Posts Tagged ‘parental kidnapping’

A Radical Idea — Enforce Existing Custody Laws . . and the rest…

(1)

First of all “Demonstration project” means that a few areas around the country will be targeted for experimentation with some new policies (the litigants are generally not going to be told, incidentally). Then, apart again from LITIGANT feedback, as in “we are running a demonstration project and would like your feedback”, but rather, taken from things such as mediation, evaluation, and other statistical reports-from-the-courts (etc.), someone you have never heard of will (without your input) describe, evaluate, and report on this grant. (sometimes there is an uncomfortably close relationship between people GETTING the grants and people EVALUATING the grants).

After that, depending on how that reporting went, it will be expanded nationwide, at government expense, usually.

ONE THING GETS OMITTED: Lots of poor people don’t have internet access, or time to research who’s doing what about them. One aspect of violence is isolation and intentional breakdown of infrastructure. Trust me, (or don’t), most women don’t stick around for abuse, given other viable ways to get out of it. At some point, one figures out the abuser ain’t going to change, and the question then, if not at survival level yet, becomes safest exit. If it is sensed that this exit is about to happen, the controls tighten. TRUST ME, they do.

(2)

“A framework to guide custody and visitation decisions.”

? ? ?

There already IS a framework in place: Laws, and rules of court.

A). Laws. These laws were passed by elected representatives in legislatures, and as such, that’s a fairly FAIR process. When it comes to domestic violence, SOME of these include the word “rebuttable presumption against” and are followed by phrases such as “custody” or “joint custody” and the word “batterer.”

HALFWAY or less through family court process, I figured I’d get smart and look up the pertinent LAWS. Silly me, I didn’t know about the system of federal grants, policies, and that I lived in a nation with a national religion called “Designer Families.”

My point is: There is NOT a need to continue doing this. The framework exists. The only reason to continue conferring more and more is, I can only deduce, to further undermine and restructure it. OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING. . . .. .

Here’s one law(among many) that was deliberately ignored in my case:

278.  Every person, not having a right to custody, who maliciously
takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,or conceals a child and

maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody,

or a person of a right to visitation, shall be

punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine
and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment

(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court's contempt
power.
   (c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a
defense to a crime charged under this section.

This single law was the framework that crumbled about 1-1/2 years prior to my starting this blog.

Along with the pre-existing (to that crime) employment.  I guess someone had been explicating and

training court personnel out of remembering this, and instead to reward this (criminal) endeavor

with a custody switch.

The law is fairly reasonable in certain areas pertaining to domestic violence. For example, it’s either a misdemeanor or a felony.

I’m not sure whether child abuse could EVER be less than a felony, but in some venues it’s getting a little hard to tell. Probably, as I say,

they are conferencing about how to figure out which is which, and whether they should report, intervene, or ignore. Or apply

“therapeutic jurisprudence” to the entire family unit because ONE of them committed a bunch of misdemeanor or felony crimes.

B) Rules of court. Although I was clueless that these existed for most of my case, someone was kind eventually and sent me the list of the local ones, so I KNEW what had been done wrong in my case from start to finish. Now I’m so smart, I even know who makes these rules. There are rules to insure due process, and there ARE rules directed TO mediators about the quality of orders coming out of this.

I was shocked when I read mine. The california ones are at: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/rules

HECK, if you scroll down, you can even read the Code of Judicial Ethics, too.

California Rules of Court
Title One. Rules Applicable to All Courts (Rules 1.1 – 1.200)	HTML \| PDF(190 KB)
Title Two. Trial Court Rules (Rules 2.1 – 2.1100)	HTML \| PDF(952 KB)
Title Three. Civil Rules (Rules 3.1 – 3.2120)	HTML \| PDF(1832 KB)
Title Four. Criminal Rules (Rules 4.1 – 4.601)	HTML \| PDF(5819 KB)
Title Five. Family and Juvenile Rules (Rules 5.1 – 5.830)	HTML \| PDF(3518 KB)
Title Six. [Reserved]	PDF (84 KB)
Title Seven. Probate Rules (Rules 7.1 – 7.1101)	HTML \| PDF(5978 KB)
Title Eight. Appellate Rules (Rules 8.1 – 8.1125)	HTML \| PDF(3208 KB)
Title Nine. Rules on Law Practice, Attorneys, and Judges (Rules 9.1 – 9.61)	HTML \| PDF(549 KB)
Title Ten. Judicial Administration Rules (Rules 10.1 – 10.1030)	HTML \| PDF(2113 KB)
Standards of Judicial Administration (Standards 2.1 – 10.80)	HTML \| PDF(775 KB)
Ethics Standards for Neutral Arbitrators in Contractual Arbitration	PDF (101 KB)
Appendix A: Judicial Council Legal Forms List	PDF (510 KB)
Appendix B: Liability Limits of a Parent or Guardian Having Custody and Control of a Minor for the Torts of a Minor	PDF (14 KB)
Appendix C: Guidelines for the Operation of Family Law Information Centers and Family Law Facilitator Offices	PDF (27 KB)
Alternative Format: Complete California Rules of Court in PDF format, compressed into a single .ZIP file.	ZIP of PDF Files (updated: 7/1/2009, 6.79 MB)

Code of Judicial Ethics
Formal standards of conduct for judges and candidates for judicial office.

(3)

“procedures currently in use in family court”

Does this mean procedures, as in those that the rules of court mandate, or procedures, as in what actually takes place?

(4)

“identify, contextualize and account for”

Excuse me, “contextualize”??? Maybe the new rules of court will explain this a little better. Does that mean, did the little child see it or not see it, or were they hit in the process? Does this mean, “in context” it was justifiable, I.e., “the devil made me do it!,” or “temporary insanity,” whereas, say, in a criminal or civil court, it would be the mundane misdemeanor worthy of some court action?

(5)

its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.

I’d have to say that’s false. Reporting and identifying this appears to have the result that custody is often switched, according to a document (which I BELIEVE I linked to from BWJP’s site, although I would have to track back on this one).

Family courts traumatize battered women and hand custody to their abusers 37 percent of the time, finds a report released today (5/2008) by the Voices of Women Organizing Project. Latest story in our “Dangerous Trends, Innovative Responses” series.

“The courts’ own rules and regulations are often not followed,” Lob said. “Those kinds of things just seem so blatantly unfair and unreasonable.”

Eighty percent said their abusers used the courts to follow through on a threat to gain sole custody of the children and prevent the children from being in contact with their mothers.

Women were advised, sometimes by lawyers, not to mention domestic violence in one-quarter of cases, and not to challenge custody for fear of worsening the situation.

“To me, that’s the shocking thing,” Lob said. “We’re in a position where it’s actually sound advice for a woman not to raise these issues.”

Fifty-eight percent of women said that asking for child support triggered retaliation from their abusers.

I have personally talked myself into two conferences which were ABOUT people like me, but not FOR people like me. While these were tremendously validating and exciting (plus I spoke some informally at one of them), I was in the heat of the battle at the time (and losing total contact with my kids, but — barely — retaining the remaining single job that had survived the last round) – – BUT, I repeat, they weren’t typically inviting people like me. You have to research, knock, call, send away and beg (generally speaking, after a certain point in the family law process, someone is going to be destitute. it is simply not possible to stay in that system, be stripped of protection, and maintain a livelihood, without some extreme support or ingenious ways of getting basic needs handled.

Add to this that some of the long, drawn-out custody battles come after leaving a systematic abuser, which before separation can really wear out a person, it gets kinda interesting maintaining some work momentum.

ANYHOW, now, being a little better networked (referring to internet access AND knowing other people), I have found many of the:

foundations
publications
organizations
websites
key authors
key concepts

. . . . . and so forth, that like to talk about what I call “us,” meaning, Mothers Determined to Leave Domestic Violence (WITH kids).

It’s like any other life skill, or professional skill — after say 10 years of extensive exposure (immersion style), networking, reading, and so forth, one gets a little bit of fluency. I mean, that’s how I learned math, music, langauges, other things. Same deal here.

But unlike some other fields, for example music — I don’t think people at the top of this field typically are tone-deaf or unable to play a single instrument. If they compose, often they can play many. What one wants in this field is SOUND.

There are already laws about domestic violence as it pertains to custody.

There are already rules of court about mediation, not that I am in favor of mandated mediation at any point in time.

There are rules of court about what can go in in court. For example, a judge should not be taking testimony — and making decisions based on it — from someone who is not under oath, which happened in my case.

A judge should not make a critical decision (for example, switching custody) following criminal behavior regarding custody. There should not be partiality, and in particular, when threatening behavior clearly intended to obstruct justice has been reported, that took place outside the courtroom, this should raise an eyebrow. I had reported stalking, and submitted a signed eyewitness account. It was filed and ignored.

A judge should also give the legal and factual basis on which a decision is made when directly (in writing) requested to by an attorney, which the one in my case did not.

A mediator should take a few minutes to actually ascertain readily available (and relevant) facts before spouting off.

Now, as to the niceties of IS it domestic violence, or is it NOT domestic violence, and was THAT assault, THAT court order violation, THAT threat, or THAT child abuse as reported by CPS, a D.A., or anyone else, REALLY harmful to the child? – – – why, exactly, are all these volumes of press, books, conferences, etc. being written?

I see it as simple. Don’t HIT, don’t STALK, don’t THREATEN, don’t HARASS, don’t Destroy property of, and (whatever else the protective order reads in the particular case). It’s REALLY in basic, high school English, and doesn’t require extensive interpretation, does it, REALLY?

Another one should be obvious — don’t lie in court, or on the record, then when caught in a BIG one, make up a new one. If this goes on repeatedly, do judges need to attend institutes and conferences in order to be trained how to notice this?

SO JUST ASK ME — I’ll explain it real clear to any attorney, judge, mediator, or any one else who is still unclear that the 3-letter word “law” means “law,” and that the 5-letter word “order” means “order,” and the 7-letter word “custody” means “custody.” I have been a parent, and a teacher, and I”m not TOO confused on this generally speaking. I don’t wing it constantly, veer radically back and forth between whether I actually expect a standard to count, or not count. When learning a new skill, I focus on that one and “call” it consistently (speaking in group situations) til the point gets home.

The skill someone who has been systematically been engaging in domestic violence, which is the word VIOLENCE in it, and which includes a pattern of coercive behavior that violates boundaries (and law), and generally in “order” to give “orders” to the victim. The physical attacks (threats, intimidation, property destruction, punishments, animal abuse, isolation, and a whole other array of possible intentionally humiliating and dependency-inducing behavior towards another adult — OR child) have been compared to “POW” techniques. They are not consistent, so the person is kept on edge as to what may provoke what. Sometimes, a person can’t handle this, and provokes an explosion intentionally rather than live in the tense buildup, anticipation, and fear. It may be the one thing they CAN control in the situation. BUT, overall, what it’s “ABOUT” is giving orders. Period. Hapazardly. Basically, it’s tyranny.

I never was unclear about this for long. Not the first or second time one gets hit in the home — the dynamic is basically clear.

NOW — here we are “out” and this pattern of attempting to give orders, on the part of the former batterer, continues. WHAT is the obvious safe solution? The obvious need is to send a clear, clear message to this individual that he (or she) is now NOT in control and allowed to manipulate and give orders, instead he (or she), is now in the position of TAKING orders from a higher authority — the courts, backed up by police and the threat of arrest/jail. This is THE primary need at this time.

How does family law handle it instead? I found out, the exact opposite way. So, I found myself, during exchanges, repeatedly explaining to the various personnel involved (including police officers, who failed to get it) that the any ORDERS I was now under were the existing court orders, and I expected them to be adhered to so I could live a sane life. Between me, and the father of the girls, there was never any lack of clarity in the situation. Observed over a period of years (in family law), a court order would be obtained, and violated the FIRST weekend (or day) after its issuance. He was acting like a two-year old, testing boundaries, and getting his right to violate every time.

When a woman then puts her foot down in this manner, SHE is labeled, and the whole “thing” is labeled as “high-conflict.”

Well of course it’s high-conflict! Did we expect such a batterer to lie down and play passive easily? When someone is not looking?

Someone who’s gotten away with mayhem, which brings attention and benefits (compliance), and this is confronted, there is going to be conflict. That doesn’t mean it’s a two-way conflict. If the courts would simply pay attention to the situation instead of trying to be so “smart” all the time, more people would survive. IN plain English, this means, fewer would die. NO ONE should have to die for leaving a violent or abusive marriage, and expecting their children to be protected – – and their rights respected — also.

But they do.

Domestic violence per se can be and often is, lethal. It often escalates without warning, and without intervention (including separation)

basically ONLY escalates. Mediation is inadvisable in these cases, and joint custody is a recipe for societal trauma, and debt upon debt.

Mediation is MANDATORY in my area. I can document (now) how our particular mediator violated the rules of court at every opportunity.

SOMEWHERE (i read it) it says that a “spousal batterer” IS a clear and present danger to the physical AND mental health of the citizens of (this state, although technically we are US Citizens, not State citizens).

Study after study — including of substance abusers of various sorts (i refer to Acestudy.org, again), of prostitutes, of adult abusers or victims, and people with significant difficulties later in life (including in forming healthy relationships) – – shows that a violent, battering parent is NOT a good role model. The light bulb is already screwed in for the real stakeholders — those whose lives are at stake.

But the experts are not done yet . . . . . Even though things are already in the law.

FINALLY, the lightbulbs are going off in MY understanding as to why they won’t go off in people’s understanding whose children and lives are NOT at risk in a volatile situation, and who can (safe from the hearing of litigants or custodial mothers, in particular, or domestic violence survivors — or the children who are being molested on regular exchanges with a noncustodial parent — and so forth) : If the light bulb went off, where would they publish? Who would pay them to train the advocates, the judges, the attorneys, the mediators, and the psychologists? WHO would travel around the country and the world to discuss, well people that sometimes have trouble traveling 5-10 miles down the road to see their own kids on a weekend? (case in point).

WHAT’S THE EXCUSE FOR NOT ACTING CONSISTENTLY ON THESE BASICALLY SENSIBLE LAWS?

Here’s another reference I ran across researching something else:

IT DATES BACK TO THE YEAR 2006

{{EDITING NOTE: LINKS DIDN’T COME THROUGH — I WILL RETURN AND FIX}}

The 37-page original is downloadable. These pages have footnotes. It is well worth a read. Here is the cover page:

There are organizations (and the author here is on the board of one of them) who appear — I’ll take responsibility and qualify “to me,” although I am certainly not the only person of this opinion — to be HIGHLY invested in reframing the issue of Domestic Violence (and joint custody after it) from being a terrible role model for children, and experience for either parent, into something that people can be “counseled” out of. Supervised visitation is touted as a “solution” to this problem. People have been killed around supervised visitation, and the literature on this acknowledges it. Still, it’s ordered, and sometimes used as penalties for parents reporting their fears, or hurt to their children.

One has to ask why/ The ONLY reason i can come up with, primarily, is it’s a GREAT profession talking (and publishing) about what to do, and it’s also a great profession, “parenting classes.” There is little to no substantial evidence that even domestic violence (batterers intervention) classes change a spouse highly invested in the coercive control dynamic. Newspapers OFTEN report murders occuring shortly after someone was cleared from a DV class — or had violated a restraining order multiple times, without incarceration. The latest high-profile one I can think of (in California) was Danielle Keller and “Porn King” Mitchell (which I’ve blogged about recently). One in about 2005 that absolutely frightened me was a stalker — just a boyfriend relationship — the woman he was stalking, her body was found in the car trunk a few days after passing with flying colors the latest set of “classes.”

That’s playing Russian Roulette with people’s lives. I object, on behalf of my life, and my kids, and others, to this policy, of trying to “ascertain” who could and who could not benefit from counseling. I counsel strict consequences for domestic violence, which is a lesson in itself.

Regarding Expert Conferences (this, and others, and others, and others) – – – MOST domestic violence victims simply can’t afford to attend them! We can’t afford to subscribe to their publications, and our opinions are NOT asked — in a truly collaborative sense — in these matters. If they were, we’d say, probably to a woman, as mothers: “JUST SAY NO!”

Domestic violence includes economic abuse, and often access to the internet, or internet skills CAN be an ongoing issue. I know that in my situation, I was discouraged from using the PC unless it contributed directly to family income (his), and even in one case, I had to turn down a stable source of income from home to accommodate his desire to keep me without electronic contact with the outside world. When I finally obtained it, at around $8, or was it $18 (DNR)/month, I remember shuddering with fear as the vehicle pulled into the driveway, and praying that my internet would be turned off before he got in the front door. I had at this time worked substantial office support jobs and was internet fluent.

Another reason our voices are often not heard — not really — is that we do not have sufficient funding to take the time and write, post, publish, and attend conferences. If we have children, we are taking care of them, and ourselves. If we do NOT have children, the priority is getting back to them. And if we are domestic violence survivors of any substantial length (OR are in court with such an ex-partner or ex-spouse), it is pretty well guaranteed sheer economic survival is an ongoing issue.

Currently, I am reaching an overload on some of these topics, emotionally — and also have the situation to handle, which is not yet final, either. Support systems are constantly eroded til one begins to wonder what the prime identity is. We may trust people we know individually and personally, but after a certain point, one gets very jaundiced about organizations, ESPECIALLY nonprofit organizations promising help.

One of the best primers I am aware of on custody issues with batterers is called “The Batterer As Parent” (Bancroft/Silverman, Sage, Thousand Oaks 2002). It’s coming up on 7 years since it was published. I’ve personally heard a domestic violence expert, whose job it was to testify in criminal cases, say that this is a classic. I have this book, and my copy is dog-eared. It talks about ALL the things that the family law system as a whole absolutely REFUSES to do — support the nonabusive parent in her — or his — relationship with the children. Be wary of the risk of kidnapping (in my case, the court literally not only failed to act to protect my kids from this, after I requested it, but also failed to acknowledge it — WHEN IT HAPPENED! It talks about being aware that batterers are often chronic and convincing liars, and also of the overlap with incest perpetration.

Here are some of the ‘Scholarly” cites of this book:

Characteristics of court-mandated batterers in four cities: Diversity and dichotomies

EW Gondolf – Violence Against Women, 1999 – vaw.sagepub.com
… 1283 TABLE 2 Family Status and Parents’ Behavior of Batterers in Four Cities (in
percentages) Batterer Program Pittsburgh Denver Houston Dallas Total …
Cited by 63 – Related articles – All 3 versions

Men who batter: some pertinent characteristics.

FJMS FITCH, A Papantonio – Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 1983 – jonmd.com
… The authors report statistics on five major correlates of such men: violence between
the batterer’s parents, abuse of the batterer when he was a child, alcohol …
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 3 versions

HERE IT IS IN ALL ITS 1999 GLORY AND INSIGHT, EXPERTS BACK THEN KNEW THE RISKS:

Supervised visitation in cases of domestic violence

– ►ouhsc.edu [PDF]
M Sheeran, S Hampton – Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 1999 – HeinOnline
… remain: visitation centers are not a guarantee of safety for vulnerable family members;
they do little to improve the ability of a batterer to parent in a …
Cited by 23 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions

Legal and policy responses to children exposed to domestic violence: The need to …

PG Jaffe, CV Crooks, DA Wolfe – Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 2003 – Springer
… REFERENCES Bancroft, L., & Silverman, JG (2002). The batterer as parent.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Brown, T. (2000). Charging and …
Cited by 19 – Related articles – BL Direct – All 3 versions

Childhood family violence history and women’s risk for intimate partner violence and poor …

– ►wa.gov [PDF]
L Bensley, J Van Eenwyk, K Wynkoop … – American journal of preventive medicine, 2003 – Elsevier
… 14. L. Bancroft and JG Silverman. The batterer as parent: addressing the impact
of domestic violence on family dynamics, Sage, Thousand Oaks CA (2002). 15. …
Cited by 71 – Related articles – All 11 versions

[BOOK] Children of alcoholics: A guidebook for educators, therapists, and parents

RJ Ackerman – 1983 – Learning Publications
Cited by 52 – Related articles – All 2 versions

[CITATION] The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics ( …

L Bancroft, JG Silverman – Brown, Frederico, Hewitt, & Sheehan, Problems and …
Cited by 2 – Related articles

Batterers‘reports of recidivism after counseling

A DeMaris, JK Jackson – Social Casework, 1987 – ncjrs.gov
… had problems with alcohol, and had witnessed violence between their parents. The
small sample size, the limited credibility of batterers‘ self-reports, and the

WELL, what to do? TALK some more? Out of the hearing of women and children?

I’ve managed to talk myself into a few conferences — I couldn’t afford the entrance fees for the most part. In one, I passed as a professional, up to a point. In another, I spoke about my story, and the PTSD it triggered (I was inbetween court hearings about whether or not I’d ever see my kids again) caused me to misplace the car (and house) keys and almost have to spend a night on the streets, as I’d just lost contact with the last round of professional colleagues locally. This MIGHT have cost me the last remaining job, but a very recent contact (and a current client) pulled off a “rescue.” FYI, abuse runs in families, and families are not always there to assist in the buffer zone.

About two years later, I learned that this particlar domestic violence organization (which I mistakenly — it’s a common mistake — confused with a group that was intent in stopping violence against women, i.e., saving our lives, helping us leave situations like that — has a linguistic profile similar to the whitehouse.gov “virtually invisible in public agenda” absence of the word “mother” in its website. A glance at the funding (more than a glance, actually) showed WHY.

It’s easy to make a declaration if it’s a closed -corporation discussion. It’s not that these groups don’t ACKNOWLEDGE the problems, but that they do not acknowledge how their SOLUTIONS exacerbate the already existing problems, of a parent with a REALLY bad attitude, and some REALLy serious problems that a few classes, or even a years’ worth, may or may NOT address.

And if these classes are concurrent with a typical course of action ina faith-based institution, the effects PROBABLY will cancel each other out, when it comes to protection of women.

That’s about all the time I have to post today. I hope this is proving informative.

You cannot have fatherhood and feminists in the same government grants gene pool and expect to get further down the road. The effects will cancel each other out, and leave yet larger and larger debt.

Currently, stipulations MANDATED by the VAWA act on Supervised Visitation (safe havens) contradict — categorically — with stipulations from the Health and Human Services “access visitation” grants. There’s a history (and a financial profile) to this, and I’m reading it these days. It took a while to grasp the “why.” I had to apply a rule I thought I’d mastered earlier — don’t take ANYTHING at face value, and do your background research on who’s who and doing what with whom. It’s a pain in the neck, but wise to do. As I used to learn the field of my profession (music), the terminology, to distinguish good from excellent, and know who’s who in general in my field (and as to the organizations also), it can be done in these fields also.

Again, I am still getting nationwide and intercontinental visitors — any of you are welcome to comment, particularly if you have checked any of the links and agree, or disagree. And remember — if you’re a parent, try to stay AWAY from the child support agency and work it out some other way, especially if you begin divorce or separation as a custodial mother.

Caveat emptor. (“Buyer beware”) There is no free lunch — the bill comes in later. You pay in your freedom, and you may very well pay with your future, and your children’s.

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

July 24, 2009 at 6:36 PM

Demonstrating Healthy Marriages – Think Big, Invest Much, Expect a Lot, Require –???

Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants

Last post, after I got over the sticker shock of how much California Healthy Marriages took (as I perceived it) starting in 2006 from funds that otherwise might have met desperate need, unmet to date, for enforcement of existing court orders granting me ACCESS and VISITATION to my to stolen on an overnight visitation daughters, just as I’d found despite searching — HARD — no such help before then to get help <>prevent this event, <>enforce existing child support or collect any of the mounting arrears, or <>consistently enforce even the weak, poorly-written visitation court orders, <>obtain an extension or renewal of the original restraining order so I could work in peace and a degree of safety in supporting my household WITHOUT consistent child support, or <>stopping the subsequent (once RO was off) stalking, etc.

Another year, including a flurry of arrangements and orders, none of them adhered to, yet when i pressed for this, certain things were done OUTSIDE the courtroom to warn me not to disrupt the status by taking my court-ordered rights (or his responsibilities to them) at face value. Eventually I again saw (a few rounds in family law system will probably make this clear) that the court itself wasn’t taking them seriously either, and I was evidently some rabble rouser for doing so myself. Concern for their intents with our daughters continued to rise. During this time, of course there was no child support either.

In subsequent months, after the dust had settled into the dreary zero contact, I worked instead on seeking help merely to maintain a cell phone so as to replace the work lost in all this process, not to mention unemployment. The bottom, marginalized line of society were told to get in line (and I did), and that a phone was simply not a necessity for life. At least life on welfare, which I am beginning to realize was possibly in the original plan. It’s hard to control people who are in a satisfied manner working and living out their life’s purpose, particularly when there’s a match between that and livelihood. They are less likely to have the financial difficulties.

Phone help — and unemployment — was, however, promised from certain agenices, as if a person going through the family law system needed another layer of bureaucracy to decipher.

So, after THAT, I sort of figured out a way to maintain things, and tried to keep my chin up.

All this time, really prior to that child-stealing event had worked its way through family law and child support court to the point of, basically ZERO (contact, or enforcement of arrears), I had had existing work, pending work, and referrals, plus sources of them. It was increasingly frustrating to have no single obstacle to acting on this other than the toxic relationship of having dared to leave a divorce, and then after that dared to say “No” to invasive orders-giving about how to rebuild a life and livelihood. And to have attempted to set clear and reasonable boundaries — and mean it. To continue to be dealing on a personal level with this level of hostility and/or dysfunctional thinking, the same kind that endorses wife-assault if she’s uppity, or he doens’t want to answer that last question. Or just because . . . . I’m talking about dealing with family who refused to acknowledge existing court orders, and systematically placed themselves in my life and above the law against my will, and brought destruction with it. I call that a criminal mind set.

Most of my life work had been spent in voluntary situations/organizations (nonprofits often) where people came there because they wanted to, or wanted their kids to, which made for a much better climate (and better pay, too).

Now that my schedule had so cleared, and significant time to study WHY this happened, the answers are not that complicated to understand — just hard to accept. What it’s hard to accept for our society is that some women — and sometimes for VERY valid reasons — “just want to be alone” when it comes to live-in sexual partners, or live-out ones either. In addition to this, the fact of not having a live-in sexual partner (married or unmarried) would not be AS hazardous to adults’ or children’s health if society would simply just “deal with it,” rather than attempt to wholesale “eradicate” it. The word “CHOICE” is the relevant word here.

I DID learn a valuable lesson, to bastardize a quote from an assassinated U.S. President, “Ask NOT what your country can do for you — even when it has proclaimed it will ….”

I had been naively looking in the wrong Department of the U.S. Government. Naively, I thought the key to why justice wasn’t happening lay in the justice department, and its workings. I looked at law, rules of court, mediation (as to domestic violence issues), I consulted databases (and emailed staff at) national judicial databases, or the respected National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges (“NCJFCJ” if I have the word order correct), I read, researched, networked, talked, called, and wrote, gaining information, seeking to see the WHY . . . . .

Now, here I see these movements and this particular California Coaliation:

This coalition, as of 2006 (the year of this loss) had received over $2 Million — per year — for 5 years — in my state to help marriages that WEREN’T on the rocks, or split up, or broke already due to domestic violence, and related extended-family-wide safety issues. So, I think I could be forgiven for a strong, public exclamation at this indignation. For one, ACF, the same OPDIV umbrella under which HHS’s hated and feared OCSE had granted this CHMC, Inc. group $2.4mil/year on the basis of its HOPING and EXPECTING that this demonstration grant would demonstrate some serious results and accomplish many lofty goals, such as reducing crime, poverty, domestic violence, and of course the social plague of “fatherlessness” which is now responsible for those first 3 social plagues.

For the unwary:

(Administration of Children and Families)

(Operating Division)

(Health and Human Services)

(Office of Child Support Enforcement)

(California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Inc.)

I realized that this coalition’s “Target Population” was, basically the entire state (married or unmarried, rich or poor, and any cultural or racial background too) that had successfully survived life to the age of 15, which I suppose represents fertility, or something similar. They are thinking BIG — and as such deserve big bucks.

These funds are not just dollars, they practically have a life of their own:

They are going to:

BIRTH
NURTURE, and
SUPPORT the development of a . . .

. . . . well, you can read below. . . .

Name of Grantee:	California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Federal Project Officer:	Michelle Clune (202) 401-5467
Target Population:	Married and Unmarried persons in California, ages 15 and older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds
Federal Award Amount:	$2,342,080/year
Program Name:	California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Project Period:	9/30/2006 – 9/29/2011
Priority Area:	1 (five or more allowable activities)

Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaign (#1); Education in high schools on the value of marriage (#2); Marriage education, marriage skills and relationship skills programs for non-married pregnant women and non-married expectant fathers (#3); Pre-marital education and marriage skills training for engaged couples and for couples interested in marriage (#4); marriage enhancement and marriage skills training programs for married couples (#5); divorce reduction programs that teach relationship skills (#6); and marriage mentoring programs which use married couples as role models and mentors in at-risk communities (#7).

Organization Description: California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) is a non-profit organization whose purpose is to saturate the entire state of California with marriage education. CHMC will pioneer a “coalition of coalitions” model across the state.

Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The program grant funds will be used to birth, nurture, and support the development of a statewide interlinking network of community healthy marriage coalitions. The grantee will use the following curricula:

— Youth: “Connections” and “Love U2”
— Non-married pregnant women and expectant fathers: “Love’s Cradle” and “Bringing Baby Home”
— Pre-marital education: “FOCCUS,” “PREPARE/ENRICH,” and “The RE Marriage Prep Program,” and “How to Avoid Marrying a Jerk.”
— Marriage enrichment: “Relationship Enhancement (RE),” “Mastering the Magic of Love,” “PAIRS,” “10 Great Dates,” “Active Relationships,” and “World Class Marriage.”
— Divorce reduction programs: “Retrouvaille,” and “The Third Option”

>>>>>>>

See, I thought FAR too small. I did birth, nurture and support only as many as I spent 9 months apiece on. MY vision was to separate them from domestic violence, give them the best possible education, and set an example that it’s OK to leave dangerous situations — that women are not to be assaulted by their spouses, and don’t have to stick around for more of that. This has to do with things like self-respect, exercising legal rights and other such folderol.

I would like to, pretty soon, take a closer look at the marriage education being offered. I think a BETTER way to preserve marriages in California, especially existing ones, would be to SATURATE the faith communities with copies of:

Mandated reporting laws on domestic violence and child abuse, and a stern statement to rabbis, pastors, imams, priests etc., AND any teachers or child care workers involved (etc.) that “THIS MEANS YOU”
Copies of the state’s laws against these behaviors for distribution and posting.
Statements against joint counseling of couples once violence has entered (which could be dangerous); retaliation might well happen after the one-hour or half-hour “performance” has ended, and without witnesses.
Warnings to have a little humility when a situation exceeds their expertise…call in an expert (I have literally seen thumbnail-sized (tiny) booklets that appear to suggest someone reading the few pages is qualified to counsel such situations. We’ve seen SWAT teams that couldn’t save the situations, let alone a casual reader).
A reminder that women got the vote in 1920, and that POSSIBLY, some of the institutions might wish to allow them to speak up not only in their public places, but also possibly have a voice in their marriages also.
800#s resources in case the messages don’t get through
(A frank reminder to the WOMAN to avoid the family law system at all costs, if possible, should this crop up)
“You Breed ’em You Feed’em” business cards, pre-marriage.
Occasional messages from the pulpit that no one was created to be a scapegoat or target in life, male or female.
Prominent postings of the Bill of Rights
A realistic statement on how they expect to reconcile their activities with contrary activities within the public school system, for example some dismantling of the “abstinence education” stuff.
Financial education, as this is a primary area of struggle within marriages.
Suggestion that, for real, the couple look at the family history, education and work history, too.
Got milk? Got any more ideas?

Among, of course, other things, such as the wisdom of having both partners retain access to finances, transportation, and be informed of the state of their own economic affairs, and other things such as might be a deterrent to different forms of abuse common in these places.

I think SATURATING California with such things might save some marriages (or prevent some unwise ones).

It might have mine… The joint counseling thing almost made a statistic out of our nuclear unit.

Moreover, saturation or non-saturation, there ARE people who just shouldn’t get married, no matter how much they like to have sex. I’d like to see (since it’s taxpayer funds) how California Healthy Marriages plans to handle this, and has to date.

I would like to see that NONE of the materials are saturated with the misogynistic, near-vigilante, woman-blaming, feminist-hating talk. For example, when people are killed by an irate ex (last time this happened — well, I know there was a hostage/femicide-suicide combo this past week, in San Jose. They WERE happily married, but the husband was not the little girls’ father, who didn’t take kindly to losing custody. Now she’s an orphan. Both biological parents are gone. Tragedies are tragedies. However, at times, as with any movement, it attracts all sorts. We had (see blogroll to right) one commenter blaming a domestic violence homicide on the woman, for fililng a protective order. It was awful; a little background search (Google) revealed that the person had done jail time previously, related to some skinhead type affiliations (and weapons accumulations).

This coalition needs to be sensitive to the fact that such hate-talk exists, and not take advantage of a tragedy to promote a policy, or that it will produce MORE overentitled males and transformational cell groups whose real agenda is not publically stated. These indeed do exist, and some may be viewed, apparently (fairly new site to me) at http://www.rickross.com.

I owe my readers a short post. This is one. . . .

Here’s the link to review the stringent requirements and “detailed” descriptions of other “Priority Area Demonstration Grants for Healthy Marriages.” I look forward to a radical shift in the headlines — fewer family wipeouts, and less government intrusion in our lives through child support enforcement, or lack thereof.

I’m also still searching (among these) for a description in any abstract of what constitutes a Healthy Marriage. I mean, among these grant recipients, is it sufficient (for now — this IS California after all, and the challenge isn’t going away) that a man and a woman be involved? Does there need to be some parity in contributions, rights, or discussions of long-term plans? Do they have to have the same religion? Do they have to decide whether childre are to be involved, or what to do if this is a second marriage for one partner? (In that case, read more on my blog and the blogroll to the right, FAST!). Does healthy involve “mild” or any forms of domestic violence, and if so, is this going to be “explicated” by a differently funded HHS grant from, say, Office of Violence Against Women?

Can a healthy marriage happen where the woman earns more or is more highly educated?

What about age differences (I am simply noticing that many — not all — of the incidents with fatalities involve a middle-aged male with a far younger woman, which makes me wonder whether he married for the babies or not. Or vice versa.).

In fact, now that I think of it, how in the world could a coalition define what is really a relationship? I mean, who’s to say what they do in the bedroom or with their finances? And if it’s a religious group behind this, WHO is going to advocate for the poor girl to keep her credit and bank accounts open, if they exist, and NOT put a house in only one person’s name?

Is it going to say: Boys and Girls belong together to procreate. If you’re going to procreate you should marry and stay married.

Is it going to address the high incarceration rate in the U.S. and say, “when Dad gets out, we want you two kids {meaning the parents of a child or children) back together, now, OK? MARRIAGE is HEALTHY, and FATHERLESSNESS is a social scourge, after all.

(FYI, this is already what the US is doing….).

HAPPY BROWSING:

HERE is the link to the descriptions of the use of these funds. As you can see, some have smaller target populations, although one with the word “Dibble” does say “throughout United States.” Another one I looked at yesterday (and need to view a bit more) made news article for having been taken over for certain bookkeeping inconsistencies by the Dept. of Education. I’m puzzled why the funds are still going through. We are, after all, in tough economic times (and I’m still owed money, also).

We appear to be carved up into REGIONS (not states).

Regions 1- 9 (except “6,” which appears to be “MIA”

Hover for a summary (titles and target populations), or Click to Look.

Many of these are 5-year obligations of around $500,000/year.

Apart from the CHMC above — I hope there’s a no-competition clause in there somewhere, because it’s not the only one in California — my other favorite for scope of vision (if not clarity) is:

Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant

Name of Grantee: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education

Federal Project Officer:

Heather Sonabend (202) 260-0873 Target Population: High school teens across America Federal Award Amount: $549,999/year Program Name: Healthy Marriage Discretionary Grants Project Period: 09/30/2006 – 9/29/2011 Priority Area: 8 (one or two allowable activities)

Allowable Activities: Public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health (#1) and education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills and budgeting (#2).

Organization Description: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education was founded in 1996 with a mission to focus on helping teens learn the skills needed for current healthy relationships and future strong and sustainable marriages.

WOW — that was shortly AFTER the National Fatherhood Initiative (1994) and shortly BEFORE the U.S. Congress voted in both houses that we have a plague of fatherlessness (1998/1999, see prior posts and I think I have blogrolls on this). I hope they will be nice to Mothers too…

Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: The Dibble Fund plans to create a public advertising campaign on the value of marriage and the skills needed to increase marital stability and health, and to provide education in high schools on the value of marriage, relationship skills, and budgeting. They will train 500 Family and Consumer Sciences high school teachers each year to implement peer education projects to reach 113,500 students with over 1.66 million hours of instruction over 5 years. They will increase the number of high school age youth that have access to “best practices” healthy relationship and marriage programs (including **Love U2, Connections, and The Art of Loving Well curriculums{{Curricula??}}) through schools, youth agencies, faith communities, and peer-to-peer education efforts in states with limited Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI) teen programming. They will influence the knowledge and attitudes of teens about healthy relationships, the “success sequence,” and marriage through an innovative media campaign that reaches teens “where they are,” by leveraging the power and reach of the entertainment media (TV shows and magazines that teens already flock to), the internet, and other new media (mobile phones, i-pods, and other new technology that delivers content in non-traditional ways).

You have to admire the chutzpah, though — “teens across America” and in states deprived by “limited Healthy Marriage Initiative” teen programming. That’s ALMOST higher than the U.S. Dept. of Education goal that No Child Be Left Behind — ALL be able to read, write, and count (at a minimum) before they turn 18.

BERKELEY, CA must be Healthy-Marriage Initiatve deprived (too many same-sex marriage advocates?) because they got a grant, I saw in yesterday’s chart.

But then again, the HHS budget is far larger than the Education budget, so they can aim higher.

**Some curricula designers are going to be profiting from this 4SURE, too.

REGION 8 — apparently Colorado, Colorado, and Colorado** plus Utah and Wyoming.

**See my link on “Policy-Studies.com” and if it’s still there, “Center for Policy Research” with Jessica Pearson et al. The 1983-2005 picture of a tree showing its growth is worth the wait time if your PC/Mac takes as long to load as mine does.

Under Wyoming, I note a group that’s new on the scene (in getting gov’t grants to promote marriage….) as of 2002 — AND targeting 2nd marriages and stepparents. Good for them. They will also be aided (where one partner is the man) in the generous Access Visitation Grants in getting his child support reduced by gaining custody of the children, if they aren’t already in the home:

Organization Description: The High Country Consulting, LLC dba Faith Initiatives of Wyoming (FIWY) is a statewide intermediary organization for faith and community-based (F/CB) organizations founded in 2002. It currently serves more than 2400 F/CB organizations through training and technical assistance, fund development, identification of best practices and advancement and use of technology, all aimed at building service capacity at the local level. FIWY also assists with direct management services, data handling, event planning and coordination of partnership activities for F/CB projects.

It WILL, of course, be cautious not to maintain a balance between the religious viewpoints with those of atheists, or non-adherents. I’m curious of those 2400 F/CB organizations span a variety of faiths…

Use(s) of ACF Program Grant Funds: High Country Consulting will implement and evaluate a marriage enrichment program that will target stepfamilies and couples in second marriages. They will provide marriage preparation, enrichment and divorce reduction services through both community-based and faith-based organizations, using a pilot program as a cultural model to reach out to over 1,250 participants…

REGION 1 – (Simply substitute the number in the “URL” to switch regions) — one grant only,

Character Counts In Maine

Organization Description: Founded in 2002, Character Counts In Maine (CCM), doing business as Heritage of Maine, has delivered abstinence education that includes marriage preparation skill building for adolescents in communities across Maine over the past two years. Their Heritage Keepers abstinence until marriage curriculum teaches relationship skills which lead to the formation of safe and stable marriages. CCM has formed a coalition of civic and faith-based organizations, high schools, youth groups, churches and marriage education organizations known as the Main Community Partnership to bring healthy relationship education to high school adolescents.

Target Population:

Adolescents/Teens in High School; Educators in High Schools (to deliver services to adolescents); High School Principals (quarterly newsletter)

REGION 2 — 3 grants, slightly more interesting:

In the Bronx

Organization Description: University Behavioral Associates was founded in 1995 by the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Montefiore Medical Center and is the main provider of behavioral health care in Bronx, New York. Additionally, the organization has long-standing relationships with local welfare-to-work programs and has the capability to manage information for hundreds of married couples.

SO — we have the religious approach, and the Behavioral Modification approach. So long as teens and adults from one set of marriage programs don’t marry teens and adults from the other side. Well, this is targeted at already married people..

Organization Description: The Research Foundation of SUNY, Stony Brook University is a non-profit organization located within the Stony Brook University campus. They proposed to use a highly innovative, empirically-supported, empowering program for income, unwed parents soon after the birth of a child.

Region 3

Organization Description: Family Guidance, Inc. will be the lead agency for a coalition of regional non-profit agencies, calling itself “TWOgether Pittsburgh,” to strengthen marriages. Coalition members include: The Center for Urban Biblical Ministry, The National Fatherhood Initiative, evaluator Dr. Stanley Denton, The Women’s Center and Shelter of Pittsburgh, and Smith Brothers Advertising.

High school students, married and unmarried couples and individuals who are residents of Pittsburgh, PA and the surrounding 5 counties.

Region 4 – one of the larger (or more active regions — SE United States (Georgia, FL, Alabama, N. Carolina, etc.)

This one particularly bears some looking at, and I hope to. Several universities make the list, a “Trinity Church” and a good deal of abstinence-based education, which is being fought elsewhere in government circles, at least within the school systems. I also note a certain curriculum popping up a lot, and am curious as to how many of the institutes receiving grants (judging by originating date) may be offshoots of the Fatherhood movement which — it should be clearly noted here — is a reaction to the feminist movement which, at least according to itself, is a response to simply oppression on the basis of gender, and things such as — you got it — violence within the home, or an attempt to deprive a person of some basic civil rights. Feminism is not the antithesis to patriotism (nor is patriotism as promoted by some of these groups synonymous for respect for the Constitution and the laws of the land).

I became a feminist precisely because of my trip through marriage and afterwards, the family law system. Til then, I took too much for granted. I am a mother, and I retain my faith — just practice it in safer places. We find help and strength where it is found. The hardest thing in my life to date was not having children, raising them with a violent, narcissistic, father (and working and struggling economically also), nor was it afterwards supporting them. That was a piece of cake, until the advisors began flocking into my life on the basis that I didn’t have a man in there (long before I was ready for such a relationship, after all this). On the basis of my profile, not the actual behavior, facts, results, or character. In fact, the experience of being “advised” after marriage when I wasn’t seeking or needing it, of being forced to do things I personally knew (and announced) were destructive to both work, relationships, and daughters’ educational options — was very much like living with abuse, only with more participants and less actual physical attack. Psychological escalated, along with the lies (once audiences were found).

The hardest thing I have ever done in my life, that I can recall, is surviving the total removal of my children from my household, and all significant contact with them at THE very point where our household was poised to succeed dramatically, in several categories (work, housing, schooling, neighobrhood, and surroundings). It was about AS healthy a (single-parent) family (with contact with the other parent available in the circumstances.

THAT, friends, was the problem to an abuser — success and independence HAS to be stopped. This doesn’t happen by telling the truth and complying with commonsense laws: Don’t steal, don’t perjure onesself in court, don’t suborn perjury, don’t kidnap, don’t harass, don’t stalk, and don’t refuse to work in order to punish the other parent — adn the kids alongside. Put your need to dominate SECOND for once in your middle-aged, male life. Develop work, not just alliances in the slander, and take-down campaign in order to somehow justify that NO single mother can handle life alone.

Well, not with this kind of attitude running the environment.

There are many uncomfortable similarities with the personal history here (which parallels many I’ve heard of) to the overall scope of this movement. HEY, I’m in favor of marriage, too obviously — I married, right?

I’m just not in favor of a national religion, at others’ expense and my own. I am pretty sure, by now, that the difficulties these children went through, and others still are (and mine are), and their confusion (or unified, but unjustified, belief of lies about their mothers, which is undermining to a healthy values system for growing adolescents) — are in good part traceable to some of the grants and initiatives I have been detailing on this blog. They are contributors to the social problems, while purporting to solve them.

Until this connection is made by enough people, the burden will just get larger and larger, while the public proclamation would be, funds are shrinking and shrinking. WShen the proclamations are coming from THE largest arm of the Exec Dept (and elsewhere), at some point in time, we have to say, WHAT are you doing with that MONEY? At an individual level (like I am starting to) and then call your Congressperson in charge whatever grant affects your area.

The catch: Mostly the people who can do this are on the outskirts

In essence, it’s socialism. There have to be safe options for not marrying, and these are to be as valid as the others. When it comes to my case, it was only being forced to live a serious “half-life” half-in and half-out (or, 95% in)multiple GOVERNMENT_RUN- institutions — that economically and artificially suppressed prosperity for us. I was forced to fight, instead of work, after having done my best to reconcile the irreconciliable differences with an abuser. This has done nothing but escalate, since I met the guy, basically — with only a few brief pauses.

I talk with a LOT of people on a daily basis, and it’s rarely a day I don’t hear of another similar situation.

Preaching marriage around the place doesn’t help matters, as far as I am concerned — the entitlement in such cases is through the roof. I did practically everything I am reading about in these abstracts — didn’t have children out of wedlock, stayed committed, worked alongside, supported, you name it. Hung in there as long as possible. My commitment to this ideal of marriage, for one, didn’t match the father of my children’s. He was committed to its privileges, but not its emotional sacrifices in that, he was to engage with a separate human being AS a separate human being, not a household (or biological) function.

ABOUT MARRIAGE

When it works well, it works well. When it doesn’t, then I wish that the national atmosphere (federally-pronounced) would cool it on the propaganda — the air is highly charged around here, and domestic violence ignites quickly when marriage (or other fatherhood, proprietary success-mandated) entitlements become the national ideal.

I dare anyone to get up there and OPENLY substitute one skin color, one ethnic group for the word “father” and another for the word “mother” in the same languages, and then got about to make this happen.

Or, religion.

it would be seen for what it truly is — ridiculous, and bigoted. Somehow, and for somereason, the concept of “fatherhood” unites a LOT wider spectrum of people, more closely, and incites more trouble. For example, I’d say a good proportion of the domestic violence I lived through and my kids witnessed, traumatizing and sometimes terrorizing all of us, and then engendering response compensatory behaviors (including super-performance mentality in the girls, when small), plus it wreaks havoc on the biochemistry (I came out obese, which was handled, but remains a struggle when dealing closely with the situation long-term). The obesity was a clear self-defense measure, and has been studied nationally (www.acestudy.org). When I lost weight, significantly, and felt TERRIFIC (post-marriage) we were still seeing each other regularly (on exchange of the children for visitation) and somehow this brought out more aggression, stalking, and competitive behaviors from a person who’d already filed for divorce! I was sitting at my work, and considering not only my own safety, but that of a person apparently perceived (not even real) “rival.”

I’ve had to struggle morally with whether it was FAIR for me to enter into relationships — almost any kind — with the knowledge of how volatile the situation is.

Put that together with work, and figure it out.

These groups are talking about the high cost of “fatherlessness” to a growing society. I’m not sure this equates with motherlessness. But here’s a question you don’t hear too often — what about Rachel lamenting her children (that’s a Bible reference).

What about the effect on society of taking competent, mature, sometimes skilled and dedicated FEMALE workers and contributors to society — and keeping them traumatized a decade at a time, and in use of multiple social services they wouldn’t otherwise need. What about their risk of old age poverty and homelessness from simply a few decades out of the work force, in order to handle:

1. Abuse, first, (including verty often as part of the control system, economic abuse), then.

2. Recovery, brief respite indeed — AFTER which, a long drawn-out custody trial for all too many, resulting in MORE lost work and opportunities.

What does THAT do for society? First, stealing from its contributions, and then, burdening the safety net.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it

HANDLE the domestic violence issues, and you will handle a multitude of other issues. STOP forcing women who left abuse through classes (I wasn’t, but I know it’s a cash stream in the family law) when they weren’t violent. STOP trying to put back together what already broke up unless you are willing to sign up front: I take PERSONAL responsibility, up to and including incarceration along with those classes, if those attending my class addressing battering behavior go out and kill their ex, or anyone else, afterwards.

WELL, if taking the class allows a slick performer to pass with flying colors, and fly out the door, get sentence, or get OUT, and then go get EVEN, it’s setting the climate for homicide. And I’m not the first person to point this out, either.

I bet there’d be fewer takers on these grants, and a slightly different economy.

The government is not a good teacher, it’s an abusive rulers, and it would do better to follow the examples of good teachers that are already OUT there, find out what principles they use, and follow them.

This is of course practically impossible with such a federally huge educational system — which is one reason many people, who can, opt out of it. Now the government wants another crack at educating people who didn’t make the grade the first time through.

No, I do not have a firm technical business plan answer. But I know one that’s NOT it when I see it, and “healthy marriage education” falls under that category. Either we have a national religion or we don’t. The country needs to make up its mind. The educational system claims that we don’t (I’m not sure I agree), HHS department is demonstrating we do, structurally speaking.

In my life, and as a fully-functioning intelligent working adult, I have experienced the worst of both worlds when it comes to treatment of females — blind to abuse, and upset at personal (peaceful) choice. From atheists “educated” and from religious “undereducated” both.

This post was drafted a few days ago, I have more research coming. The BOLD LINKS above give more detailed descriptions.

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

July 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court

Tagged with custody, Education, family annihilation, Intimate partner violence, mediation, parental kidnapping, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., women's rights

What kind of choices are THESE for women!?! 1. Marry, legally WIN custody of child from former partner, and possibly die, possibly with others. 2. Due to “unhealthy alliance (marriage?),” Get a domestic violence restraining order and possibly die. 3. DON’T seek a domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die.

Or, 4. like I did

a. Obtain a domestic violence restraining order, in hopes NOT to die.

b. See ex given almost immediately (Search this blog for “Access Visitation Grants” or “SAVP”) liberal, unsupervised overnight visitation.

c. Comply with it, consistently, and try to insist he does also

d. After warning authorities and all involved of one’s concern about abduction, (and seeking child support enforcement), have them abducted an overnight unsupervised visitation to nearly permanently (or permanently) lose contact with them.

That at least beats some of the ALTERNATE version of Choice 4 (Obtain a Restraining Order)

4.d.1 REISER: YOU go “MIA” on an unsupervised visitation exchange of the children, and show up years later (as part of a plea bargain of DA’s with husband who murdered you, with kids present), a few (less than 6) feet under — Google “Hans Reiser,” only a moderate tweak of too many others to categorize, where MOM was either murdered, or an attempt was made to murder her, during an exchange.

4.d.2. CASTILLO, GONZALES, CONNOLLY, OTHERS, SOME OF THEM NOW BEFORE AN INTERNATIONAL COURT: After warning the courts and others that you feel visitation is unwise (or he just failed to return them at the appointed time), have your children drowned, shot, hung, or gassed to death – on an overnight visitation. Note, like some of the driving theories behind families, this is now international in scope.

4.d.2.a. Possibly go homeless from inability to retain work after so many years in the system, and so much prolonged exposure to stress and trauma that chronic PTSD, plus the unstable job history renders one unemployable.

(I know currently two women who became homeless after the custody switch following domestic violence, and many more who are impoverished and unemployed, but thankfully not yet homeless).

There are endless varieties of option 4, and sequential consequences to it, none of them, for the most part, helpful for the children, or society at large, so long as the current AFCC-run, Mediation-focused, due-process eradicating family law system continues to be the next step after domestic violence restraining orders. The venue, players, and stakes just get higher, if this be possible, than when they were originally. And are likely to remain so until one of these 3 possible consequences follows, at which point, there simply is no more money, or press, or government program to be squeezed out of the situation, just possibly a few press headlines for the first one below:

1. Someone is killed.

2. Someone, or both parents — and their allies — are destitute.

3. All children have turned 18.

NOW ABOUT THE PAST 2 SUNDAY/MONDAYS IN THE GOLDEN STATE, THE STATE OF THE +/- $1 MILLION/YEAR OF ACCESS VISITATION GRANTS FUNDING (AND I HAVEN’T EVEN POSTED THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT INFO YET) . . . . WHICH HAS (FYI) BEEN GOING ON AT LEAST SINCE 1998. . . . . (which for all I know simply represents when the on-line database geared up)

Some readers may wonder why the motto (top right, button) on this blog reads:

Not a private matter —

why “family” “law” hurts us all

Just another two sunny Mondays in Sunny California

illustrate the under-publicized dangers of actually

WINNING in court:

1. Under, “win custody and possibly die”:

Monday, 07/06/09 San Jose

No independence week for her:

Bitter Ex Loses Custody, so “Wins” with a Gun.

THEIR Daughter, Her StepDad, the Neighborhood, and everyone else involved, LOSES.

Two reported dead at San Jose townhome after shooting and hostage situation

By Mark Gomez and Lisa Fernandez

Mercury News

Shortly after 8 a.m. Monday, a neighbor bleeding from a gunshot wound ran by Anthony Gallardo’s San Jose townhouse shouting that a man had shot his wife in the arm and taken her hostage.
A relative who asked not to be identified said Coffman was wounded in the earlobe by a gunman who had entered his home and taken his wife hostage. Gallardo let the neighbor and a hysterical 9-year-old girl into his garage to call police.
The woman had recently won a drawn-out and bitter custody battle with her ex-boyfriend over the 9-year-old girl, the relative said.
That was how a 5 1/2-hour standoff started in the upscale Montecito Vista townhouse development Monday. It ended when San Jose police, failing to make contact with the gunman, entered the townhouse and found the bodies of a man and woman.
Police declined to identify the victims but said the shooting appeared to have stemmed from “a family dispute.
Damon Cookson, manager of an evacuated mobile home park near the townhouse, said mobile home park residents were let back into their homes at 2:45 p.m.
Police had evacuated homes in the townhouse complex and a mobile home park located next door so quickly that some left their homes shoeless, without money or cell phones. Other residents were picked up by friends or relatives so they didn’t have to stand outside in the sun.

According to the “Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fatherhood” advocates, she did the right thing. She had a man in the home and was married to her; possibly she ran across one of their ubiquitous classes and, or had a religious conversion, and realized that having children with boyfriends (as opposed to committed and financially self-supporting, faithful spouses — like, say, Steve McNair?) was not the upright thing to do for herself, health, or her daughter. Perhaps there was even a child support order in place on the Dad, which may or may not have contributed to the bitterness of the divorce. THAT 9 YEAR OLD GIRL WAS IN A HETEROSEXUAL 2-PARENTS, MARRIED HOUSEHOLD. HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES WOULD’VE HAD NO ISSUES OR INTERVENTIONS IN PLACE FOR THIS HOUSEHOLD.

Perhaps the man who married her (let’s hope) really loved her, and vice versa, enough to take public vows and make it legal. ACCORDING TO THE DESIGNER FAMILY MENTALITY, THIS ONE SHOULD’VE WORKED. SHOULD THEY TAKE IT BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND PUT A FEW $$MILLION ON HOLD BEFORE SOMEONE ELSE GETS KILLED AND SOME OTHER KIDS ARE ORPHANED? WAS THIS HOSTAGE/SUICIDE/FEMICIDE SITUATION PREDICTABLE?)

History of domestic violence, stalking, or other criminal activity, or NO history of domestic violence, stalking or other criminal activity, her attempt to pursue child support on behalf of the child, the answer is: YES. Being stuck in family court is rough on everyone. Rules of evidence are weakened in this venue (See link in my last post), making hearsay accusations easier. Psychology reigns, and there are people who profit from this. Money trades hands for sure.

YES, in the fathers rights vs. feminists (supposedly this is the war) climate overall, it was probably predictable, though maybe not perhaps not the timing of it.

Will people sit up and take notice, and change policies because of this death?

I doubt it.

She was married to Coffman, who texted the relative short updates all day long. The woman was a respiratory therapist at a local hospital.

(More detailed background story, and link, on this case at bottom of today’s post)

This case was not a week old before another one in Northern California hit the press, and the late-night TV stations:

2. Monday, 07/13/09, Novato (not including multi-county Amber alert)

File Under, “Win a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die, leaving your infant with Child Protective Services,

after she experiences a nice little kidnapping.”

(Did the infant witness her mother being beat to death with a baseball bat also?)

Actually this was a SUNDAY, and the father was caught, apparently on Monday. Good thing, being as he was a murderer, son of a murderer, a child-stealer, his brother had a drug habit and he himself was in the family porn industry (makes one question the advisability of the match, for sure). I wonder if Access Visitation Grants funding would’ve come into play under THIS one. Maybe when he’s been in prison long enough, they will come after him to make contact with his daughter, after all, there IS a plague of fatherlessness, and he WAS (apparently) his little girl’s father.

Which is likely what he was thinking when he killed the Mom and kidnapped her, too. How DARE that woman separate me from my kid and accuse me of violence! I’ll show her what violence is!

I cannot stand to read every report on this one…

Porn King’s Son held in Baseball-Bat Beating Death

NOVATO, Calif. — A 1-year-old girl was safely recovered early Monday and her 27-year-old father in custody after he allegedly brutally beat the girl’s mother to death with a baseball bat, authorities said.

He was suspected of beating Danielle Keller several times with a baseball bat before fleeing with the girl — who was celebrating her first birthday — and threatening to kill any law enforcement agents who came into contact with him, according to police.

The baby has an age. The murderer kidnapper father has an age. Is there any particular reason why the Mom in this story doesn’t merit one?

Family members told KTVU that there was a history of domestic abuse and restraining order had been issued against Mitchell in both San Francisco and Marin. Keeler’s mother, Claudia Stevens, said Mitchell had stormed into her Novato home three weeks ago and threatened violence. He also had been making threatening phone calls, she added.

…And this did not result in his IMMEDIATE arrest and incarceration for violation of restraining order WHY?

Mom didn’t know? Courts didn’t function? Mother still traumatized, didn’t register the importance of this? Police were called on the violation, but didn’t do anything? Police weren’t called? Police reported, but no one prosecuted? No precedent that this was a danger sign existed?

3 weeks. Hmmm. Was the case was in family court? Had they been to the mediator yet? Did the mediator say to them, as the mediator did to ME (shortly after I filed domestic violence restraining order with kickout, AFTER the violence had escalated to the guns, knives, serious injury phase,putting this “family matter” at a clear domestic violence, felony, not misdemeanor) “just peaceful communications about the (children)” — and totally failed to specify: Place of exchange. TIME of exchanges around holidays. Or child support, resulting in the soon thereafter need to resort to welfare, until I could rebuild some income.)

Excuse me. File under,

“Another needless death, another burden on California taxpayers, another traumatized little girl,

family, and neighborhood”

(I imagine it also might be filed under, don’t hook up with men involved in the porn business. What are women, desperate these days? Was she attracted to his testosterone? There are down sides of too much of that, I suppose….)

This is a cruel thing to say, but I am searching about for WHY this bloodshed just doesn’t stop, no matter how many policies or laws are in place. There HAVE to be a few consistent reasons. Added to my concerns are, why is that our nation is raising — or inhabited by — so many dysfunctional adults of criminal nature.

Perhaps the problem is with the concept of the Nation (as opposed to individual families) raising them. But, as I say sometimes, this is a family law blog, not an education blog. Perhaps the problem is religion, as I KNOW this is a factor in many domestic violence cases. Perhaps the problem is LACK of religion (morality / common sense // ethical behavior). Perhaps the problem is an alienated populace — from each other as well, except within the various cliques. Perhaps the problem is fatherhood vigilanteeism (actually, I think this is VERY close to the truth, and filed, at least in part, under religion). Perhaps the problem is that reaction against feminism, AND against the perceived lack of religion nationwide, breeding neo-con and worse versions of what went before.

OH — PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women how to defend themselves, or that this is a feminine and desireable life skill.

PERHAPS it’s that we don’t teach women boundaries, and how to defend themselves.

PERHAPS it’s that WE think someone else is teaching or doing something else that, in former centuries, “we” had to do ourselves. Like, raise and prepare food, learn to read, teach our kids to read, and so forth.

LAST ONE, MORE RESULTS. . . .

Amber Alert Novato, Search Results 48,000

Perhaps some of these will telll how she ended up with the dude…., that, for a first birthday celebration, clubbed Mama, to death with a baseball bat.

Last week’s femicide/suicide?

Old news: Only 600 results

Brewer, Victoria E. & Derek Paulsen (1993, November). A Comparison of U.S. and Canadian Findings on Uxoricide Risk for Women with Children Sired by Previous Partners. Homicide Studies, 3(4), 317-332.

Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 19). Women and Daughter Killed in Chile’s Latest Femicide. The Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/woman-and-daughter-killed-in-chile-s-latest-femicide.html

Bunting, Helen. (2008, February 6). Femicides in Chile: 10 So Far This Year; Three in 24 Hours. Santiago Times, http://www.santiagotimes.cl/santiagotimes/news/feature-news/femicide-chile-10.html

Bunting, Helen. (2008, January 24). Three Femicides Recorded So Far in 2008. http://www.valparaisotimes.cl/content/view/296/1/

And the well-known, and still not part of policy in family court matters, studies by Jacquelyn Campbell:

Campbell, Jacquelyn C. (2004, December). Helping Women Understand Their Risk in Situations of Intimate Partner Violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 19(12), 1464-1477.
Campbell, Jacquelyn, Carolyn Block, & Robin Thompson. (1999). Femicide and Fatality Review. Next Millennium Conference: Ending Domestic Violence. http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/184570.pdf
Campbell, Jacquelyn, Nancy Glass, Phyllis W. Sharps, Kathryn Laughton & Tina Bloom. (2007, July). Intimate Partner Homicide: Review and Implications of Research and Policy. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(3), 246-269.

Oh, Mea Culpa. The word “femicide” is for a specialized field of study. Maybe it’s under “homicide/suicide.” Better also be more specific, since “homicide/suicide” would jam my software again, too large.

San Jose homicide/suicide— Google results

Was THIS one avoidable? Answer: YES!

“San Jose man recounts murder-suicide that left wife dead.”

Mercury News, 07-10-09 8:49am updated

The couple had long been leery of Liang and worried he could be capable of violence. A 2003 stalking charge was dismissed against Liang for threatening to kill the two of them, even though Coffman said neither he nor his wife were called as witnesses.

Ying He and Liang came to the United States from China in 1999, Coffman said. They had a baby girl in the Bay Area on June 14, 2000. Liang sent the girl to live with his wealthy parents in Guangzhou, and because Ying He had pending immigration status, she couldn’t freely travel between the countries.

In 2006, Ying He discovered her daughter and Liang were living in Southern California. She also discovered, Coffman said, that her ex-boyfriend, a gambler, was short on cash.

“They made a deal,” Coffman said. “Brandi said she’d give Nelson some money and he said he’d give her their daughter.” {{NO CONTACT WITH MOM FOR SIX YEARS…..}}

But Liang reneged on his part of the deal, Coffman said, and disappeared with the girl. Coffman and his wife hired an attorney to find Liang and fight for full custody. After about two years, Liang and the girl surfaced again in Southern California. In March, Liang didn’t pick his daughter up from school one day, and police reports show Liang told school officials in Arcadia that he no longer wanted to care for his child. He was soon arrested and pleaded no contest to child endangerment. The girl was put in state care

Let’s get that timeline again:

2000 — baby born

Shortly thereafter — Dad sends baby away, no contact with mother.

2003 Dad found stalking and threatening to kill Mother AND her new husband. (SOUND FAMILIAR?) Doesn’t apparently even make the DA’s radar, although there are anti-stalking laws in California, and stalking has been listed for many years among lethality indicators. Perhaps he also had some concept of maybe extorting the new couple (in re: gambling habit?).

Also (sounds like my own case in this regard), stalking as seen as irrelevant to child’s welfare. Dad retains custody, and this couple is not really on the map, or the child, legally speaking??

Unclear (here) whether they still thought daughter was in China (no mail or phone contact?)

2006 – child is located, and mother and new husband invest money and time attempting to get her in their household.

Father receives money in exchange for daughter, obviously they were trying to settle out of court. Father agrees, takes money, and doesn’t turn over daughter. Possibly the FBI should’ve been involved here?

2008?– Father, changing his mind again, abandons daughter (note: that he sent his daughter back to China MIGHT be an indicator he didn’t want custody, right?) and the state picks her up. It MIGHT be deduced from the court records, by “the state” that a parent who wants the daughter, and is in a stable situation, exists. However, that parent was a mother….

2009 – April. State figures it out, and gives child back to mother. Child-endangering, stalking Dad still has visitation rights:

Liang still had visitation rights and weekly phone calls.

Why doesn’t that surprise me? You still in favor of shared parenting, frequent visitation, fathers — ANY fathers — return day? If not, find out which Congressmen (and if any women) voted for this in 1998 and 1999 in the U.S., and write them why they should re-think the resolution — what WAS that about, opting for population control by homicide/suicide??

Which tells you about family court in California: Far be it from Family Law Judges to notice that trivialities such as sending kid back to China, where her own mother couldn’t nurture or see her for YEARS, while staying here and racking up a gambling debt, stalking and threatening to kill the mother and her new partner, and child endangerment by abandonment, should be taken into account in designing a custody/visitation order!

On Sunday, the day before the shooting, Liang called to speak with his daughter, asking her strangely specific questions about her schedule. Coffman believes Liang was casing the family for the attack.

My question: WHEN did Coffman or his wife hear of those strangely specific questions? Was the daughter alarmed? DId no one catch the anomaly. That instinct of “this is strange, isn’t it?” can save lives — in a family, even if the state misses the boat… I suspect they hadn’t processed that information yet, and didn’t think that Liang would act so quickly.

ALWAYS play it safe!

I see we bloggers are going to have to work harder at getting the news out: Before entering family court situations with difficult custody battles, get martial arts training — and exerrcise your second amendment rights.

QUESTION OPEN: WHY DID THE COUPLE COME TO THE U.S. TO HAVE THE BABY?

ENDNOTE: China is known for not valuing girl babies as much as boy babies.

But the U.S. ought to have understood when children are viewed as poker chips in a high-stakes custody battle.

I think this one might be more gambling debt as much as jealousy contributing to the problems

IT TAKES MORE THAN MONEY TO BE A GOOD SECOND DAD WHEN THE FIRST ONE WAS A NUT CASE.

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

July 13, 2009 at 4:04 PM

Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, History of Family Court, Lethality Indicators - in News, Split Personality Court Orders

Tagged with 2nd Amendment, custody, family annihilation, murder-suicides, parental kidnapping

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

with one comment

FYI: In re budget crisis……

For your viewing pleasure and information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, this time, I searched:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO . . . ..

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

THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED

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

IT IS A GULLIBILITY REDUCER**

EDUCATE THYSELF!

http://taggs.hhs.gov

**

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

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

AUTHORS: Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick:

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

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

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

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

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

2.Due Process Violations

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

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

1994.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tionary decisions and rubber stamps the report.

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

dence to the contrary

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

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

Here’s the “TAGGS” site.

Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System

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

Welcome!

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

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

What’s New

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

TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report – The TAGGS FY 2008 Annual Report is now available on the Annual Reports Page. The annual report contains summary information about the HHS Grants Programs tracked by TAGGS. The annual report is available in Microsoft Word format.

TAGGS Advanced Search – The new TAGGS Advanced Search enables a very refined search through more than 500,000 grant awards. Criteria include keyword, award title, recipient name, agency, type, title, recipient name, and many other selections in a variety of combinations. Search results can be output and downloaded in Microsoft Excel format.

Abstracts Search by Keyword and Advanced Search – The two new Award Abstract Searches provide a search through more than 85,000 Grant Award Abstracts by keyword or by using the Advanced Search. The TAGGS Abstracts Search by Keyword search performs a full-text search of each available abstract based on the entered keywork. The TAGGS Abstracts Advanced Search enables search criteria such as keyword, agency, type, year, and state to be used in many combinations.

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

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

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

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

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

WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS?

This is from:

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

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

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

@@@

Results 1 to 81 of 81 matches.

@@@

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Did I mention Head Start yet?

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

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

Want some answers?

Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?

Let’s do it.

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

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

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

And then you can surprise them with your inside knowledge:

No: “Leucadia.”

“Leucadia? You’re kidding!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Funding Fathers - literally, in Studies, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with custody, fatherhood, men's rights, parental kidnapping, retaliation for reporting, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., women's rights

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

with 2 comments

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

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

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

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

Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout

by Michael Rubinkam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B. THEY were estranged. or, better,

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

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

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

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

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

1992.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that’s not “feminine” behavior.

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

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

WOULD THERE STILL BE FAMILIES AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How Logical Is This?

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

About that MOM?

Let’s go chrono, OK?

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

(1) childbirth,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=======

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

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

By Andrew Scott

Pocono Record June 12, 2009

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

{To review: PFA, then:

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

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

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

. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONFUSION
CLASS POSITION
INDIFFERENCE
EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY
PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM
ONE CAN’T HIDE.

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

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

Consider this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How does this relate to the Wife who Fought Back?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 2, 2009 at 6:10 PM

	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	sandwich near Detroi… on Gulag Archipelago, Bahrain Arc…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on Historic Day Today, and Week,…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on ‘Table Talk’ Helps…
	Let's Get Honest\|She… on So, You Want Us To Speak Out A…

Posts Tagged ‘parental kidnapping’

How many social science, legal, and

court-associated experts does it take

to UNscrew a lightbulb?

(1)

(2)

? ? ?

(4)

(5)

[BOOK] Children of alcoholics: A guidebook for educators, therapists, and parents

[CITATION] The batterer as parent: Addressing the impact of domestic violence on family dynamics ( …

WELL, what to do? TALK some more? Out of the hearing of women and children?

SHARE THIS POST on...

Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants

These funds are not just dollars, they practically have a life of their own:

They are going to:

BIRTH

NURTURE, and

SUPPORT the development of a . . .

HAPPY BROWSING:

Apart from the CHMC above — I hope there’s a no-competition clause in there somewhere, because it’s not the only one in California — my other favorite for scope of vision (if not clarity) is:

Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant

REGION 1 – (Simply substitute the number in the “URL” to switch regions) — one grant only,

SHARE THIS POST on...

Or, 4. like I did

Not a private matter —

why “family” “law” hurts us all

Just another two sunny Mondays in Sunny California

illustrate the under-publicized dangers of actually

WINNING in court:

1. Under, “win custody and possibly die”:

Monday, 07/06/09 San Jose

No independence week for her:

Bitter Ex Loses Custody, so “Wins” with a Gun.

2. Monday, 07/13/09, Novato (not including multi-county Amber alert)

File Under, “Win a temporary domestic violence restraining order, and possibly die, leaving your infant with Child Protective Services,

after she experiences a nice little kidnapping.”

(Did the infant witness her mother being beat to death with a baseball bat also?)

“Another needless death, another burden on California taxpayers, another traumatized little girl,

family, and neighborhood”

And the well-known, and still not part of policy in family court matters, studies by Jacquelyn Campbell:

San Jose homicide/suicide— Google results

SHARE THIS POST on...

FYI: In re budget crisis……

For your viewing pleasure and information.

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

SO . . . ..

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

THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED

**

Here’s the “TAGGS” site.

Welcome!

What’s New

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

Want some answers?

Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?

Let’s do it.

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

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

SHARE THIS POST on...

SHARE THIS POST on...

Short Unique Words (Acronyms, or even EIN#s) Work Better than Phrases. I don’t always tag & quit using “categories.”

ARCHIVES | Posts only (March 2009ff, pick a month). For Pages, see my Tables of Contents, & (as of its date published) Sticky Post ’58 Essays.’

Visitor Count (added 1/29/2018, Blog started 3/2009). Only Counts Home Page.

Follow Blog via Email

Twitter It (mention)

Blog Navigation: Current Posts occur BELOW Sticky Posts. Tables Of Contents by Year and Others are Sticky). (One Widget, Many Boxes with Links). Rev. Dec. 2019; Split Apr. 2022

[April, 2022] DONATE! To show appreciation and help me Justify Continuing this INVESTIGATIVE BLOGGING Begun March, 2009,** (Not Tax-Exempt: Yet). WHY ELSE? See Apr. 2022 Narrative in 5 text boxes.

DONATE to Show Appreciation & Help Me Keep Writing (NB: Not an IRS 501©3)

More Blog Navigation: Doorways to Key Posts & Pages (Apr. 2022, formerly with Dec. 2019 Widget). These Contents May Change.

Meta

DONATE to Show Appreciation & Help Me Keep Writing (NB: Not an IRS 501©3)

Google Translate (added March 2017)

More Resources (a.k.a. Former Sidebar Widgets (FULL of Show & Tell Texts, Links, Key Points and a few ‘DONATE’ Buttons too)

Top Clicks (testing Widget @ March 2017, 2-3 days to display)

Top Posts & Pages (24-48hr Delays apply)

Recent Comments

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be! **

Cold,Hard.Fact$ (Links similar but not identical to one off-ramped to Widgets post. I may off-ramp this one soon too..//LGH mid-Aug. 2019

Ltrs to/from US Presidents ~ Federal Agencies

Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant