed parents.

Yeah, for the superior professions, it’s sure hard to deal with flawed parents.  It’s ever so irksome dealing with inferior human beings and their flaws.  Perhaps they can commiserate with God in this matter… or seek counsel with Him (oh I forgot — it appears they already did..which is why we have to be subjected to the trainings…these conferences intend to fix us flawed parents (“been there, done that — I confess!  I’m not flawless!”). At our own expense, when it hits the courtroom.

Perhaps flawed parents, on the next go-round, should be sterilized and make life easier for judges, mental health professionals, and attorneys to ply their trades.

Plus, besides the troubles of dealing with flawed parents, the professionals have some of their own friction to work out (these family law professionals at least know not to display their conflicts  in front of the “kids” — i.e., mean, the troublesome parents that need to be educated on how to parent, and divorce, etc.):

 Implications of various professional roles will be explored as will the inherent friction between the roles of attorneys and mental health professionals.    …  Ethical implications of this work will be reviewed….

Wow — in private, among themselves, they actually admit there is an “inherent friction” in mental health professionals & the representatives of law?   And that ethical implications exist? — amazing.   I caught no hint of this in any court proceedings I was in for the past (xx years), most of them lasting 20 minutes and set to review a mediator’s report we’d just received in the courtroom minutes prior to the hearing.  This is called “due process” in action.  (or “inaction,” should I say).

This workshop was run — typical AFCC combo — by a Judge, two Attorneys, and a Ph.D.:

Mary Ferriter, J.D., Esdaile, Barrett & Esdaile, Boston,

MA David Medoff, Ph.D., Suffolk University, Boston, MA

Hon. Edward Donnelly, Middlesex Probate and Family Court, Cambridge, MA

Kelly Leighton, J.D., Barens & Leighton, Salem, MA

OK, so apparently Gender has something to do with it.  So let’s talk about Gender.  Or, eavesdrop on our Legislators trying to talk about it.

What’s Pacific Justice Institute Got to do it?

(with the Gender Debate?)

Who??? — Well,

Pacific Justice Institute for one has lots of love.  They provide services for free to “those” they serve according the the blurb at the bottom of my email alerts:

About The Pacific Justice Institute:  Pacific Justice Institute is a non-profit 501(c)(3) legal defense organization specializing in the defense of religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties. Pacific Justice Institute works diligently, without charge, to provide their clients with all the legal support they need.  Pacific Justice Institute’s strategy is to coordinate and oversee large numbers of concurrent court actions through a network of over 1,000 affiliate attorneys nationwide. And, according to former US Attorney General Edwin Meese, “The Institute fills a critical need for those whose civil liberties are threatened.” “Through our dedicated attorneys and supporters, we defend the rights of countless* individuals, families and churches… without charge.”

What gender individuals.  Does this include the right gender individuals involved in the destructive jaws of the family law system, and spat out by it when there is neither wealth, nor children under 18, to suck the life out of?

(No.  While PJI tangles repeatedly with the Public Educational system (public), they’re not so foolish as to consistently engage in the family law system, or those entangled in such “family matters.”  Doing so on the behalf of women like me might jeopardize some of the financial support, I suspect….)

**Well, being a nonprofit, they’d better keep some books, like something resembling a headcount at least of their own clients….

AS TO CHURCHES NEEDING TO HAVE THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS PROTECTED, BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE CARES:

Churches and church-affiliated charities / organizations have received governmental support a decade by Executive Order.  This means that even tax-paying atheists may be supporting them, unawares, and are, because then-President Bush thought it was a great idea and ordered it.  “Let there be an office of faith-based and community initiatives.”  Lightbulbs went off in religious institutions across the land about access to grants…..  [see intro to google book “Godly Republic:  A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-based Future”

or a (positive, probably) Georgetown 2004 Master’s Thesis submission(search “Eberly”) ?  Don Eberly, a founder of the National Fatherhood Institute, whose agenda was obviously to protect the civil rights of fathers — all fathers — nationwide, who had been attacked by welfare Moms and anti-domestic-violence feminists and the child support system. “

Don Eberly, deputy director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives noted that he believes that the efforts are “’The Ultimate Third Way’” in the renegotiating of ways to approach social philosophy.25 The recent enthusiasm for the new method of social analysis is shared by President Bush as a result of his personal experiences.  The faith-based initiatives stems from his belief that prayer has a transformative power to combat social ills.

About Don Eberly” (Positive).  Note the sections “Influence Domestically” and “Movement Founder and Scholar”:

  • His career includes a decade serving in senior policy positions in the Congress and in the White House under two Presidents, and another decade advocating for and creating non-profit organizations to strengthen community and civic life.
  • Don spent much of the 1990s as a social entrepreneur, founding several nationally recognized non-profit organizations, including the Civil Society Project, which promotes innovation in community development and offers technical assistance for new non-profit start ups. In 1994, he founded the National Fatherhood Initiative, a national non-partisan civic organization whose mission is to improve the well-being of children by increasing the number of children raised by committed, engaged fathers.
GWB had faith in him, for sure:
  • George W. Bush

Thank you all very much for that warm welcome. It’s an honor to be introduced by Tommy Thompson, who not only was an outstanding Governor but, I can assure you, is going to be an outstanding Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is bright, capable, smart, and does everything the President tells him. [Laughter

(We are less than amused….)

He’s my buddy. But thank you, Tommy, very much.

I am so honored Members of the United States Congress are here. I appreciate you all being here, Senator Carper, Senator Bayh, Congressman J.C. Watts. If there are other Members of the Congress here, thank you all for coming, as well. Roland Warren, it’s good to meet you, sir. I appreciate your focus and effort. I’ve got something to say about the other two characters up here in a minute. [Laughter]

For 7 years, the National Fatherhood Initiative has been a powerful voice for responsible fatherhood [programs.& funding…] [as defined by the NFI…] . And for those of you involved, on behalf of our Nation, I say thanks from the bottom of our collective hearts.

  • [Ha, ha, ha….How many restraining orders were in effect that year? ….How many femicides of women who tried to leave abuse?  Was this detail somewhere, in a dark corner of the conglomerate heart?]
Most States now have initiatives that promote responsible fatherhood, and more than 50 mayors are involved in the National Fatherhood Initiative’s bipartisan Mayors Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion. The fatherhood movement is diverse, but it is united by one belief: Fathers have a unique and irreplaceable role in the lives of children.
Two people who have been a central part of the National Fatherhood Initiative are now a valuable part of my administration, . . . . 
the Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Don Eberly, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services—and, we hope, a man confirmed soon—Wade Horn. [Applause] I was pleased to see Senator Carper leading the applause. [Laughter] Thank you guys for your service, and thank you for your willingness to work on behalf of the American people.
Sounds to me like our former President, and the Congressmen with him, had VERY little confusion about gender, and which one it was most important to support intellectually, morally, and financially…  and this was, obviously, love.  It also sounds to me like the civil rights, if not privileges, of “parents families and churches” had serious support from above, and I don’t mean only their god.  This was 10 years ago.
(This included to highlight the Federal support of Faith, Fathers, and Bush-buddy Don Eberly).
This has affected custody hearings, obviously, and issues surrounding child support, child abuse protection, and violence against women (GENDER-based violence, that is) obviously.

About Don Eberly” (skeptical) (By: Bill Berkowitz / Published: Feb 7, 2005 at 06:38)

  • An advocate of shrinking government, Don Eberly, the head of the Civil Society Project promotes faith-based organizations, private philanthropic initiatives, traditional families, volunteerism and the building of a ‘values’ society. Whose ‘values’ is the question.You won’t find him on many of television’s talking head programs, you wouldn’t be able to pick him out of a line-up, and his essays aren’t sexed-up or buzz-worthy, but for more than 15 years, Don Eberly has been one of the leading advocates of a strain of conservative advocacy known as “civil society.”Although vague and often ambiguous, “civil society” advocates intend to shrink government by handing over responsibility for maintaining and administering what’s left of the social safety net to faith-based organizations, corporate and community groups, families and philanthropic initiatives. As neoconservative cultural critic Gertrude Himmelfarb has written, “When we speak of the restoration of civil society it is a moral restoration we should seek.”

The Teacher in me (forgetting Tina Turner for a few minutes here) believes that we should have a nice link to ath Executive Order of January 29, 2001).  (George W. Bush of Texas having been President 2001-2009, this appears to be one of the first things he did in Office):

For Immediate Release January 29, 2001

EXECUTIVE ORDER

– – – – – – –

ESTABLISHMENT OF WHITE HOUSE OFFICE

OF FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY INITIATIVES

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to help the Federal Government coordinate a national effort to expand opportunities for faith-based and other community organizations and to strengthen their capacity to better meet social needs in America’s communities, it is hereby ordered as follows: ….   (Recommended reading!  For example, ”

d) All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall cooperate with the White House OFBCI and provide such information, support, and assistance to the White House OFBCI as it may request, to the extent permitted by law.”)

BARACK OBAMA 2010 UPDATE, incl.  “(e)  Administration of the Initiative.  The Department of Health and Human Services shall provide funding and administrative support for the Working Group (which we can see (click on URL) includes the panorama of departments & agencies) to the extent permitted by law and within existing appropriations.”

As we know, from Whitehouse.gov, there’s the:

And then, to get the jobs done, to execute the policies of the other two branches which the Constitution supports, there are for the Executive Branch

  • Federal Agencies & Commissions, too many to list on this site…

    “There are hundreds of federal agencies and commissions charged with handling such responsibilities as managing America’s space program, protecting its forests, and gathering intelligence. For a full listing of Federal Agencies, Departments, and Commissions, visit USA.gov.

(complete with Czars, etc.)  The first one of hundreds — alphabetically — is the
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) where Fatherhood.gov, and Child Support Enforcement, Child Protective Services, Head Start, and many of the issues that this blog deals with, resides.  Not to mention The President’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, 

I’m not sure if I come under this category or not, yet.  Academically, no.  As to work history, no, or health — probably not.  But if the highest levels of the US government itself cannot figure out whether gender does, or does not, matter how can I be expected to?

Again, how can “PJI” possibly supplement all this  Faith & Fatherhood-laced Federal Endorsements of NFI and OFBCI?   What ongoing attacks on fatherhood and faith is it addressing?  (actually, I do know — I keep my eye on their email alerts..)

Well, for once, it earned its keep, in my eyes:

The conservative legal advocacy group (not that they ever helped me, a female with family law issues) for once earned its free place in my inbox by alerting me to another move by my state legislature to help deconfuse us about how to respond to people who are confused about gender, or at least express it differently.

They write :

CA Legislators to Consider “Refining” Definition of Gender

Sacramento, CA – Lawmakers in the golden state are considering changes to thirty-four statutes “by redefining the definition of gender to also include a person’s… gender expression.” The Legislative Counsel’s Digest explains that under the proposed amendments “gender expression would be defined as meaning a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.” The bill, AB 988, amends the Civil, Education, Government, Labor, and Penal Codes

Well, who’s complying with most of those codes anyhow?  If they are violated, what prison cell is anyone going to go to?  Last I heard the recommendation from our “head of state” was to go build prisons in Mexico.

Consider what’s been poured into the “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” from HHS, enaabled years earlier by GWB as President, this sounds as though California forgot where it’s money comes from — haven’t they been listening?  Or does California(‘s legislature) have some confusion about states rights, still?

Mission & Purpose

The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a pioneering non-profit organization that works throughout California to improve the well-being of children by strengthening the relationship of parents through Marriage Education and Relationship Skills classes.

In 2006, CHMC received a five-year, $2.4 million per year 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.

Correct me if I”m wrong, but the main thing they were pioneers in was size of federal funding and scope of potential clientele (i.e., the entire married, or divorced, or separating but parents, or marriageable, potentially fertile population of California from age 15 up. male & female..).  How courageous, to surge forth on behalf of “Family” with only $2.4 million/year backing….)

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.

Just a little reminder, ‘FBCO’ means “Faith-Based Community Organization.”  Any faithless, secular, agnostic or atheist organizations that may have already been doing marriage counseling need not apply to join THIS marketing group…….  You can be faith-based and counsel the unbelieving (perchance, they’ll be converted by imitation and association) but your leadership cannot be godless….  $2.4 million per year –shared websites — technical and marketing support —  wanna reconsider the category of your org, wanna be transformed to a FBCO?

Well I suppose I better get to the point of this post, which began HERE, which at first blush looks to be a “what’s anatomy got to do with gender?  And what’s my gender expression preference got to do with my employability?”

 

 

California Assembly Bill (“AB”) 887,

In bill text the following has special meaning
underline denotes added text
struck out text denotes deleted text

BILL NUMBER: AB 887 INTRODUCED

BILL TEXT

INTRODUCED BY Assembly Member Atkins

FEBRUARY 17, 2011

An act to amend Section 51 of the Civil Code, to amend Sections 200, 210.2, 210.7, 220, 32228, 47605.6, 51007, 66260.6, 66260.7, and 66270 of the Education Code, to amend Sections 12920, 12921, 12926, 12930, 12931, 12935, 12940, 12944, 12949, 12955, 12955.8, 12956.1, and 12956.2 of the Government Code, to amend Sections 676.10, 10140, 10140.2, and 12693.28 of the Insurance Code, to amend Section 3600 of the Labor Code, and to amend Sections 186.21, 422.56, 422.85, 3053.4, and 11410 of the Penal Code, relating to gender.

 

I don’t know Assembly Member Atkins, but it turns out that through redistricting, San Diego voters were able to (and did) elect an “openly Queer Councilmember,” some of which is detailed (when I simply searched on the Assembly person’s name) here.  Lo and behold, Assemblyperson Atkins was the former staff chair of a similarly “out” lesbian, [current Senator] Christine Kehoe –– whose name I know from her attempt to sneak a thinly disguised attempt at legislating Kids’ Turn as THE state-approved parent education plan by having the Judicial Council conduct effectiveness studies.  (Yeah, that’s a mouthful– but see post  on Kicking salemanship up a notch.”).  Amazing what you can do with some great redistricting….

While Atkins was addressing the San Diego Democrats about the horrible budget cuts, it appears a little GLBT (“L” to be specific) nepotism — caught by the San Diego Reader — was going on between her wife’s contract on tehcnical assistance to help San Diego’s homeless by counting them  — yes, counting them — to the tune of $464,750  (Details at “Is Assembly Leader Toni Atkins Cashing in on Homelessness?

By historymatters | Posted March 8, 2011, 9:07 p.m.

There is an enormous amount of money to be made solving the problem: so more homeless equals more money for State Assembly Leader Toni Atkins and her wife’s private business contracted to do a study.

The article boasts a photo of State Assembly Leader Toni Atkins leading the charge of more than 550 volunteers searching for homeless people with her flashlight.

I have actually heard (in a different county) certain homeless people at a soup kitchen joking about, could they get a county job counting themselves?  After all, who would better know where to look?   

To understand why certain politicians get all excited at the prospects of helping vulnerable populations (kids of divorcing parents, homeless, battered women, etc. . . . ) one must first understand what’s in it for them, or their associates  = contracts.  This sounds like a fairly typical situation.  Do the math.  I’m sure Assemblyperson Atkins’ wife Jennifer did.  $225 per hour, hire an $175/hr expert, a $90/hr former reporter, and some volunteers.  Lots of them.

(Welcome to My State….)  Here are legislators supporting mandatory positive portrayals of LGBT as role models for children in public schools.  Ah well…..

California wants lesbians as mandatory ‘role’ models ~ Family advocates call plan ‘worst school sexual indoctrination ever’

The Rebel~PWCM~JLAFebruary 12, 2011

{actually not just lesbians, interesting choice of lables to highlight)

“Equality California, an organization that advocates for homosexuality, said others sponsoring the plan include Sen. Christine Kehoe, D-San Diego; Assembly member Tom Ammiano, D-San Francisco; Assembly member Toni Atkins, D-San Diego; Assembly member Rich Gordon, D-San Mateo; and Assembly member Ricardo Lara, D-East Los Angeles.

Lawmakers in the state of California are proposing a law that would require schools to portray lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and those who have chosen other alternative sexual lifestyles as positive role models to children in all public schools there.

“SB 48: The worst school sexual indoctrination ever” is how officials with the Campaign for Children and Families describe the proposal, SB 48, sponsored by state Sen. Mark Leno.

Openly homosexual, Leno boasts on his website of founding a business with his “life partner, Douglas Jackson,” who later died of AIDS complications.

 

(Leno is known among some circles to be closely connected with a certain self-promoting judicial excellence nonprofit reporting on the “crisis in the courts” locally.  This group was for years (the few years it’s been involved) refusing to report in the fatherhood funding, and still doesn’t, when it comes to feeding information to local on-lines.  So, I do….)

 

To me, sounds like a very expensive Legislative WAR on Gender Definitions!  However, when I hear about any assemblyperson or senator (LGBT, not LGBT, or redneck) involved in corrupt financial practices while yakkin’ about our broke state, I’ll blog the practices.  Toni Atkins trained under Christine Kehoe and BOTH of them apparently were trying to pull a fast one on voters who can’t keep up with the ideologies (or are focusing on them, rather than on the payrolls)

BUT, MEANWHILE, if we are going to transform society, 

AFCC I think has a simpler, more honest way.  They force us all to pay them to force indoctrinations  on as many people as possible which help make the Civil & Penal Codes, and the language of them, a moot point, and for that matter, the laws.   They do this by getting paraprofessionals into private matters, causing chaos, then running off to hold conferences and trainings with themselves on how to best profit from the mess, and try to exclude non-AFCC-trained professionals (however qualified) from getting a piece of the action.

Jurisdiction was set decades ago, as the chink in the door — any couple having a custody conflict.

It’s clear when you read their conference materials and compare it to actions, that they are simply fulfilling the goal of transforming language — and with it government.  And when you read, you can understand that this is the scheme.     I think it’s a bit roundabout to undo our Bushwhacked Country by rounding up all damages done and starting a States/Federal fight here.

 

Why should I pay, in any form, for politicians’ gender wars?

I’m an adult without, to my awareness, gender confusion.

Is it OK if I get out from the middle of this ‘high-conflict” relationship?   I’ll even take a “Kids in the Middle“(r), Children in the Middle(r), KidsFirst (though mine have aged out) or even Kids Turn(r) course at my own expense and not ask which foundation also sponsored my participation, or which government grant ALSO sponsored my participation because someone, somehow, somewhere, actually got their paws on my kids’, my, and my ex-husband’s social security numbers and truly understood they were worth more than their (virtual, I guess) weight in gold.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

AB 887, as introduced, Atkins. Gender.

(1) Existing law contains various provisions that define sex as including gender and define gender as including a person’s gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth.

This bill would make technical changes to those provisions by refining the definition of gender to also mean a person’s gender identity and gender expression and would define gender expression as meaning a person’s gender-related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth. The bill would also replace cross-references to definitions of gender with the referenced definitions refined in the same manner as specified above.

“THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 51 of the Civil Code is amended to read:

51. (a) This section shall be known, and may be cited, as the Unruh Civil Rights Act…

….

(e) For purposes of this section: …

4) “Sex” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (p) of Section 12926 of the Government Code includes, but is not limited to, pregnancy, childbirth, or medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth. “Sex” also includes, but is not limited to, a person’s gender. “Gender” means sex, and includes a person’s gender identity and gender expression. “Gender expression” means a person’s gender- related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person’s assigned sex at birth .

Copyright 2011 State Net. All Rights Reserved.

What about sex as the direct object of a verb, references to (or promises of) which activity fuels so much of our state’s economy?  And Bush’s intentions to have us abstain from has cost in “abstinence education programs,” as in “Having Sex,”  commonly known as (well, this is wordpress, so fill in the blank after a trip to the local school’s girls — or boys’ — rooms and reading the graffiti, in case your language hasn’t kept up.)

What about sex as a recreational — or procreational –activity, which occasionally and sometimes accidentally, results in human life which can and often is terminated in a variety of ways before or after childbirth, legally or illegally, throughout the lifespan?

 

Is it really possible to categorize and make legal (or, illegal) all the varieties of human behavior by VOTE?

Note:  Bill was posted at the Network of Care for Behavioral Health with the seal of the City and County of San Francisco up top.  I think their business will be booming shortly, if it isn’t already.  What expressions of healthy behavior are permissible, and who is going to pay if I violate them?

 

Or feel that my right to, say, indecent exposure might be civilly protected on the basis that I was just engaging in gender expression, and wanted a response as to what others thought mine was…

Well, you tell me — what’s up NEXT in the Legislature that’s likely to affect the bottom line of, for example:

 

?

Yes, we SHOULD call them “restraining order suggestions” (Certifiably Insane Protection Orders in MN; meanwhile, more “Fatherhood” in KS)

with 25 comments

[UPDATE NOTES: This post originally published over five years ago — on August 7, 2009.  For more recent focus of this blog, see more recent posts (2016, 2014) which focus on systems operations, and consolidation of economic power from outside state lines (divorce and custody remaining under state jurisdiction, as well as domestic violence prevention orders).  I am currently working on posts regarding the Greenbook Initiative (2000-2008) and involved parties, on the NCJFCJ, on IDVAAC, and the “DV cartel” as identified by its participants (centralized, coordinated, and stuck in a policy rut) on the HHS and USDOJ grants stream.   I look up nonprofit organizations functioning as social policy conduits for a small group of inter-related professionals who cut deals with each other on what to minimize, what to focus on.  These represent a much larger pattern throughout government, not just relating to domestic violence itself. Many times by the time individuals find out about the policy deals that were cut, their lives, or kids are “gone.”  If not physically, often in all the other critical aspects of life which people NOT entrenched in some of these systems may still take for granted.  For example, the ability to get to and from, and hold a job once one has been hired, or completing projects for clients inbetween police events, court hearings, and ongoing threats to one’s personal safety and particularly, financial survival (i.e., ability to sustain food, housing, transportation, etc.). This comment added 2/16/2016 //LGH]

Today’s headlines are right on topic with yesterday’s post. . . and the one referenced above….

Mr & Mrs. OUELETTEs, MINNESOTA, 2 accounts of 2,100 on the web.

(1)  Wife had order of protection against husband prior to murder-suicide

(2)  Harris man gave up guns before strangling wife, hanging himself

Well, I swore I was NOT going to blog on this today, but I fear that these are indeed possibly copy-cat murder/suicides.  It is now “out there” in the news as a possible way out of an emotionally embarrassing and humiliating situation.

Read THIS one, and then see if you can tell which parts were certifiably insane public policy, and how many warning signs people ignored.

And I’ll tell you why this one chills me, and makes me glad to be alive today.

(TOP part of post — Minnesota.  BOTTOM — Kansas.  They relate.)

Preface Commentary:

At this point, it seems to be “certifiably insane public policy” to expect women to trust, or men to respect, such restraining orders, when clearly they don’t — I already blogged on this re: the woman in Pennsylvania who fought back.

Recently, I wrote about a father accused of molesting his (teenaged) daughter who, seeing as she was only moved 2 doors down, and into the home of a man that used to be the same father’s employee (say, what???!?), within one week, Dad had killed: daughter, foster father and himself, and almost killed foster mother, too.  So THAT helpful ruling got 3 people dead and one injury.  Great going, child protective services in that region of Tennessee.

Here’s another one that slipped through the cracks somehow, and at several different points.  What “gets” me about this one is realizing several domestic violence prevention groups, nonprofits, that have been getting millions upon millions of federal dollars, over at least a decade in grants to provent violendce locally, rurally, and in Indian tribes, as well as technical assistance grants to, I guess, “get the word out.”  So far, I can see they are doing a great job with putting to gether literature that’s already on the web somewhere, positioning themselves as the experts, consulting in private with other professionals about what to do, and keeping a body count.  Which hasn’t substantially changed (per these counts) statewide in Minnesota within a decade.

So either the state is raising more suicidal or unable to handle stress people, or immature young adults who then continue the immaturity into adulthood and parenthood (referringto the fathers in this case), or something. . . . . . Or so many people are being born each day that they STILL don’t know the warning signs of danger, and are talked into minimizing them.

Let’s maybe add ONE more “lethality risk” — trusting in protection orders to start with.  That’s for the courts and for the women alike.  And encouraging a woman to do so (or continuing to present them as viable alternatives — when in fact they are panaceas too often) also places her in risk, given the facts.  Ignorance of them is NOT bliss. . . .  

When police DO respond in time, they run the risk of death themselves.  When they do NOT respond in time, typically Mom, and sometimes Dad, are killed, and sometimes more.  Or otherwise traumatized.  SO . . . . .   what else is available?

THIS ONE:

  • State:  Minnesota
  • Body Count:  2, no responding officers or bystanders killed this time.
  • Orphans:  3, ages 10 (boy), 8 & 8 (twin girls)
  • Who are they now living with?  Relatives.
  • Did they witness the murder  – – of their mother by their father, YES, the girls
  • Did they try to intervene and fail? – — YES, an 8 year old girl tried to save her mother.
  • Was 911 called? – — YES, by an 8 year old daughter?
  • Was the call heeded (it seems No), or interfered with (yes, by the father)? – – – read below.
  • Was that restraining order as written certifiably insane?  – — ABSOLUTELY.  (And it seems identical to the one I got many years ago.)
  • Does making a restrained person turn in his or her guns always save a life? – — NO.  Other weapons also can kill (apparently here, hands).
  • Or, a person not allowed to get a gun could get a friend’s (or in a recent case girlfriend’s gun).
  • Are risk assessments going to redeem lives from living in fear (or being lost)?  – – – I’m  not sure.  I’m of the current opinion, NO, unless the woman herself takes them seriously and takes serious actions not reliant on 911 to ensure safety.

So, Let’s talk about the body counts vis a vis the legal terminology:

When you think about it, and read the results, even calling these things “protection orders” makes zero sense.

They are restraint requests.  A man without restraint is ordered publically by a judge to show restraint.

WHO is to protect, in “protection order”?  The power of the state?  Does the state, like God, declare “protection” exists because it ordered this?  And is the state, in so doing, lying to the protected parties.

I think so, basically.  

Here’s a perhaps (I ALWAYS say “perhaps,” or try to} more viable protection order:

A trained, armed mother with an attitude to match, telling the man who just received the judicial order, that she is going to take the boundaries of the property seriously, and understands all laws regarding the 2nd amendment, and any contingencies.  IN other words, she needs to be more determined and more aggressive than the person who formerly attacked or threatened her.

So do the people surrounding or dealing with her on this issue.

Alternately, a “not in the same state” “county” “500 mile radius” mother, and kids.  And the kids could be told the truth about why this is happening, in age-appropriate terms but without name-calling or derogatory treatment of their father.

But of course that would screw up access visitation and National Fathers Return Days somewhat….

NOW, this is not typically the state of a woman who has gotten to the point of requesting such an order from her husband, right? The request for an order represents (to an abuser) an ESCALATION in OPPOSITION to SUBMISSION.

Wife had order of protection against husband prior to murder-suicide

HARRIS, Minn. — In rural Chisago County, houses are far apart, but neighbors are close.

Roland and Mavis Ramberg thought they knew the neighbors down the road, Doug and Candice Ouellette, who were both  38 years old.

Their grandchildren and the Ouellette’s 10-year-old son and 8-year-old twin girls were friends.

“They seemed like a nice couple,” says Mavis.

> > > Yes, we all like to think that pleasantries in social endeavors

mean the couple is nice in private.  This mentality also appears to hold true among custody evaluators and mediators — well, he/she showed self-control while in MY office, or while I was watching, therefore, that’s the standard..Therefore my formal assessment (opinion?) is that, he/she is a nice guy and the other partner is eccentric, or has personality problems (that don’t relate to or arise from the relationship? . . . ).

I have been seriously assaulted both immediately before and immediately after a social engagement in our home, like many women who have been in violent relationships.  No matter how much evidence hits the press or anywhere else about the reality of this type of dual- behavior, the communal lore (at least in the press) seems to be, denial and surprise..as if this was a new thing.  “What a nice couple.”

Define “nice.”  Define knowledge of one’s neighbors.


Then on Wednesday night, the Rambergs realized that something was clearly wrong.

>>Apparently they didn’t know about:  the prior suicide attempt resulting in a call to police, OR the restraining order situation, or the divorce.  They were still a “nice” couple.

“All I saw was squad cars, upon squad cars and helicopter,” says Roland

One of the Ouellette’s little girls had called 911. Investigators say Doug strangled Candice to death in their home, then hanged himself in an outbuilding.

“I can’t imagine anything worse than having your dad kill your mom and then kill himself,” says Chisago County Chief Deputy Bob Shoemaker.

Court documents filed in Chisago County detail the couple’s troubled marriage. In June, police were called to the Ouellette’s home for an attempted suicide.

{{This suicide attempt is characterized as  “a troubled marriage,” not a troubled man.  Well, attempted suicides ARE troubling to all involved}}

In her own words, Candice (mother) tells the court that Doug locked himself in the pole barn with guns,

held a revolver to his head and threatened to kill himself.

At that time Candice received an order for protection, an order authorities say was later terminated by the agreement both she and her husband.  {{The sentence is incomplete…}}

{{AND all the “experts” said, “Amen, So Be it.  We’re glad you reconciled.”}}

A suicide attempt should trigger a separation and mandated SOMETHING.  Fatherlessness over the decades sure has triggered a LOT of initiatives.  Why not initiatives to mandate that potential fatherlessness as demonstrated by suicide attempt should result in suicide-prevention action by the courts, et al.?  (See my past 14 years of lethality risk studies, last post)  Common sense:  In the news there are “suicide” attacks, bombs.  Wars sometimes involve suicide bombing  SO when there’s a home war, watch out!}}

{HAS SOMEONE ACTUALLY — OR WILL THEY LATER — READ THE ORDER THAT TERMINATES?  How much later? . . . that’s the trouble with getting stories out so fast — their incompleteness…}}

But at the end of June, Candice filed for divorce, with a no contact provision.

  • It looks like there was a stipulation in the paperwork
  • that allows him to go to the outbuildings during daylight hours
  • between 9 and 5 pm,” says Shoemaker.

Gee, with all the hoopla, particularly by President Obama et al., this past Father’s Day, perhaps it made him feel even worse.  That’s why I say, maybe we ought to “call it a day” on the “days.”  MOST of them. . . . . . .

til 5pm?  BUT — – – – BUT – – – – did not this attack, strangulation-murder, happen around 9:15pm (or was it just discovered then)?  How long were those girls in the home alone with their Mom’s body?

What kind of self-restraint was presumed the suicidal Dad would show in this presumptuous order?  And, why didn’t the Mom call 911 the SECOND he approached the home after 5pm?  Was it an ambush or sneak attack?  Or was she still half in “placation/mediation/well, he’s their father mode”?  And had it not yet sunk in that she had a RIGHT to self-defense and say no?  OR, it being rural, did she not have any other recourse?  Unfortunately, we do not have a brain-scan of her final thoughts.. Do those girls have some final words or cries burned into their brains, and the boy?. . .  (I can imagine why, probably, having been in those shoes.  And my order didn’t even stipulate only certain hours…)

THAT ORDER IS  – – AS WELL AS TERMINATING THE EARLIER ONE – – was  the “certifiably insane” part . . . . . The “frog in a pan of warm water” effect.  The “graduated sanctions” philosophy.  That order, whether written ‘by them’ or not, was signed by a judge, and was a piece of crap!  If any of my readers has negotiated a “mutual” agreement with someone who has attempted or threatened to attempt suicide before, and all went well, all are still alive, it worked out, please comment on my post, and give the case # too, and what county and what year.  I’d like to see something to validate the court attention-deficit process women leaving abuse are put through.  One files a protection order on the other, indicating some serious and significant differences in perspective, than are ordered to mediate, or reconcile, or just get along and put their differences aside.

AND – – I had the same thing.  Same field of endeavor from this man, and same not a REAL protection order.  It was not really safe, it was risky to do this, in our context, and obviously this one also.  At the time, it was a drastic improvement.  In retrospect, it was unfair to us, 100%, and exposed us to risk, and compromised how efficiently we could recover and rebuild/repair things that were broken.  ON THE OTHER HAND, if he hadn’t perceived he won something back, we might have been the Ouellettes. . . . .  This is why the VPC calls it “American Roulette” in reporting on these things.  However, they are focusing on the guns.  There were no guns in this murder/suicide.

The documents also reveal the couple may have been having some financial problems. Candice was working from home. Her husband was part owner of a family construction company. Friends say business had been slow.

Go figure:  She was working from home, with young children at home, and the “protection order” allowed him daily access from 9-5pm, rather than put a physical separation from their places of business and her (now) home.  

At this point, authorities don’t know yet what triggered Doug Ouellette’s final violent act. Investigators are continuing to talk with family members, while friends like the Rambergs try to understand their deep sense of loss.

  • “What triggered” is one big (and typical) assumption:  He was wound tight, he was distressed, he was depressed, he was missing his kids, he was lost at sea, he was suffering from the economy, he was a distressed Dad.  All these things wound him up, and it wasn’t his fault, he was all loaded up and ready to go, and he was TRIGGERED.  (gun analogy, eh? )  Pop!  Something that wasn’t his fault happened, and he strangled his wife.

It could never have been a cold-blooded, planned intentional event, complete with coming in after daylight, to kill his wife. . . . Tell me something — how fast can the average person on the lam from ground searchers and a helicopter that saw him dash into a ground, work up a noose, jump in it and jump off it?  In that state of affairs?  Or was it planned?  (Aug. 08/09 update — see comments!)

Suppose they hadn’t come – would he have done something to the kids too?

  • Final Violent Act.  Actually, his 2nd to final violent act.  The final one was to hang himself.

  • Talk with family members.  The same family members that didn’t know enough seriously insist on SERIOUSLY SEPARATING those two after the suicide attempt?  The same family members now in charge of the children?  The same family members that, after said attempt, didn’t become so immediately alarmed that they GOT INFORMED on such situations and spoke with him, and her, about it?  

PUBLIC COST:  Helicopter, court time, including with judges, court clerks, crime scene clean-up, investigators, etc.


“You just feel kinda crushed because what are those poor kids gonna do,” says Mavis.

Authorities say the three children were not harmed physically and are now staying with family members.

I’ll guarantee you they were harmed psychologically and emotionally, and they are in my prayers, as are my own – – read on!

In the transcript of the 911 call made by the little girl, she tells the operator that she tried to push her father away from her mother.

Doug Ouellette himself told the operator that the kids were just playing and were told to leave the phone alone.

“And then, the operator . .. and then . . . ..  and then the operator said, “OK, Sir, just remind them not to. . . . ” and the alert was dropped?  Help was dispatched?”  Our readers here should’ve been told….

If they believed the Dad, still, this would’ve been a GREAT time for a welfare drive-by, and possibly, possibly someone might’ve been saved.  The Dad, at least, would be put in prison and then, thereafter, a family court program (prompted by the fatherhood movement) would’ve helped get him back in his kids lives… so they could be in the custody of the father that murdered their mother, as is encouraged in similar situations.  WHAT did the rest of that transcript SAY, and WHY wasn’t whatever it did say put into this article?  Or was it “spiked” by the editors as compromising police response policy on 911 calls.  Given that THIS home had a prior suicide attempt AND CURRENT PROTECTION ORDER in it.  The father’s word was believed over his daughter’s although in this case she was telling the truth?  I just want to know.

Including this case in Harris, eight women in Minnesota have been murdered (so far…) in 2009 as a result of domestic violence – three were murder-suicide by an intimate partner.

In 2008, 6 of 21 domestic murders in Minnesota were murder-suicides by intimate partner. In addition there were 4 attempted suicides after the murder.

{{YES, there is always funding available to keep the body-counts, and particularly as to femicides (I happen to know) in Minnesota.  Too bad some of this funding wasn’t used for a technical initiative to put protection order data at the disposal of 911 operators, and in their faces. . . . . .  when taking calls….and reduce the count a little this time}}

Harris is about 50 miles north of the Twin Cities.

(Copyright 2009 by KARE. All Rights Reserved.) 

Fewer comments, so I’ll put my comments in quotes instead. . . .

2nd ARTICLE, SAME STORY, DIFFERENT COVERAGE, MORE DETAILS:

Harris man gave up guns before strangling wife, hanging himself

Officials say a Harris, Minn., man strangled his wife in front of their kids and hung himself in a shed after running from police.

By ABBY SIMONS, Star Tribune

Last update: August 6, 2009 – 10:01 PM

LET a feminist, or a woman who’s read the risk assessments do this headline.  Right now, it sounds like, “he was a good guy — he gave up the guns, after all — but then something TRIGGERED him (possibly her?) (possibly the economy?) — and he strangled her, then hung himself.  NO, that’s not the heart of the story, though it may be the hook.  Let’s try again:

First suicide attempt, then suicide/murder in front of the kids.

No, not catchy or local enough:

Gun control doesn’t stop murder/suicide by divorcing Harris man.

No, too generic:

Better dead than divorced — her too — says Harris man, after recent suicide attempt provokes no-contact order.

No, not graphic enough:

Harris man violates no-contact order, chokes his wife, lies to police when 8 year old daughter calls 911 and attempts to stop him, then flees and finally hangs himself.

Nope, too long:

Divorce can be deadly — Divorcing rural Harris man with restraining order due to last suicide attempt, turns in guns, but later strangles wife to death, despite 8-yr old daughter’s attempt to intervene and her 911 call, then flees police and hangs himself.

Well, I’m not working the night desk for a reason, obviously.  Here’s the story.  But WHY NOT GET IMPORTANT TRUTHS (not just facts) OUT WITH THE STORY?

We’ll get the safety recipe right one of these years. . . . .  Oops, ignored lethal risks (again) this time.

The story:

Authorities say a 38-year-old rural Harris, Minn., man who killed his estranged wife and then himself Wednesday had surrendered his guns to the local sheriff’s office this summer after his wife got a restraining order against him.

NO !!!  NO!!!  Stop giving extra credit for partial compliance with restraining order!!  Later he violated and killed!  Stop! !  it went like this: – – and can we delete the emphasis on her “estranged” status?  For one, it rhymes with “deranged” and sounds strange on the tongue.  It’s not about HER, it’s about HIM!  He killed.  She tried to protect her kids and herself, and hopefully him by separation.  

“Authorities say a 38-year old rural Harris, Minn. man killed his wife, after prior suicide attempt and while a protection order was in effect (if “ineffectual”) and then himself Wednesday, even though he DID turn in his guns willingly.”

(if the source of the story IS authoritative, this would be generically true, no matter how law enforcement phrased it.}}

Candice and Douglas Ouellette were in the midst of divorcing, authorities said Thursday.

One of the couple’s 8-year-old twin daughters called 911 about 9:15 p.m. Wednesday and told a dispatcher that their father was choking their mother at the family’s home near 450th Street and Holman Avenue, said Chisago County Chief Deputy Bob Shoemaker. One of the girls struggled in vain to pull her father off [of] her mother.

Narratives:

The account above says a call by the girl was intercepted / talked down by her father.  I have seen this type of behavior (sudden switch of modes when a phone call was involved).


Deputies arrived to find Candice Ouellette dead, the girls unharmed and Douglas Ouellette missing, which sparked an intense search by the sheriff’s office and the Minnesota State Patrol.

A State Patrol helicopter swept the area, and the State Patrol SWAT went to Chisago County, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Andy Skoogman.

The pilot spotted Ouellette running into a pole barn on the property around 10:20 p.m. Searchers found Ouellette’s body hanging inside.

{{How much time elapsed from the pilot spotting this to the short-wave-radio or cell phone? call to the searchers on the ground.  Was HIS death preventable?  Had he prepared that noose?   Why couldn’t he have been stopped?}}

The twins [twin GIRLS] and a 10-year-old son who was staying with a friend that night are in the care of relatives.

Trouble at home

Doug Ouellette’s Facebook profile features photos of a red-faced family warming up after a day of snowmobiling, his kids on four-wheelers or Ouellette hoisting a giant fish on trip to Canada in 2007. Among his favorite quotes: “Life is good.”

(A word to the wise about facebook, then, eh?)

He is listed on the Better Business Bureau website as vice president of Coon Rapids-based Boulder Creek Builders, Inc., a family-run company.

But behind the scenes recently, things apparently were tumultuous. In June, Doug Ouellette threatened suicide, and his wife obtained an order for protection that required him, among other things, to surrender to the sheriff’s office his guns and his permit to carry a handgun.

“There was no problem turning them over,” Shoemaker said.

He was allowed on the property only during the day, and only to access his outer shop and pole barns. He was not to contact his wife other than by telephone or e-mail once a day.  {{WONDER IF THIS WAS ADHERED TO}}  {{WHERE WAS THE REST OF HIS FAMILY?}}

Shoemaker said it was unclear whether Doug Ouellette broke into the home or was let in. {{WHY NOT??}} He apparently did not leave a suicide note.

Shoemaker said the incident was the first murder-suicide in Chisago County in about 13 years.

Have they had many protection orders, and what worked about the others, if so?  Had such rulings gotten lax?

Similar and close by

But the case was the second murder-suicide in two weeks involving estranged couples just north of the Twin Cities.

On July 30, James H. Schwartzbauer, 46, of Wyoming shot and killed his estranged longtime partner, Erica Ann Wilson, 38, in the parking lot of the Circle Pines apartment complex where she lived. Schwartzbauer had been hospitalized the week before after threatening suicide.

((DID THIS CAUSE THE “estrangement” then also?  Or was it his “mature” response to that estrangement?))

((Hospitalization brings up this question:  Was he on medication?  What was the follow-up?  Was his ability to survive in life dependent upon his partner?  Did they BOTH live or only her in this apartment?  Was it male PMS, given the age difference?))

The Wyoming Police Department, with the help of family members, had removed all the guns from Schwartzbauer’s home. Anoka County sheriff’s officials were investigating where Schwartzbauer got the gun.

GEE:  Sounds like at least 3 lethality indicators there:  separation, suicide threatened, and a protection order (apparently) of some sort in place, confronting the guy.  Well, while they were investigating where he got the gun, another man murdered another woman in a similar situation — well possibly.

(From news article:)

According to the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women, out of 21 women murdered in the state in 2008, six were killed by intimate partners who then killed themselves.

I guess this is helpful to know.  It sure helped the two women in question and their former partner/spouses.  I’ve known these stats, or ones like it, for years.  It sure helped me to get the court’s attention, when this was in my initial reason for seeking a protection order, and subsequently in family law, after my children were stolen, I reported stalking, and also to responding police to various incidents.  My having reported this now, and produced a non-response, sure helped my sense of safety thereafter, and to this date.  I am glad agencies like these are receiving funding to keep a more accurate count than simply reading the newspapers, or say, checking on-line occasionally, might yield.  This is a valuable, life-saving public service.  For example, readers of THESE incidents now know that there were OTHERS.  

(FROM Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women website):

“While battering continues to occur in the lives of far too many women and children, thirty years of advocacy and social change work in the battered women’s movement have led to some important changes. {{FOR EXAMPLE:}} There is far more information available about domestic violence and its impact in the lives of women, children, and men, and there are now resources available to battered women and their children across the state of Minnesota and the nation.”

“MCBW strives to provide the best possible resources to battered women and to the advocates that work on their behalf. Please utilize the resources available through this website, and do not hesitate to contact the MCBW office if you have further questions or are looking for information that is not included on this site.

From me:

$2,550,332 federal FY 2000-2009, more in 2002 and 2007/2008

Minnesota is indeed a hotspot of federal funding for violence against women nonprofits.  That is a separate post.  They know much violence happens around separation, and that suicide is an indicator.  Perhaps this case (these cases) hadn’t shown up with a history of prior battering, and so warnings were not issued?

Home

From News Article:

“Four others were murdered by partners who then tried to kill themselves but failed. While firearms have been most prevalently used in murder-suicides, 13 percent of Minnesota women murdered by an intimate partner from 1989 through 2005 were strangled.”

I told you groups were counting, and I showed you (last post?) for at least how long people with access to the internet (and looking for this information) have had access to “risk assessments” “danger assessments'” or “lethality indicators.”  Since 1989 here, 1985 my last post.  So here we are 24 years later, same indicators still not being heeded and acted appropriately on.  5 years AFTER this group started, apparently, a national Violence Against Women Act was passed, with lots of funding to stop precisely this kind of thing.  AFTER this, apparently, the family law system with its weak-ass consideration of domestic violence was developed, and possibly — possibly — influenced some of the ignorance in these matters of what to do to keep her safe.  And him.

1999, National Father’s Return Day:  Congressional testimony

In 1999, 10 years AFTER this organization began (and 5 years after the “dynamic duo” of:  VAWA and NFI (National Fatherhood Initiative), we get N.H. and other Congressmen testifying  (Washington D.C.) the public proclamation that Father’s Day ain’t good enough, we need, and right next to it, a “National Fathers Return Day” also.   Similar declaration (is it “enough” yet?) now going on in Kansas; please call to protest (INFO BELOW)**

06-17-1999

Be it Resolved, That the Senate–

(1) recognizes that the creation of a better United States requires the active involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;

((The what?  The “creation” of a better United States? — IS THIS SOME NEW CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT and stance I MISSED SOMEWHERE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS? That resolved to replace the mandate of the Declaration of Independence {{from the oppressive regime of England, REMEMBER??}} with the Declaration of Utopia Manufacturing, Inc.?  LET ME DOUBLECHECK:

Preamble:  “We the people of these United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare (not specific!), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.”

Did you note the word “LIBERTY” and did you see the word in order to “create a more perfect Union” or was it “form” (out of what was already there…).  The word “create” in this document was reserved at least here to reference to a Creator.

Use of the word “blessings” is from a generalized belief in a God.  As does the Declaration of Independence, in:

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

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.

When in the course of human events, it bcomes necessary for one MARRIAGE and/or one INTIMATE PARTNERSHIP to dissolve the bands which have connected the individuals in it to one another, and to assume among the citizens of this nation, the separate and equal station to which the laws of this land (let alone nature, and nature’s God) entitle them. . . . 

Guess what? When this came to a time in my life, his and mine, I had to declare in public why and get legal help to do so.

Note:  “separate and equal.”  I don’t hear “separate and equal” in this above, 1999, resolution — or anything like it.  

“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. ” 

These people did NOT like being oppressed, and this Constitution and the separation from Great Britain was in order to protest that and stop being Colonized and Used.  While this continued and continues (to this day) to groups and subgroups of people within the U.S. (and outside it, by the U.S., regrettably), THIS DOCUMENT TALKS ABOUT THOSE RIGHTS. . . . .  Not designer families, which are NOT its province!

(How can one consent to what one is not informed of?)

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.”

“. . . all experience hath shewn, 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.

Am I talking about anything contrary to law, bill of rights or the U.S. Constitution?  NO.  I am talking about what sure evinces a design to reduce — women, in particularly mothers who have had to or chose to divorce or separate — under absolute Despotism, egged on by speeches like these here, and enacted into laws and then followed through by tax-supported grants to make sure no Dad — when there has been a risk in particular — is REALLY fully separated from his children.  The pattern of the family courts follows resolutions like this one and results, too often, in certifiably insane protection orders like the above one, resulting in:  2 deaths, 3 orphans, and distress all round.  

Because I now realize the status quo, I have had to let go (to date) of attempting to see my own daughters, laying low lest this person has himself a “bad hair day” or incites a friend/relative to, and my relatives HAVE been incited to participate, as have strangers, in several aggressively illegal actions. 

BACK TO 1999 and “recreating the United States in the image of a few fathers’ and other “prominent” (if not logical) thinkers.”  

(2) urges each father in the United States 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 emotional, academic, moral, and spiritual development of his children;

The word “his” indicates ownership.  It takes two parents, currently, to produce one child.  

This presumes that a single mother is incompetent to encourage the emotional, academic, moral and spiritual development of her children, especially with a  little outside support.  Speaking authoritatively for ONLy myself, that’s hogwash, and insulting.

It also presumes that gender alone renders a father competent to have this to give, when sometimes significant mental illness — or seriously recalcitrant criminal behavior/attitudes — says they don’t, and won’t.  (SEE COMMENT from one of Candi’s friends, now on this post 08-08-09).   

This also TOTALLY ignores the fact that some mothers remarry good men, who can help them do this.  If i were one of those 2nd husband good men, such a statement above would be insulting to me. 

(3) urges the States to hold fathers who ignore their legal responsibilities accountable for their actions and to pursue more aggressive enforcement of child support obligations;

Please spend a few minutes on my blog and read about the “SAVP” grants administered THROUGH the “OCSE” to compromise legal process in family law in order to increase “noncustodial parent” time with the children through mediation.  Then go to Center for Policy Research in Denver, CO, and find out what Drs. Pearson and Theonnes and Venohr (I believe all have Ph.D.s) have been to since 1981.

Alternately, go to nafcj.net and read about this (although it was personally, on-line and in-depth checking out NAFCJ.net claims that brought me to my present acceptance of them; plus it was the only coherent explanation for why so many public officials seem to have lost all sense of propriety to their assigned legal responsibilities in re: child support, custody, etc.)

Or, show the sources of trusted insight into these matters, as we know that top leaders have staff to support their positions.  This should be transparent to the public.

STATES HAVE DROPPED THE BALL — THEIR HANDS ARE TOO BUSY ADMINISTERING FUNDS TO PUT DADS BACK IN HOMES THEY LEFT OR WERE THROWN OUT OF.  THIS INVOLVES SOME BRIBERY IN VENUE OF CHILD SUPPORT ADJUSTMENTS, AND ALL TOO OFTEN WITHIN THE COURT SYSTEM.  SUPPOSEDLY THIS IS FOR THE KIDS’ SAKE.

Douglas Ouellette returned. . . . . 

(MINNESOTA NEWS ARTICLE, CONT’D).

The Coalition’s Shellene Johnson said women are at greater danger to be killed by a partner when they attempt to leave or have just left the relationship. She said that often, protective orders alone don’t protect the woman.

“Our hope is the courts and mental health community will start recognizing that this is a significant red flag, and look into the context of what’s happening in those relationships,” she said.

MCBW’s HOPE.  Their HOPE, after 30 years of advocacy — I gather, 1979, 1989, 1999, and the latest 2009 murder/suicide — there is a HOPE that the mental health community will START recognizing that an attempted suicide is a red flag. . . .  THAT’s bright.  What’s the bill?

A relative of Doug Ouellette declined to comment. Calls to other relatives were not returned.

Abby Simons • 612-673-4921

More National Fatherhood Initiatives, this one in Kansas.

( it just keeps going, going, going as they keep killing, killing killing when she tries to separate):

LOOK:  Being informed on what’s being done with tax dollars in tough times is our responsibility as citizens, period.

I sought answers because I WANTED a coherent explanation for why so many different systems could fail a simple request to renew a restraining order and let me, and my daughters, get on with our lives.  Eliminating their Dad from their lives was never on my map — only his life-threatening and injury-causing violence, and the risk, that I might become a Candace Ouellette.

It is absolutely, absolutely clear to me that eliminating ME from my daughters’ lives was on his map, and on the maps of individuals in our particular case who opposed me, point by point by point, as I simply sought enforcement of existing court orders.

In the above Ouellette case I still find a disturbing missing piece of information — why did the searchers not intervene in time to prevent the Dad from hanging himself?  And HAD not that little 8 year old daughter called 911, might they, too, have been killed, along with their father’s belief system, apparently, that the mother did not deserve to separate from him?   Something doesn’t make sense, in that he so QUICKLY hung himself.  Any investigative reporters reading this are welcome to follow up, if possible before the next headline steals public attention.

It is time to wake up and smell the coffee — and find out who is paying which pipers to pay which tunes.

To understand why I posted this below, one needs to understand how LATE we are in this fatherhood vs. feminists game of name-calling and stereotyping.  I posted Senator Faust-Goudeau, about who I know little personally, because a colleague (see blogroll) of mine is in her state, and alerted us, and this grandiosely-worded proposed Act is apparently a current action being debated.

My response below was more a spontaneous, incredulous reaction that this talk, which appears to have been lifted nearly verbatim from a combination of documents I have read, and link to on this site (see “courts in the kitchen” blog), could be taken seriously.  Over time, I’ve tried to accommodate — lots — for understanding differences of perspective, that my thinking (between the trauma and the personal background — I’m definitely a voracious reader, mostly nonfiction, but my work life has not been based in theory, but in street-level, hands-on practice which exposes theories in different fields (particularly educational!!) for what water they do and don’t hold.

So, I didn’t go point for point and quote.  But, friends, it’s late in the game to be dismissing how powerfully entrenched and networked AND financed this “fatherhood” movement is, and its influence in the family law and many other arenas.

Here’s an Australian, male, Ph.D. talking about the Father’s Rights Movement, and 4 major points:

https://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com/fathers-rights-domestic-violence-manspeak/

Do you know what these are?

We women who ARE leaving batterers or whose children ARE being subjected to molestation (and I don’t speak for others) are getting it from the President on Down and the Courts on up, while family-oriented and patriarchal faith institutions won’t support our cause (although they may dole out some charity, if we sit under the teachings we disagree with, and which have endorsed-by-silence (from the PULPIT) wife-beating as part of husband-leadership) and feminist organizations are not entirely a clear fit for us either, as mothers, although I certainly will work alongside, if not within, any organization or person, which has its head screwed on straight as to legal rights and is not on the take from other groups which are not.

No one — at all — is funding me for any research I do.  My reporting lacks finesse, but I generally do my homework.

I expect any and all elected Congressional Senators or Representatives to either do theirs, or have staff that do, and I DO want an explanation for the origins of this type of initiative at this late in the game.  Perhaps we could talk, if it’s clear the talk is not about personalities, but about principles.  

People whose lives or children are not at immediate risk, or who have not lost decades, or livelihoods to this type of (propaganda — below, I call it “tripe”) may not understand the intensity of talk from those who have.  Many times, they also do not understand the shorter timeframes, windows of opportunity we are dealing with.  We are dealing with the short lives of children’s childhood, and sometimes juggling this with unknown times of our OWN safety in cases involving prior stalking, battery, threats and claims.

My current President, for whom I voted, and whose former home state, urban area, I have a significant work history (pre-marriage), was raised by a single Mom, as was at some point, my own father.  One thing I do NOT share with my current President is having been, or been related to anyone, who was just a few years  ago, one of the 10 richest United States Senators, period.  Nor have I used any single aspect of my profile, which does have significant diversity in it,  to speak for everyone who shares one or two aspects of the same profile, and try to demand that everyone accept the same platform and adjust their entire lifestyles to accommodate it.

This fatherhood movement, talk, initiatives, grants, and so forth is doing EXACTLY like that, even when it costs lives. One system it’s draining is for battered women’s shelters, and legal help for battered women snared in the family law system, a system which I now understand was designed to do exactly that.

        

Oletha Faust-Goudeau

Kansas Senate Democrat
District 29 (2004 District MapDistrict Demographics)
First Term: 2009

4158 Regents Lane
WICHITA 67208

Phone: 316-652-9067
Email: Oletha29th@aol.com

Business Information
Occupation: Community Act.
PO Box 20335
Wichita 67208

Below is the act.  PHONE or WRITE or EMAIL to protest (if still necessary) this act for several reasons:

1.  Similar policies are already encouraging already overentitled men to  kidnap and/or molest and/or kill youngsters, their mothers, and themselves, and sometimes bystanders, and sometimes responding police officers, in the process of getting even with their mothers.

2. Nearly every statement in this Act has already been stated in public, in the U.S. Congress, echoed by Presidents Bush, Clinton & Obama, as well as governors across the United States, and has also laws enacted to facilitate the further engagement of fathers in their families post-separation from those families (post-conception, post-divorce, post-restraining order, post-etc.) AND substantial federal grant monies to support this.

3.  Nationwide and in prominent positions, the “tripe” — and it IS tripe — that this is a recent phenomenon on which dialogue has not yet taken place, or to which the public has not paid attention — that there is a fatherhood crisis, and along with this, the absence of fathers has been in otherwise creditable institutions been EQUATED AS CAUSE for significant other social problems, which might as easily have been attributable to almost any other reasonable cause, such as illiteracy, racism in incarceration of fathers, and the premise having been that the household values are more pre-eminent than the school or other associations values in growing children.  This in effect is a misogynistic policy.

4.  The programs and grants to go along with them have undermined due process in the courts.  MOreover, the average woman is NOT told of these programs when engaging in the family court system, whereas ample documentation exists, both privately individual cases AND publically on nonprofit websites reporting on this — that noncustodial parents (mostly fathers), through programs that frequently have the word “father” or “fatherhood” in them, and often publically funded — ARE being recruited into programs offering them free legal help, mediation preparation coaching, reduced child support arrears in exchange for increased custodial time, even including fathers in prison, whereas mothers, who often then lose custodial access (sometimes COMPLETELY) to their own children through such programs, are unable to utilize these same programs or funding (including effective legal help) to children who were removed from their households.  

5.  ANYTHING which undermines due process in the courts is bad public policy and WILL be fought back against, draining significant time energy and money from the hands of the general public, and placing it into the hands of the professionals who profit from all this.  Again, ANYTHING which undermines due process in the courts – IN the courtroom —is bad public policy and subversion of our U.S. Constitution,and Bill of Rights  which exist to prevent exactly such behaviors.

The fatherhood movement PER SE seeks to make primary decisions and wield influence OUTSIDE the courtroom, and OUTSIDE open discussion and view of the bulk of the American public (i.e., “Behind closed doors” — just like abuse).  This can be seen from even, for example, the history pages of some of the major organizations (I guess I’ll have to blog that).

The family court reform movement which seeks to put this back IN the court room.  They are in DIRECT opposition to each other.  One wants prime influence to be through outside associations, alliances, conferences — and institutions.  The other wants this stopped, and wants our U.S. 14th Amendment rights to be observed.  I do not believe in compromise by “training” court-related professionals to “understand” domestic violence issues (I differ from some reform groups in this stance), because I don’t feel (see last post) that anyone of reasonably sound mind WITHOUT ulterior motives could fail to understand that a violent parent is not a good role model, no matter what gender.  OR, that the more dangerous of the genders when it comes to killing women and children, are male, not female.

IF the father’s rights groups want to continue to promote the fallacy that the violence is equal in quantity, lethality, and severity — thereby shutting off doors to escape and diffuse the situation from battered women, or mothers of molested/battered children — then they may very well get more and more of what they are saying now exists.  They MAY get more and more women fighting back, because we do have a right to defend our physical lives from hell on earth.

Moreover, in my state, at least, even a law gives a parent a right to flee from imminent harm to her children by someone convicted of domestic violence against her.  No problem — the way around that?  Law enforcement won’t enforce.

6.  Establishing “fatherhood” in this manner absolutely constitutes the establishment of a national religion, and as such is an outright and flagrant violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.  No matter how prevalent this is throughout our country presently, it’s still a violation of this Amendment and should as such urgently be reversed.  

I am very curious whether this Senator is a professing Christian, and if so, while obviously that shouldn’t rule any public office, how she does or does not reconcile, as a woman, this initiative here with the recorded (in the bible, I mean), life of the Lord Jesus Christ in the gospels.  It was notable in NOT being biased against women, from what I read.  Moreover, former President Jimmy Carter has himself publically separated from his Southern Baptist Convention roots over this same issue of equality towards women.  While I’m not “ga-gag” over his new affiliation, “elders.org,” at least it is a statement.

! ! ! !

SENATE BILL No. 128 

By Senator Faust-Goudeau 

1-27 


AN ACT creating and implementing the fatherhood initiative program; 

relating to the duties of the department of social and rehabilitation 

services. 

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas: 


Section 1.

(a) Subject to the provisions of appropriation acts, the sec- 

retary of social and rehabilitation services shall establish a fatherhood 

initiative program within the department of social and rehabilitation serv- 

ices.

The objectives of the initiative shall be to: 

(1) Promote public education concerning the financial and emotional responsibilities of fatherhood; 

MY pie chart of federal spending indicates that THE largest sector of public expense is HHS, and THE 2nd only is EDUCATION.  Therefore I recommend the latter be given a severe “time out” for having promoted and structurally modeled abusive and civil-rights-violating behaviors such that the former has bloated beyond the capacity of the general population to sustain.  Moreover, they also should either toss a coin, or duke it out (like the appointed champions of old) in a safe, enclosed place (and out of view of the public is OK, if taxes are suspended for the meantime — in fact, without their interferences, the rest of us, except the thousands in their employ, and the thousands more living off of their grants, and the professions that are enabled by the dysfunction of the educational one in particular, might be a little better off as a whole) — and come out when one has been vanquished.  

In particular, they need to decide between them — again, a coin toss would do, because promoting either one I feel is really wrong — that the U.S. Populace AND all its institutions MUST be LBGT friendly (or be accused of hate crimes), OR be misogynistic (or be accused of male-bashing, or scapegoated for any and all social ills) for railing to be father-friendly enough.  After all, how are children who live in a home with two Mommies going to bring sperm donor or surrogate father home?  

Moreover, how are adopted children to bring their fathers home.

Moreover, how are orphaned children to feel when the world assigns a general hoopla to father’s day, and far less to mothers’?

Moreover, why should a President part of whose platform was indeed that he had been raised by a single mother, be unable to put the word ‘Mother” on the family issues page of the White House?



(2) assist men in preparation for the legal, financial and emotional responsibilities of fatherhood; 

(3) promote the establishment of paternity at childbirth; 

(4) encourage fathers, regardless of marital status, to foster their emotional connection to and financial support of their children; 


(5) establish support mechanisms for fathers in their relationship with their children, regardless of their marital and financial status; 

HOW is this compatible with programs emanating out of the same dept (for which such support mechanisms ALREADY are thriving, and funded) to correlate with the “marriage promotion” funding, CFDA Code 93.086?  Let alone Abstinence Education?


(6) integrate state and local services available for families;

and 


(7) promote, foster, encourage and otherwise support programs de- signed to educate and train young men who are both current and future 

fathers as to effective parenting skills, behaviors and attitudes. 

I.e., every male past puberty who has not had a vasectomy or been injured in his private parts to the extent of being unable to father children (or voluntarily entered the Catholic priesthood) up til what age?  Define young?  Good grief   Get a grip on yourself, Ma’am!!

Citizens and those on temporary visa a like?  Suppose such values are in direct contradiction to their cultures and nations of origin?

HOW does this initiative expect to reel in atheistic young men presently in private schools, military academies, and/or not in trouble with the law?


(b) The secretary, on or before the first day of the regular legislative session, shall report annually to the legislature: 


(1) The number of fathers and children participating in the program; 


(2) an overview of any moneys spent on the program; and 


(3) the cost-savings analysis of implementing the program by having 

children build and retain a relationship with their father

How dare any act so sweeping be presented without FIRST demonstrating that costs (to whom??) (what kind of cost?) (WHat’s the WORTH of a soul, anyhow?) would actually be saved, and have been by similar programs already saved in these matters.


And who the hell says that costs mean more than lives in these matters?  Because this national promotion of fatherhood is ALREADY getting people killed (see my blog:  “Can we call it a day?”).  What IS this, population control?

WILL THIS ANALSYSIS INCLUDE the LONGER-TERM SOCIAL Cost OF INCIDENTS when fathers, enabled by this philosophy, go kill MOm & themselves in order to re-engage with their children or otherwise proteset separation from their families? 

ANALYSIS (3) is incoherent with “overview” (2), as it implies more precise conclusions substantiated by relevant data.  And (1) (like the rest of this initiative) sounds like it is lifted STRAIGHT ouf of the access/visitation grant descriptions with a spice of the national fatherhood initiative phrasing (See http://www.hhs.fatherhood.gov or elsewhere on HHS site), which attributes “success” in such programs with how many people went through them, which overview the GAO has already showed lacks accuracy.


(c) The secretary may adopt any rules and regulations necessary to 

implement the provisions of this section. 

Sec. 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book.

Actually, that’s in theory only.  In theory, there’s already a Violence Against Women Act, but violence against women is still thriving.  


This interspersing of fatherhood promotion with domestic violence headlines may not seem related, but it is.  The one has weakened the other, and compromised the court’s willingness to let a woman completely separate when such activities are involved.  It appears (anecdotally) that they WILL permit total separation more likely in situations when there has NOT been significant abuse or violence reported.

A person who has researched these issues somewhat (either through my site, or others linked to on this blog), will understand clearly how the above resolution basically parrots the premises (the main ones) of this movement.  I provided the link (again) above to the 1999 statements by various congresspeople to the president on this issue.

As such, I think a short Act might be sponsored, paraphrased thus:

Anyone who talks like this, expecting to be taken seriously,  is either already owned by certain political forces, or is simply not informed enough to hold public office, OR is informed, but is pretending not to be, or otherwise should give a coherent explanation of why we should, August 2009, believe this analysis just rose up from the grassroots in its present form.  Good grief!

Sound leadership requires sound analysis by SOMEONE.  Initiatives redirecting public policy, institutions, or funds, should show better logic, originality, and in-depth thinking beyond sound-bytes or assertions of this sort.


 A woman from this state (Kansas) has already filed an international appeal for help in the matter of losing custody of her young daughter to a batterer:

(2007)

On May 11,2007,  just before Mother’s Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimized child, now an adult,  leading national and state organizations filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. Their petition claims that U.S. courts, by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters, has failed to protect the life, liberties, security and other human rights of abused mothers and their children.  

. . . 

For more than 30 years U.S. judges have given custody or unsupervised visitation of children to abusers and molesters putting the children directly at risk,” says Dianne Post, an international attorney who authored the petition.  “These horrendous human rights violations have been brought to the attention of family court systems, and state and federal governments, to no avail. We turn now to international courts to protect the rights and safety of US children.”

The complaint details several cases with documented medical evidence of child sexual abuse, yet in each instance the father who was accused of abuse was given full custody of the children.  Several of the mothers were jailed by the courts because of their persistent efforts to protect their children from abuse, several were ordered not to speak of the abuse and not to report abuse to authorities.  Every mother was denied contact with her child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them.

“My life was completely shattered apart on that day and my childhood was destroyed,” said Jeff Hoverson, the adult child petitioner, about the day a family court judge ordered sheriff deputies to deliver him into the custody of his abuser. “It was as if I was just kidnapped. I was torn from everything I knew….I was made into a possession rather than a child.”  Hoverson endured years of trauma and fear living in his father’s home before escaping and returning to his mother at age 17.  He is haunted by years of feeling helpless to prevent his father’s night-time visits to his sisters’ bedrooms.

Studies of gender bias in the courts, conducted in the 1980’s and 90’s, found disturbing trends of courts minimizing or excusing men’s violence against women, and favoring the abusers.  In 1990 the United States Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers.  Seventeen years later, the practice continues unabated.  Ten years ago today (2007), leading national organizations were joined by  members of Congress in a protest in Washington D.C. to again raise awareness about the problems in family courts.  Today, petitioners say, the problem is systemic and widespread in family law courts across the nation.

. . .

The petition seeks a finding from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the U.S. has violated the Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man and the Charter of the Organization of American States and a statement of the steps that the U.S. must take to comply with its human rights obligations in regards to battered women and children in child custody cases.

The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States, which include the United States. . .

In addition to The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, other national organizations supporting the international lawsuit include:

  • National Organization for Women and the NOW Foundation,
  • National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
  • Justice For Children,
  • National Family Court Watch Project,
  • Legal Momentum,
  • Family Violence Prevention Fund,
  • National Alliance to End Sexual Violence,
  • Domestic Violence Report,
  • Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute, and
  • the National Center on Sexual and Domestic Violence.

The petition is supported by many state organizations as well.

In December 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights for their failure to protect Jessica Gonzales’ three children from their abusive father, who murdered them.  Their petition, the first of its kind, asserted that domestic violence victims have the right to be protected by the state from the violent acts of their abuser.

{Note, as with Gonzales, THE QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT COMES UP. . . .. }

or additional information contact:

Irene Weiser
Stop Family Violence
actnow ^t stopfamilyviolence.org
607-539-6856

View the petition at http://www.StopFamilyViolence.org/468 

SUMMARY (today’s post):  The court order preceding the Ouellete suicide/murder was indeed certifiably insane.  

There are coherent reasons both those individuals died and both those little girls witnessed their mother’s murder by their father.  Some of these are policy, and as to response time, as to their individual families, I cannot answer.  I had, as I’ve said before, a similar order with even less restriction and even weaker justification for such.  This was hashed together quickly, overeen by a family court mediator, and in the aftermath of the restraining order becoming permanent.  NO ONE coached me on visitation order, although I was (wrongly) coached into offering joint legal custody when I didn’t have to, which later became a downfall and cost me my profession and those children.  I am among those mothers, not that is on the suit, but among those mothers that lost my children to a man who battered me during marriage, over many years (along with many forms of abuse).  

I then went through more years of legal abuse, which further turned upon failure to pay child support on his part, a similar tactic to what was used while we were together, to keep me from becomign too independent.  The child-stealing as well as the bounce into fmaily law venue, in my case, BOTH were at times when this household was set to prosper, and I had given NO indication of intent to separate him from the children, or from contact with the children (contrary to court claims), but had repeatedly sent a clear message, in multiple venues, that I WAS changing the dynamics of our relationship.  I refused to take orders, for the most part, that were not in writing from the court, and was fought tooth and nail — at police stations, and every where other possible point of contact, including several he created that trespassed my intentionally set boundaries.  

  What I HAD separated from in my move was taking direct orders, in particular from a man that refused to obey them himself and has (to this date) continued in contempt of all the court orders ever in our long, long, family law case.

This is long-term trauma and punishment for speaking up and out about criminal behavior by Dad (and some of his associates) towards the children, and me.  This type of behavior has marked ALL of my acquaintance with him, practically since the day we married (but not before), and to this date the standard has been set, I am not informed about the general whereabouts of my own daughters, unless I happen to get lucky, get through, or hear incidentally.  I have been eradicated from their lives lest they learn the same values I hold dear — that a woman does not sit on this earth to be a man’s slave in any form, and that she is of EQUAL LEGAL STATUS to him, and should be in marriage as well as after it.

It is my understanding that MOST of the blogs (with graphic buttons) on my post are of similar experience regarding their children and the courts, it is how we know each other.  This is a FAR more widespread social crisis than “fatherlessness” which has existed since wars began.  

What I would like to see addressed, and would like ALL of the above organizations to address (some of whom I know a bit more about than others), is not THAT the courts are doing this, but WHY they are doing this and WHO is allowing them to. It is assuredly not new.

Sorry to entwine (and what’s worse, quote and comment on!) a

  • 2009 Minnesota News headline news account, plus related MN battered women’s coalition information, with a
  • 1999 Washington D.C. address to Congress about the father crisis, compared to the
  • 1776 U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence with a related
  • 2009 Kansas, surprise, “new” proposal to enact a “Fatherhood Initiative” Bill, and from there to a
  • 2007 appeal to the Inter American Council on Human Rights (IACHR) because of a known Kansas battered Mom was on it, as reported by Stop Family Violence (2nd graphic button on my website, only unfortunately not their real logo), and the uncomfortable reminders that:

INFORMATION ABOUT SITUATIONS IS STILL NOT INFORMING POLICY.

AND WHERE WE SHOULD MOVE IS FROM REPORTING THE SITUATIONS TO STUDYING WHAT HAPPENED, THAT WOMEN STILL CAN’T, ONCE MARRIED OR IN “AN INTIMATE PARTNERSHIP”  AND A NEED FOR SEPARATION DUE TO SAFETY ARISES, GET IT!!

That is, however, how I often think.  Probably relates to the prior life as a musician, balancing different resonances from different singers, etc.  It feels more balanced to weave the threads, even though a single topic would pack a greater emotional punch.

Sorry for that analogy…




martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

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

The American Spring Network

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

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

Legal Schnauzer

'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.

%d bloggers like this: