Posts Tagged ‘Studying Humans’
Grandparent Visitation, Father/mother visitation — 2 links
Here are two links, one showing (in considerable detail) that, whether father or mother has visitation issues, the bottom line is, at least one parent’s $$ bottom line is going to drop — as evaluators, therapists, case managers, and mental health professionals are called into make their expert opinions known.
This first link discusses a case where the father first brought up parental alienation, asked for an immediate custody switch on that basis, and called upon the powers that be — including the (now deceased) Richard Gardner, M.D. — whose theme song and swan song was parental alienation.
This time, Gardner did NOT support the father, which obviously upset him. A special case manager (a former judge) resigned after being threatened by the father, and so forth. Sooner or later, the final of 3 children aged out of this childhood, or almost.
(1) Kansas Opinions | Finding Aids: Case Name » Supreme Court or Court of Appeals | Docket Number | Release Date |
No. 93,450
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS
In the Matter of the Marriage of
JANET BOULEY, f/k/a KIMBRELL,
Appellee,
and
WILLIAM DAVID KIMBRELL,
Appellant.
[[LINK TO:]] SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
This is just a sampling. If you’re familiar with how some of these cases go (where there is some money in the family), you’ll recognize a few patterns, namely, that no matter what, SOMEONE is going to be in therapy, generally both parents AND the children. SOMETIMES I think this need for therapy is directly generated by the court procedures, not the parents….
Also note (last sentence of expcerpt here), that the father does make some good points, regarding questionable reliance on expert opinion, and due process. He is RIGHT about this. However, let us all note who started bringing on the experts to discredit his wife….
I think this link is appropriate in that this is AFCC Conference month (one of many), which I have blogged on earlier. This is a sampling of some experts that might get involved. Remember what the JohnnyPumphandle post (Marv Bryer overview) reminds us: the court respects those opinions more than sworn facts or statements under penalty of perjury from non-experts who may be more familiar with the facts of the case. That’s the nature of the beast. Excuse me, system.
In July 2001, David moved to modify the 1996 divorce decree and for an emergency change of placement for Dylan and Evan. In his motion, David asked that he be given residential custody of Dylan and Evan, that the trial court order strict supervision of Janet’s contact with the boys, and that the trial court order a psychological evaluation of Janet, Dylan, and Evan to determine whether Janet was alienating the children from him. David maintained that Janet had “commenced a program and concerted effort to alienate the three children” from him and that she had interfered with his visitations and the parenting time and visitation schedule. At David’s request, these motions were dismissed in March 2002.
For summer 2001, the parties agreed to a split parenting arrangement where the children would essentially spend alternating weeks with each parent. In addition, the parties agreed to participate in psychological evaluations and testing. The agreed parenting plan was to continue until psychological evaluations and reports were completed.
Upon agreement by the parties, the trial court appointed Susan Vorhees, Ph.D., to conduct evaluation and testing of the parties and their minor children.
Who is Dr. Vorhees? Well, here’s a Google result:
{NOTE: I didn’t read of any accusations of abuse or Domestic Violence in the case at hand in this link, .i.e., the parents of Dylan, Anna, and Evan… I am simply curious about Dr. Vorhees…as the trial court recommended her to evaluate}:
Quoting Dr. Vorhees: (NOTE: court syllabus spells last name “vorhees”. This summary below is from Shawnee, KS area…)
Put another way, people minimize boys as victims of sexual assault when the perpetrator is an older woman, said Susan Voorhees, a doctor of clinical psychology whose patients include child victims. People smirk when word gets out an underage boy had sex with an older woman.
“Everyone has their fantasies,” Voorhees said, as in, ” ‘It would have been nice to have had some older woman teach me the ways of the world.”
n sentencing Liskey to probation, Shawnee County District Court Judge Jan Leuenberger said there was no evidence the victim suffered in the relationship. The judge also said the youth is “dealing with the situation fine,” and concerns by his parents that he might “crash” in the next four to six years are “speculative.”
“Sexual abuse haIs lifelong implications for the mental health of both victims and their families,” Voorhees said in a letter dated Sept. 14 to Chief Judge Nancy Parrish to express her “grave concern” about the Liskey sentencing.
“I’ve never heard in my 30 years working with sexual abuse victims of a victim doing fine,” Voorhees said. Noting Liskey was psychologically evaluated, Voorhees questioned why the judge didn’t seek evaluation of the boy.
Boys don’t just fly right through the aftermath of abuse, Voorhees and Stultz-Lindsay said.
“The impact may not hit him until he is able to move away from the relationship,” Voorhees said.
“These boys feel like they’re in love with their perpetrator,” Stultz-Lindsay said.
Often the perpetrator is a member of the family or someone trusted by the family, and for the child, the abuser “may be one of the kindest people in their lives.” In the Liskey case, there was a double whammy because she was a paraprofessional in the victim’s gifted education program at Robinson Middle School and the best friend of the boy’s mother, Voorhees said.
“It’s not the face of evil,” the psychologist said of abusers. “It’s the actions of evil.”
It is to bad the judge did not see it that way.
BACK TO THE KANSAS CASE, LINK (1)….
Although David later moved for a protective order to prohibit the dissemination of Dr. Vorhees’ proposed report, the trial court ordered that Dr. Vorhees’ evaluation be provided to the court. Dr. Vorhees’ report, which was filed in December 2002, indicated that David was alienated from his children due to his own behavior. According to Dr. Vorhees, “[David] is alienated from them by his own inability to accept that they and their mother are independent individuals, that they need and want a relationship with both parents, and that he cannot be in control of either of these relationships.” Dr. Vorhees indicated that David’s alienation from the children could be resolved by David trying to accept his children for who they are and by listening to his children.
The trial court, on its own motion, appointed retired District Court Judge James Buchele as the case manager in January 2002. The trial court’s decision in this case indicates that the parties had been voluntarily working with Judge Buchele since October 2001. Judge Buchele recommended in January 2002 that the children reside with Janet and that David’s parenting time be “as approved by the Case Manager or as ordered by the Court.” David moved for review of these recommendations and also for an order for family therapy and other relief.
In February 2002, Judge Buchele made additional recommendations, including that Dylan and Evan be with David on Wednesdays after school until 8 p.m. and on alternating Saturday and Sunday afternoons. Judge Buchele again made recommendations in March 2002. Judge Buchele recommended that David spend a week during spring break with Evan and that the parties participate in family counseling with Michael Lubbers, Ph.D. At that time, Dylan and Evan were seeing Dale Barnum, Ph.D., and Janet and David were each working with a mental health professional. David objected to both the February 2002 and March 2002 recommendations.
Brief search on Michael Lubbers, Ph.D. shows that a Michael Lubbers got his Ph.D. in 2005-2006 year from the
January 16, 2001 – SRS Secretary Schalansky appoints Dale Barnum, for 20 years area director in Garden City, as new director of Rehabilitation Services.
Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) Secretary Janet Schalansky today announced the appointment of Dale Barnum as state director of Rehabilitation Services, effective February 4, 2001.Mr. Barnum has been the area director of the SRS Garden City office for the last 20 years, where he was responsible for program and resource management in the 25-county area. He oversaw a $10 million administrative budget and all SRS programs in the Garden City area, including services for children and families, adult services, rehabilitation services, child support enforcement, medical services, and economic and employment support services.
On June 12, 2002, Judge Buchele submitted his report and recommendations and also responded to David’s objections. In his report, Judge Buchele addressed David’s allegations that Janet had alienated Dylan and Evan. Judge Buchele’s opinion was that Dylan’s and Evan’s alienation from David was caused by David’s own conduct. Nevertheless, Judge Buchele was encouraged by the fact that David had spoken with Dr. Barnum and had agreed to work on a new approach to communicating with Evan.
In his report, Judge Buchele recommended modification of the existing parenting plan. Judge Buchele expanded David’s parenting time with Evan, setting forth specific times that Evan would spend with David. Judge Buchele’s recommendations assumed there would be some change in the status quo. Judge Buchele recommended that David’s parenting time with Dylan be “as they may agree.”
After David and Janet separately filed objections to Judge Buchele’s recommendations, Judge Buchele issued a supplemental report on June 27, 2002. Judge Buchele indicated that the brief attempt to expand David’s parenting time with Evan had been disastrous. Judge Buchele concluded that the problems in this case could not be resolved by additional time being spent between Evan and his father. Judge Buchele recommended that Evan be with David on Wednesdays from 4 to 8 p.m. and for one 24-hour period every weekend. Both David and Janet objected to Judge Buchele’s June 27, 2002, supplemental report and recommendations.
In November 2002, upon David’s motion, the trial court appointed Dr. Richard Gardner, M.D., to conduct a parental alienation syndrome (PAS) evaluation of the family. [[FOLKS< this is 2002!! Still going on!!]] The trial court terminated its order for counseling with Dr. Lubbers but ordered Dylan and Evan to continue therapy with Dr. Barnum. Moreover, the trial court ordered that the contact between Evan and David continue under the current arrangement and that the contact between Dylan and David be as Dylan desired.
Dr. Gardner completed the PAS evaluation and filed a written report in January 2003. Dr. Gardner found no evidence that the children were suffering from PAS or that Janet was a PAS alienator. Instead, Dr. Gardner indicated that the primary source of the children’s alienation from David was David’s own psychiatric problems, especially his obsessive-compulsive personality disorder and paranoid trends.
[[In which we see that this diagnosing one’s spouse in order to get even is a two-edged sword. Names can be called either way… And will… Name-calling by experts are far more damaging to the situation than names called by mere parents, or children…]]
Dr. Gardner recommended that Janet continue to have primary parenting time with Dylan and Evan, that Janet have primary legal custody, and that the court rescind the order requiring Dylan and Evan to participate in therapy. Dr. Gardner indicated that the family could be helped with appropriate treatment given to David, Dylan, and Evan, but that such treatment should be on a voluntary basis.
[[UNDETERRED…]] In September 2003, David moved for the appointment of another case manager, for an order for the parties and children to participate in therapy, and for an order enforcing the joint decision making required under the parties’ joint custody agreement. Attached to David’s motion were letters from Nancy Hughes, Ph.D., LSCSW, who had conducted an adoption home study with David and his [[his NEW??]] wife, and from John Spiridigliozzi, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist who had been working with David for approximately 3 years. [[FYI: Spiridigliozzi appears to work with people with addictions…]] Both Dr. Hughes and Dr. Spiridigliozzi recommended the appointment of a case manager.
Obviously, both of them are working with David, not Nancy….
Moreover, Dr. Hughes indicated that she had read some of the file that David had compiled in this case and that it did not fit with her impression of David.
How comforting that expert professionals are brought in to give their “impressions.”
In November 2003, the trial court appointed William F. Ebert, III, as special master, whose duties included recommending therapy for the parties and their children as well as preparing findings of fact and conclusions of law for the trial court to review if the parties could not agree on child-rearing decisions or therapy.
Now who is William F. Ebert, III? Any relationship to THIS one? (I do see an attorney in the Topeka, KS area…) (THIS one is in Nebraska, and I note, no “III,” AND there are a lot of William Eberts around. Kind of makes you wonder, though…)
William F. Ebert, appellant, v. Nebraska Department
of Correctional Services et al., appellees.Ebert v. Nebraska Dept. of Corr. Servs.,
11 Neb. App. 553Filed February 11, 2003. No. A-01-906.
INTRODUCTION William F. Ebert was sentenced in July 1997 to serve 10 years on each of three convictions of second degree forgery and being a habitual criminal. Ebert brought a declaratory judgment action in the district court for Lancaster County against the Department of Correctional Services (DCS); Harold W. Clarke, the director of DCS; and Ronald Riethmuller, the records manager of DCS (collectively the defendants), alleging that his sentences were improperly calculated in that he had not been given good time credit. The trial court found that the defendants were entitled to summary judgment, based on statutory language mandating a minimum 10-year sentence on a habitual criminal conviction. The trial court further found that DCS was entitled to sovereign immunity and that the parties sued in their official capacities were entitled to immunity from Ebert’s request to compel them to credit him with good time. For the following reasons, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ebert was originally sentenced on March 26, 1996, to a term of 4 to 6 years’ imprisonment. The nature of Ebert’s original offense is not clear from the record in the present case. On July 1, 1997, Ebert received sentences of 10 years’ imprisonment on each of three separate convictions of second degree forgery and being a habitual criminal. The offenses for which Ebert received these sentences occurred in January and February 1996. These sentences were to run concurrently with one another but consecutively to Ebert’s previous sentence. Ebert has not received any good time credit toward the service of his 1997 sentences.
Ebert filed a petition on December 28, 2000, initiating an action under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,149 et seq. (Reissue 1995 & Cum. Supp. 2002), to determine his rights and legal interests in relation to the calculation of his 1997 sentences.
Phil Lewis Medal of Distinction |
|
1995 |
J. Nick Badgerow, Martin W. Bauer, Patricia Macke Dick, William F. Ebert III, Hon. Jerry G. Elliott, and Carol G. Green |
After meeting with the parties, reviewing the court file, which included the reports issued by the various professionals, reviewing email communication, contacting individuals identified by the parties, and discussing the case with the parties’ attorneys, the special master issued his written report in January 2004. In an order issued in February 2004, the trial court adopted the following proposed conclusions of law of the special master:
“1. If David Kimbrell genuinely desires to re-establish meaningful relationships with his children, it will be necessary for him to participate in individual therapy with a therapist who is knowledgeable about parental alienation syndrome and knowledgeable about parents who are emotionally abusive, especially those with significant psychiatric problems.
“2. If the individual therapy process with David is successful (i.e. if David can be helped to . . . appreciate . . . how he has contributed to the damaged relationships with his children and helped to understand how to modify his expectations and behavior accordingly) then the door should be opened to including Evan and/or Dylan in the therapy process, if they choose to participate (as per Dr. Gardner’s recommendations, §6, Pages 117, 118, Gardner Report).”
David moved for reconsideration of the trial court’s decision or, alternatively, to modify its previous orders. In his motion, David requested specific orders relating to the following: parenting time and visitation, exchanging information regarding the children, counseling, and terminating the special master’s appointment. In his motion, David argued that there could not be a therapy precondition to his contact with his children. In addition, David argued that the special master’s report was unreliable because it was factually flawed, placed undue reliance on questionable expert opinions, and did not comport with due process.
If so, those are legitimate complaints and concerns. How can one have justice with factual flaws, undue reliance on questionable expert opinions, and violation of due process? On the other hand, it does seem that he started that ball rolling to start with.
In a memorandum decision filed in September 2004, the trial court granted in part and denied in part David’s motion. The trial court concluded:
“1. Based upon the case history, recommendations filed with the court, and the lack of any success with court-ordered therapy, the court will not order any of the parties in this case to participate in therapy. However, the court concurs with the special master’s recommendation that Respondent participate in therapy to attempt to gain some insight into his relationship with his biological children and that any of his children participate in that therapy as they would like.
“2. Dylan, DOB 09/05/86, is now eighteen. His parenting time is no longer under the jurisdiction of this court.
This one above, I actually read in detail, fine print and all. I wish I’d been a fly on the wall on the case in point. While readers are told of the various professionals involved, one wonders whether abuse was or was not, given the degree of control, and bittter anger. s might do well to go through the case (as I did some months ago on the Oconto, Wisconsin case, listing the staggering amount of “players” involved).
(2)
NEWMAN-13-1-A2-PV 3/15/2004 9:55 AM
(PUBLIC INTEREST LAW JOURNAL…)
The second link (I confess — a referral) is a lengthy discussion about using the assumption of a model, functioning family as the basis for families going through the family law system, when in fact these are typically NOT the functional ones. It comes from Boston University, and deals with the Troxel case. I have only glanced at this link, not read it.
GRANDPARENT VISITATION CLAIMS:
ASSESSING THE MULTIPLE HARMS OF LITIGATION TO FAMILIES AND CHILDREN
“In fairness, how much confrontation and litigation should a child be expected to bear?”
1
[[Or a parent, particularly a single custodial parent…]] [[note: the quote below is a little scrambled — technical cut & paste issues on my part — but gives an idea of the issues raised. ]
I
NTRODUCTION
Family law has made significant progress in the last several decades by gradually discarding two models of “family” for legal decision making purposes: the “conventional” family and the “well-functioning” family. In constitutional terms, the conventional family’s monopoly on legal rights loosened considerably in 1972 when the Supreme Court, in Stanley v. Illinois, to maintain custody of his “illegitimate” children when the children’s mother died. be unfit and made his children wards of the state. In subsequent years, a wide array of state decisions conferred family recognition and benefits, in varying degrees, upon families headed by single mothers, gay and lesbian couples, unmarried cohabitants, and others who failed to fit the conventional mold. In Stanley, The Court stuck down an Illinois law that presumed the unwed father to5Grandparent visitation laws, the subject of this article, provide an example of the law’s ill-advised use of the model of well-functioning family relationships
visitation with a child “at any time” if visits would “serve the best interest of the child.” In Troxel, the Supreme Court confronted one of the most sweeping visitation15 Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel lived together and had two children.16They separated in 1991, and two years later Brad committed suicide. Tommie allowed Brad’s parents to continue seeing the children following the suicide, but five months later she decided to adjust the visitation schedule, limiting the Troxels to one visit per month. Tommie for increased visitation, pursuing their claim through six and a half years of litigation to the United States Supreme Court.
17 At first,18 Two months afterward, the Troxels sued19The case generated six opinions from the Supreme Court. Despite the controversial nature of the substantive due process doctrine, a clear majority of the justices agreed that parents possess a due process liberty right to the care, custody, and control of their own children. Scalia would deny the existence of such a right. Washington statute, as applied, violated the mother’s constitutional rights. justice, David Souter, would have gone further and declared the statute unconstitutional on its face, effectively making the plurality opinion the operative constitutional ruling. parents’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing of their children resolved the case. existence of the right to parent.20 From the opinions, it appears that only Justice21 A four-justice plurality found the22 A fifth23 Justice Thomas agreed that the Court’s recognition of24 Justices Stevens and Kennedy, though dissenting, also acknowledged the25
The plurality started its analysis by noting that the conventional family is only one of many modern family forms. “While many children may have two married parents and grandparents who visit regularly, many other children are raised in single-parent households.”26
According to cited census figures, some four million children reside in the household of grandparents, and a substantial minority ofgrandparents act in a parental role, assisting single parents in performing the“everyday tasks of child rearing.”27
The opinion also made clear that it would not rely upon an idealized version offamily relationships:In an ideal world, parents might always seek to cultivate the bonds betweengrandparents and their grandchildren. Needless to say, however, our world is
far from perfect, and in it the decision whether such an intergenerational
relationship would be beneficial in any specific case is for the parent to make
in the first instance.
28
Tactfully, but unfortunately, the justices did not identify the realities thatcontradict the classic stereotype of the well-functioning grandparent in the familylife of children. A more realistic picture of these grandparent visitation caseswould have emerged had the opinion acknowledged some of the ways in which
stereotypes involving grandparents sometimes fail. A mention, for example, of
situations in which grandparents are not doting, loving and helpful, but abusive,
demeaning, controlling, meddlesome or belligerent, would have placed these cases
in a more realistic light. In fact, the cases in the nation’s family courts regularly
feature such untraditional grandparents.
29 The only hint of such realities in the
Troxel“recognition of an independent third-party interest in a child can place a substantialburden on the traditional parent-child relationship.”plurality opinion is a possible inference from the Court’s observation that30
Again, my main purpose is to provide the two links, and a little commentary for those who are interested in the topic, and a sampling (as ever) of who ARE some of those professionals involved here (although, this time, I didn’t get much background on that…)
SHARE THIS POST on...
While you were sleeping: How Congress got into the Family Law business…
2016 BLOGGER UPDATE on this December 5, 2009 post:
In an April 3, 2016 post, I searched for documentation on the history of the Access and Visitation grants back in the 1980s, as part of a time-line of the domestic violence industry. These grants are STILL discussed so infrequently, in general, that my own 12/5/2009 “While you were sleeping” post here (as quoted by “Fearless Fathers” 3 days later) was one of the search results.
That post title and the two short links on it posted as far back as December 2009 (within one year of when I began blogging) and found when I didn’t even have access to a normal laptop, almost “says it all.”
I briefly cleaned up formatting in this older (now over five years old) post, added borders and some background color plus lines around quotes (which I didn’t know how to do at the time), and below that will copy, in different background-color, the text on the same subject matter from 2016 post, “Can You Tell the “Tells” of the DV (so-called) Cartel? It’s Show-and-Tell Time.” That was my 15th post of 2016 — see the Table of Contents here.
It took me longer than a few months (a few years) to put together, from the timeline of major domestic violence prevention groups, that most of them probably knew all along about the influence of the HHS-sponsored (at the time, HEW-sponsored, as HHS only came into being 1990, but some key DV groups were formed in 1980 (“Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” in Duluth, MN), 1989 (“Futures without Violence”), or earlier) strategically positioned ACCESS and VISITATION GRANTS of first $4M (1988 dollars) then $10M (1996 dollars)/year and MARRIAGE/FATHERHOOD, about 15 times larger annual appropriations than the A/V.
These domestic violence nonprofits at the leadership level did not inform their “clients,” typically battered and abused women with or without children, about the Access and Visitation grants those clients who were MOTHERS would be up against, by virtue of their not being fathers, and by virtue, as it applied, of their having custody of the children and there even being a (male) “Noncustodial” parent. It was social public welfare policy!
This old post stands as a simple testimony that IF certain information is available, other parts of major systems start to make sense, and if it is not, they simply do not. Therefore, in my opinion, one of the larger “crimes” in responding to domestic violence, and evidence itself of an abusive approach to the target population being helped, is to withhold timely information which, if NOT withheld, might lead to a different strategic decision on the part of that individual parent. For example, SOME individual parents may decide whether or not to go up against the largest grant-making federal agency around in seeking to protect their children and do it by way of the family courts.
I found this on-line yesterday [12/4/2009], it appears to date to JUNE 2000.
Congressional Research Service
Report 97-590
CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?
Carmen D. Solomon-Fears, Education and Public Welfare Division
Updated June 20, 2000
Found at this link: http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/97-590.pdf
Abstract.
From time to time, the issue arises of whether the federal Child Support Enforcement (CSE)program should be actively involved in enforcing visitation rights. Both federal and state policymakers agree that denial of visitation rights should not be considered a reason for stopping child support payments.
AVAILABLE HERE — and I’m going to add it to my bloglinks. It’s ONLY 7 pages long, and provides a summary background of HOW the Federal Government got to be “in the family way.” The rationale was TANF/Welfare. That was the chink in the door.
The question arises, in my mind at least — what major institutions and practices in this nation are creating the welfare population to start with? The 2 largest areas of expenditure in the government are two agencies: 1. Health and Human Service, and 2. Education. The others, are smaller. Go to at least usaspending.gov and look at the pie chart, and take a look. Why are the courts and the child support agencies in the business of education, at which the educational system is already failing, clearly?
http://stuff.mit.edu/afs/sipb/contrib/wikileaks-crs/wikileaks-crs-reports/97-590.pdf
Recommended reading for the uninitiated, for example:
Is the Federal Government Becoming Too Intrusive in Family Law Policy?
[[Ya-THINK? Just perhaps MAYBE? This shows the rationale…]]
Congress does not have general authority to pass laws dealing with family law issues, unless there is a connection or “nexus” between such legislation and one of the areas in which it is authorized to act. In the case of the CSE program, the federal nexus is the …
H.R. 3073, the Fathers Count Act of 1999, would provide $140 million in grants over four years to public and private entities to achieve three purposes: (1) promote marriage, (2) promote successful parenting, and (3) help noncustodial parent improve their economic status. H.R. 3073 was passed by the House on November 10, 1999, but has not been acted on by the Senate.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Rocky Mountain High– if you’re in one of these professions…
or should I say, Rocky Mountain HYbrid? Sure looks like one here….
A.k.a. Carpet Bagging on Divorce Distress, at high altitudes…
I just had an odd question: Why is SF’s famous, and well-established Family Violence Prevention Fund, a pace-setter and leader in the field of violence preVENtion conferences and training, promoting conferences like this?
I mean, I just got on “endabuse.org” and searched for “family law,” to see if they actually address some of the rampant troubles with the family law system. After all, they are a FAMILY violence prevention fund….
Here are links on top right, first page”:
Do you see anything about preventing violence against WOMEN? In fact, women show up, if they’re immigrants. A search of “fathers” versus a search of “mothers” on this site pull up entirely different stats — you should try it some time.
This came up on page 1 of search results, only the 4th item:
clipped from Google – 11/2009
The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts 46th annual conference will be held at the Sheraton New Orleans and will examine how family law research, practices and processes have evolved.** It will feature 70 workshops, including three-hour advanced sessions, three plenary sessions and a choice of six daylong pre-conference institutes.Sessions will address challenges to conventional child custody wisdom including assertions about 50/50 parenting, the child’s role in the process, the resiliency of children after divorce, the changing role of court systems in resolving family disputes, and more. For more information, click here.
…
**:have evolved.” Wake up. Want to know how? Look at AFCC’s “About us” or history page — this was not accident, it was intentional transformation, and “how” they evolved was particularly through conferences such as the AFCC puts on, policies which the FVPF has now more overtly (i’m not sure for how long they were ever truly independent) bought into….
I DID “click here,” which brought me not to New Orleans, but to Denver. At which point, this post was conceived and “evolved” — we deserve to know that the organization called “endabuse” is advertising for, and sponsoring conferences for, the organization that is promoting doctrines specifically originated to cover up domestic VIOLENCE (not “abuse”), Child Abuse (is the term, although it does violence to children), and incest, etc. . . . To cover up criminal behavior and change it into something else, linguistically.
/ / / / /
Let me clarify “AFCC”, in case you’re under 20, IN one of these professions, and haven’t been a parent involved in divorce: Custody Switches Happen. HOW do they happen? When something is confronted by one parent, or reported by a children, generally speaking. WHY does this occur? Well, a variety of reasons, but generally in retaliation for reporting. (From what I can see). I mean, what’s the common (?) or $$-and-cents for pulling a sole-custody switch midway through a growing child’s life? It’s $$ and sense from a certain perspective… The “best interests” of the child is not as common sense as we might wish to think (see my blog on slavery & domestic violence, a recent one).
But I’m blabbing here: AFCC, per Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net, and I have to agree after my studies, at least of grants patterns and some of the printed materials, not to mention experiences:
This and other factors show that the fathers rights movement was a creation of a ring [of] judges who dominate the family court system and public policy in many states. These judges are not only hearing a large percentage of domestic litigation, they are also writing the state laws covering custody, divorce and child support. In addition they influence HHS-ACF agency which controls most of the grant funds going to the state level agencies and courts. Their people are getting the grants and using for the fathers rights cases.
READ ABOUT THESE GROUPS TO COMPREHEND THE EXTENT OF THIS COLLUSIONAFCC: Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
“AFCC is the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts – an interdisciplinary and international association of professionals dedicated to the resolution of family conflict.” . . . .The AFCC claims their focus is on training judges, custody evaluators and mediators about custody and divorce issues. But in reality they are a father focused organization and promoting alienation theories to explain away family violence by men. In reality they act as a “clearinghouse” for organized case rigging. They hold conferences about parental alienation but never mention the many professional experts who have condemned it [[using this PAS to retaliate against those reporting abuse, including sometimes sexual abuse of minors]]as harmful to children or the link to incest promoter Richard Gardner. Their scheme involves “recruiting” male litigants through fathers groups and federal HHS programs managed by the local child support agencies for program “services” which are ostensibly for helping non-custodial fathers get their visitation rights so they would have less incentive to default on child support obligations.
The LEGAL disincentive for defaulting on child support obligations is a contempt of a court order action. There was no problem in using this against the protective mother in Oconto Wisconsin, recently, so I know the judges “understand” the concept. But when a father is involved, somehow we need to give them “incentive” to care about their children’s welfare by helping “bribe” (you give me this, I may give you that, perhaps) them to carry this out in the form of stepping up to that child support plate. That alone is suspect to me, as well as many other aspects of the child support system.. . . . . Women are supposed to care, men have to be bribed to?
ALSO, Is that what any type of courts are FOR? To resolve family conflict? I thought that’s what counseling and therapy was for. Sounds like we have a confusion of purposes somewhere (and should throw out the Constitution as irrelevant, as well as laws). ANYHOW, here they are:
| Exhibit and advertise at AFCC 47Th Annual Conference June 2-5, 2010 Denver, Colorado More information>> |
AFCC Training Programs In Baltimore, Maryland December 7-8 & 9-10, 2009More information >> |
AFCC Training Programs In Houston, Texas February 22-23 & 24-25, 2010More information >> |
Subscribe to the AFCC free Monthly eNews Subscribe>> |
‘Traversing the Trail of Alienation: Mountains of Emotion, Mile High Conflict‘
…AFCC’s Annual Conference is the premiere event for family law, mental health and dispute resolution professionals. AFCC’s 47th Annual Conference will bring together between 800-1000 judges, lawyers, mediators, social workers, psychologists, parenting coordinators, parent educators and others.
I’d like to pause here for a brief prayer: “Lord, deliver us from all do-gooders, parent educators, and unsolicited profiteering helpers that may cross my life, or my children’s this day, in Jesus name, Amen.” (I’d rather SEE a sermon than attend a parenting seminar any day. This is parenting: you get your kids SAFE, FIRST, and teach them right from wrong based on behavior, character — not family function. You do not assault & batter yourself, and you protect them from those who do, to the best of your ability, and empathize at least when you can’t. How many of those parenting educators have actually GONE through what family law system has put us through, and after DV, too in many cases? Moreover, I’m not paid for being a mother. In some contexts, doing this can be criminalized as resulting in family “conflict,” i.e., taking a stand somwhere along the line!)
The exhibitor forum is centrally located in a high traffic area near conference beverage breaks and is designed to maximize visibility of exhibitors. Exhibitors receive admission to all conference sessions, meal functions and networking opportunities, including AFCC’s famous Hospitality Suite.
Don’t miss this great opportunity to build your business with AFCC
Join AFCC for a look at innovations and interventions for addressing our most difficultwork. This conference will build on a special issue of
guest edited by Dr. Barbara Fidler and Professor Nicholas Bala. The program and journal will examine the latest interventions
designed to address family conflict involving allegations of alienation, featuring unique perspectives from
judges, lawyers, mental health and dispute resolution professionals.
Family Court Review on alienation, forthcoming in January 2010,
FVPF should not be promoting this! Why are they? Oh– I forgot to tell you:
| Fiscal Year | OPDIV | Grantee Name | City | Award Title | CFDA Program Name | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $- 1 |
| 2009 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,353,812 |
| 2009 | DHHS/OS | Family Violence Prevention Fund | SAN FRANCISCO | FY09 HEALTH CARE PROVIDER RESPONSE TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM | Advancing System Improvements to Support Targets for Healthy People 2010 (ASIST2010) | LISA JAMES | $ 31,000 |
| 2008 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,323,812 |
| 2007 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,394,127 |
| 2006 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,145,872 |
| 2005 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT | Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities | ESTA SOLER | $ 496,000 |
| 2005 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,240,689 |
| 2004 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,215,689 |
| 2003 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,133,236 |
| 2003 | CDC | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | PUBLIC HEALTH CONFERENCE SUPPORT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT | Centers for Disease Control and Prevention_Investigations and Technical Assistance | ESTA SOLER, PRESIDENT | $ 102,186 |
| 2002 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,113,796 |
| 2001 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 958,542 |
| 2000 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 804,542 |
| 1999 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 698,710 |
| 1998 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 678,710 |
| 1998 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | LRNI MARIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1997 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | ESTA SOLER | $ 637,604 |
| 1997 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary Grants | JANET NUDELMAN | $- 9,549 |
| 1995 | ACF | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grants to States and Indian Tribes
|
JANET NUDELMAN | $ 451,525 |
Do you see the word “discretionary” in the “grants to shelters” ??label? Really, it’s about conferences and training, not actually STOPPING violence. For another, perhaps, because they can: I mean — this is 2009, alone.
| Recipient Name | State | Federal Funding (for this search) | DUNS Number |
|---|---|---|---|
| FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | California | $10,825,813 | 618375687 |
Funding is going GREAT for THIS nonprofit:
Assistance to Recipient(s) “family violence prevention fund”
(FY 2000-2010)
| Federal dollars: $33,745,685 Total number of recipients: 1 Total number of transactions: 67 |
Look at which branches are funding it now — the best of both worlds, from HHS and DOJ both. One is promoting fatherhood through federal grants, another is spouting out millions (and that’s literally) to organizations like this, and others, to “train” judges how to recognize domestic violence (clue: look in the law, look at the facts, look at the bleeding, look at the casualties) and be good and address it, supposedly.
Top 5 Agencies Providing Assistance
| DOJ – Office of Justice Programs | $18,464,457 |
| HHS – Secy. of Health and Human Services | $11,107,290 |
| HHS – Administration for Children and Families | $4,071,752 |
| HHS – Centers for Disease Control and Prevention | $102,186 |
HERE”s the CALIFORNIA chapter of AFCC, transforming the words “clear and present danger” (lifted DIRECTLY from the legislature’s own definition of a spousal batterer) into a budget crisis — which the same group has contributed to!
Whose children ARE they now? Are they your subject matter or the progeny of two parents? When you see a kid, do you see a $$ sign for your profession?
Apparently so, and government grants to ENDABUSE.org going to promote AFCC — a membership charging organization — for professionals to hawk their wares, while too many parents are UNaware of it.
Which I hope to stop, obviously!
That’s what I call Carpetbagging, no matter what the altitude.
Would like to analyze a bit more, but time and technical limitations prevent. Check this out yourself….
SHARE THIS POST on...
From “Our Bodies, Ourselves” to “Our Courts, Ourselves”…
The topic of mediation, especially mandatory mediation, is a hot one within the family court venue, and particularly among domestic violence advocates. Many have come up opposed to it.
On the other side of the fence (??) are those who are advocating mediation to cut down on the caseload in these courts, and attempt to reconcile opposing parties for the best interests of the children, supposedly.
While looking through the RAND corporation policy papers, available on-line, I was astounded to find almost nothing whatsoever on violence against4 women, or women per se (although there were articles about the education gap for men and boys of color, with the kneejerk recommendation, more and earlier preschool. I happen to disagree, I think there’s enough subject matter for child development scholars to study throughout the educational, penal, and court institutions in this country already…). There was next to nothing current on domestic violence, although a few articles dating back to 2004/2005 actually used this word.
However, there is this interesting take on mediation. My limited technique can’t paste in the image, so I recommend taking a look at:
All I’m going to say about Our Bodies, Ourselves, is that it is reminiscent of the feminist movement (after all, these ARE our bodies, if it’s women involved), and another era. For more info, read Dr. Phyllis Chesler, including Women & Madness, Mothers on Trial, and Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman. Don’t forget to also take a serious look at Honor Killings vs. Domestic violence (articles), and so forth.
Now about, Our Courts Ourselves — I believe a takeoff on that title:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/2005/RP1090.pdf
“Our Courts, Ourselves: how the Alternative Dispute Resolution Movement is Reshaping Our Legal System.”
It says plainly what I have deduced, in using the phrase “Designer Family” and in sarcastically stating that a world without conflict IS indeed possible — if everyone is drugged, asleep, or simply not paying attention. . . . . Which appears to be an imminent possibility, or business goal in some arenas… I mean, as slavery is supposedly abolished, SOMEONE has to do life’s dirty work, for cheap or free…. Women got the vote, heck what next? ???
This tends to verify my observations: (from page 168, Section II, “Puritans Populists and Utopians.”)…
Members of America’s utopian societies yearned for social harmony and eschewed conflict. One of their goals was to eliminate adversarial legal processes. In Edward Bellamy’s Utopia, depicted in his wildly popular 1988 novel Looking Backward, citizens are inducted into the armies of a corporatist state into which all contribute and from which all receive the necessities of life….
Are you frightened yet?
As communitarian values replace private interest, economic competition, social conflict and adversarial processes are eliminated…Wise citizens take the place of judges and juries in deciding how and when to punish bad behavior, lawyers’ services become superfluous, and the law itself is discarded.
(My quote here, since I can’t cut & paste from the pdf, is from memory, for speed — check source yourself)
Bellamy’s novel inspired a new political movement called Nationalism, comprised of a series of grassroots organizations dedicated to creating a utopian society devoid of economic and social conflict and gave rise to the establishment of the Populist Party.. . .
Many in the Nationalist Movement had ties with Theosophy, a contemporary religious movement…. substituting “Universal brotherhood and cooperation for competition..” but the roots of Theosophy lay in spiritualism, and elevating the divine spirit within the individual. Their leaders eschewed social justice and activism, and eventually the movements parted paths.
To those who are somewhat versed in one of the “Abrahamic” religions (i.e., Judaism, Christianity, Islam), this utopian vision and non-involvement in social justice are at odds with fundamental beliefs that man’s nature needs redemption (i.e., “the Fall”) and that a future resurrection and judgement await.
At the very least, then, this utopian philosophy goes against the core of a substantial portion of the world’s population. Experientially, someone has to become the “wise citizens” and of a supposedly superior, elitist, caste to inform and educate the plebians in how to get along.
The philosophy that CONFLICT is bad, and that PEACE AT ANY PRICE (and sacrificing safety, or justice in the process) is the primary good is — to my reading — a violence against the concept of justice, balance and equity.
Hence, the jargon calling a divorce or process in which women protesting abuse of themselves, or their children, even when sexual abuse has been involved and documented, a “high-conflict” custody comes from this worldview. That is not the primary characteristic — only according to a certain view.
As to “our bodies, ourselves,” an 11 year old in Wisconsin and (I recently heard) a 14 year old in Michigan, have learned that they are property, not people. Michaela Tipton went back to her father to get her mother out of jail. A young man, A student, spent a night in detention for refusing to visit his father also.
http://www.macombdaily.com/articles/2009/11/21/news/srv0000006883874.txt#blogcomments
Teenager incarcerated for refusing to visit his father
Published: Saturday, November 21, 2009
A 14-year-old boy was thrown into the county youth home overnight and handcuffed for about four hours after refusing to follow a judge’s order to visit his father, as part of an ongoing custody case.
The boy, Jacob Mastrogiovanni of Warren, was ordered Thursday to spend three days in the youth home by family court Judge John Foster, who lifted the sentenced Friday following protests by his mother and a night of incarceration for her son.
The uncommon occurrence of a contempt of
court sentence for a child in a child custody dispute angered his mother, Dawn Platevoet, and several of her relatives, including the boy’s grandmother. They picketed in front of the county courthouse in downtown Mount Clemens on Thursday and Friday, garnering media attention.
“A judge shouldn’t throw an all-A student in jail for refusing to visit his father,” Platevoet said. “There are other ways to handle the situation, and apparently the judge agreed because he let him out.”
Jacob was slated to remain in the Juvenile Justice Center until 7 p.m. Sunday but was released by Foster about 12:30 p.m. Friday. Foster had Jacob brought from the youth home in handcuffs about 8:30 a.m. Friday to appear in front of him in Macomb County Circuit Court later that morning. Jacob waited in a holding cell.Moments after he was released Friday, Jacob said Foster didn’t specify why he freed him.
“He said that I don’t decide whether I see my dad or not,” Jacob said. “It was kind of like a warning, this time, I guess.”
Foster’s secretary said the judge did not want to comment.Jacob and Platevoet wouldn’t delve into many details of why he won’t visit his father, Victor Mastrogiovanni of Chesterfield Township. She said Jacob began resisting in July following an unspecified incident.
They said when Jacob has visited Mastrogiovanni recently that he is forced to stay in his room without any contact.
On Foster’s order, the three have been attending weekly counseling sessions since early September. {{That’s the racket, folks…}} But they and the therapist have been unable to resolve the disagreement.
Platevoet and Mastrogiovanni never married and have had some disputes for years {{OBviously. The boy is 14!}}regarding custody and support issues, they said.
Mastrogiovanni, who has been married for two years and has a 15-month-old child, [[IE 2nd marriage, new kid]]said he did not want to comment specifically about the dispute.
“I love my kid very much and want what’s best for him,” he said.
Platevoet said she would like her son to visit his dad but can’t force him.
“What am I supposed to do? Grab him by the back of the head and put him in the car?” she said. “He’s a teenager and wants to do teenager things.”
She said Jacob “listens to me” about other things but not about the visits
//
ANYHOW, you are either awake or asleep in this matter about trying to create a utopian society where wise citizens (NOT due process and facts/evidence, etc.) choose punishments, and where all the requirements of life are also obtained from the state. Hence, “Health & Human Services.”
The question is, Who is Being Served? And being served What?
2nd largest federal expenditure, Educational Department, making sure (that’s a laugh!) no child left behind. What isn’t being openly marketed — where they are marching, goosestep style, who is paying the drummer, and what is the origin of the tune. Not only can we not make medical or health choices for our kids, we as a populace aren’t smart enough to resource or network our life choices and also help them get educated.
You cannot really deal with the courts entirely separate from the educational system. For one, the courts are trying to run cleanup after educational (moral/value) failures, all at the expense of taxpayers (not those who can write off expenses as business owners and investors, etc.). For another, I am simply not interested in an oligarchy, a dictatorship, or any of that. After all, it’s my own body here, and the children that came out of it are NOT state property, or fodder for others’ professional careers in psychology, mental health, law, pharmacology, etc. I respected their father’s contact with them, and the law. In return from this, I lost all contact with them, and made a mockery of the process.
Several entities are laughing all the way to the bank on this one. The thing is, to get an audit of those statements.
Anyhow — take a look at that rand document — it’s for sure informative. Then also realize that what takes place through the courts, when it does — that’s not mediation in the proper sense of the word. That’s basically program marketing, and “required outcome enforcement” from things such as the Access Visitation Grants, Responsible Fatherhood/Marriage, and such-like.
Enough for today!
SHARE THIS POST on...
Scapegoating, trans-millenial, trans-religion, bipartisan — same old “father absence” (meaning, Single Moms).
Single mothers have it TOUGH. Not only do they have to deal , too often, with that ex that wasn’t absent ENOUGH, like our Lorraine Tipton in Oconto County, WI, facing JAIL for exercising her mother’s instincts and actually function as a personal “Child Protective Service,” when 3 CPS personnel in 2 counties, and a child abuse forensic interviewer confirmed that it had taken place. That’s TOMORROW, we’re talking about . . . . . Not only do we have to fight like hell to get up to ground level if that guy was abusive or simply unsafe choice to start with, we also bear the blame for all of society’s ills on our narrower-than-his (many times) shoulders.
U.S. Women have a Congress that has a paltry representation of half the country, I mean, the female gender, and doing a good bit of the world’s work, too. Women got the vote after slavery was (supposedly) abolished and after African-American males. Several wars later, whose cannon-fodder came from US, if we actually stand up for our right NOT to be slapped, beaten, strangled, or risk being killed in the home, AND we gave birth, we are being blamed for society’s ills and have to fight indignant males in the family law courts (and out of them) and forget it when it comes to faith institutions, I say. And then we wonder about Raising Ophelia . . . . . (That’s a book reference).
In a country that supposedly doesn’t buy into such superstitions as religion, but is supposedly tolerant of those who believe a God, their god, is REAL, any substitute superstitions talk will fill the gap. Which makes my point, man is a religious animal, either that or mentally lazy. Or mentally stressed out, such that they’d rather pay taxes and let someone else think FOR them, raise the kids FOR them, and produce healthy marriages FOR them.
Where they run into REAL trouble is when they run into a REAL mother (meaning, one who knows right from wrong, safe from dangerous, knows the law, and actually protests when it’s broken, particularly with kids involved).
As my laptop just got stolen, which along with no car makes life rather difficult — this is post-abuse (supposedly) life – – you get to hear from another person who’s more concise, and appropriately sarcastic.
I mean, listen to Randi James, who gives meaning to the book “Dumbing us Down” by at least talking back to the authorities.
Notice how (when it begins to cite statistics) how the golden aura of “stats” seems to lend credibility and au thority to a major foundation’s study. (Annie E. Casey being among the major ones around, and as far as I can tell, fairly conservative. They also fund Family Violence Prevention Fund, the great group in San Francisco who (after getting significant increases in federal funding, in fact they’re one of the larger recipients around), showed a marked decrease in on-line presence of the word “Mother.” I mean, throughout the site. For reference, see my blog poking fun (although it’s not funy) the Obama administration’s transformation of our President’s single-mother household into a father-absent household. The word is now “parent” when we want to equalize, and “father-absent” when we want to stigmatize, including by failing to even use the word MOTHER. Good grief.
Anyhow I give you this post — (see link). Have a nice day!
Saturday Single Mothers, Absent Fathers, Pirates, Global Warming and All in Between In 2009,
I can’t believe people are still making the argument that single motherhood causes most of the societal ills, namely high crime rates and teen pregnancy. Have we still not acquired any critical thinking skills along this journey? What about the millions of dollars grant money from DHHS to study all of these problems? How many years do they need in order to figure out the answers?
In this article, it says that 1 in 7 girls at a certain high school in Chicago, are getting pregnant.
The principal in this school states, “It can be a lot of things that are happening in the home or not happening in the home, if you will. Absentee fathers are another factor.” Is that the best answer that he could come up with? How, exactly, are absentee fathers contributing to this rate of teen pregnancy? No, I’m serious, I really need someone to explain to me how NOT having a father allows for a teenage girl to get pregnant…..or better yet, maybe you should first detail what, exactly, is an “absentee father”?
I don’t have a link to the following information, but it was provided by my favorite rape-apologist, Paul Clements:
“(I)n a recent study by the Baltimore-based Annie E. Casey Foundation. Comparing statistics for its Kids Count report, the organization reported that Detroit ranks No.1 in unmarried births among the nation’s 50 largest cities. Of the 16,729 babies born in Detroit in 1997, 13,574 were black, 1,679 were white and 817 were Hispanic. Seventy-one percent were born to unmarried mothers.
[[Please click link to see this (and more) in the original context]].
PS. When in doubt, or faced with a problem, pour more money at it hoping it will go away. the HHS and Dept of Educ have been doing this, and STILL our population isn’t “fixed” yet. Maybe we should let parents do the job (and let Lorraine stay out of jail for doing HER job right).
Enforce laws equally, or take them off the books. It takes 9 months and labor, not including any breastfeeding (if a judge, should you separate, thinks this is permissible), and the least we can do to mothers is not pretend that they have equal rights under the law just because they are (speaking from my country’s perspective) US citizens. Or have been living here for a generation or so.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Access and Visitation, only $10 mill/year (annually, since 1997).
Oh No!
I just lost the top half of my last, colorfully-illustrated, and highly annotated, sarcastic scatalogical post, “Thrusting Abstinence Education on the Unwary Public” (as summarized, with links, by Wikipedia, in about 2005). It’s coming. I’ll expose it soon. It exposes the money that traded hands in private before the PR professionals, using their media connections, pushed two policies that are now coursing through the bloodstreams of the 2 largest United States Executive Branch departments and affecting, I say, all of us. These were the Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood/Abstinence Education initiatives (as to HHS) AND . . .. AND . . . .the “No Child Left Behind” policies (as to Educ.)
Regarding that. . . . .
I figured, since the Bush Admin public servants want to Push its way into the public’s thoughts (first) and pants, skirts, or burqas, etc. as to trying to regulate whether (let alone with whom!) we (or our children) do or do not engage in sexual intercourse, whatever they find where they don’t belong is their own problem, and any tone of response communicating “get out!” is appropriate. The moral being, #1, don’t take rides from strangers promising Health, Human Services, or any other ecstatic experiences or transportations, or accept candies from them, either, and #2, more of us need to restructure our lives so as to keep better track of our track of our Congressmen, and whatever % of them are Congresswomen who vote on how to dispense $$ collected from us through taxes. If these are being used Inappropriately (and failing kids K-12, then trying to back track and teach an abstinence Congresspeople themselves do not exhibit, either as to finances or their personal sex lives (not unilaterally for sure is most definitely INappropriate).
Who knows, the candy {whether in form of ideas, or psychotropic, as in Ritalin, etc. through the school systems, etc.) might have drugs. Besides which, anyone calling you, or people in general “Human” probably isn’t. Would such a person call their own offspring, or spouse, a “human”?? Then how come other, more distant people of the same species become suddenly “humans” and need “servicing.”
Marriage affects health, sure, but in definition is a commitment between two individuals who have exchanged vows, generally in front of witnesses in their community, and have also a certain public document. By definition, and usage, it’s private! Where it becomes public is only where an individual in it breaks a law, particularly as to domestic violence and child abuse, but also any others.
Similarly, a nation is not a living, throbbing organism to be run from the top and have its temperature taken by elected officials and parts re-arranged at (its will). We are not bees, we are not ants, we are not to be treated like them either. Our elected and/or appointed officials are not bee-keeprs or ant farmers, even if and (when) they may think they are and such activities have apparently given their otherwise meaningless lives purpose, by labeling others misery or happiness.
In PARTICULAR, we mothers are not to be bred for our children, and then judged as to our health by virtue of whether the “sire” of the kids is in the house or out of the house. And that, friends, is what this nation is currently (at our own expense) in the business of. Studying itself. The top half is studying the bottom half, only it’s not even close to “half.” The bottom half (sic) exists to serve, and pay the top half (sic) to study it.
That’s how I read the situation currently, anyhow. I may be jaundiced by my particular run through the last 20 or so years, but I have networked, read, studied, and collaborated plenty, as well as read what others are networking and collaborating about as well. When it’s one own’s life & kids (as opposed to, say, job) at stake, one tends to study more closely.
Moroever, the columnists promoting this already had their hands in the till by taking money from the public in the form of grants. So the hand was ALREADY in our pockets financially. Moreover, it appears the infamous (to me at least) “No Child Left Behind” (which takes the cake for vague, amorphous rallying cry if I ever heard one. First of all, it’s false — what about private schools? What about where are we going? what about the talented children already being held back in the schools, which is from what I can tell, probably the majority of them. What about keep your hands off my kids too, until you can talk sense? This initiative also started in similar manner — a man was paid to promote it, but failed to mention the pay.)
So, as to Abstinence Education, thus I figure anyone (promiscuous, married and faithful, or married and hot-Mike-Duvall, or abstinent, or celibate, or in fact ANYONE) should be able to give them a hard time about this. Especially because what was NOT exposed was whose $$ (ours — federal grants) was in whose pockets before the inspired (by $$) PR eulogies began. I guess you get the general idea of how I felt about that. The moral there, and with this Access and Visitation grandiose talk is, when someone on the federal dole comes up to you UNSOLICITED especially, saying “you need a ride? You look lost, you need some direction? You look poor! I’ll help you — just sign on the line (and give me your offspring) here. Come, let me give you a (mind/face/family-) lift — then the appropriate response is to ignore the talk and survey the surroundings, particularly for the closest exit. And any other strangers (to you) in the vicinity behaving oddly.
ANYHOW, another post. THIS one, is on a grants system set up back in, I gather 1996:
- 2 years after National Fatherhood Initiative (1994)
- One year after Clinton wrote the (in)famous, “let’s revamp the Exec. Dept. to include more Dads (1995).
- 3 & 4 years before Congress voted”inexplicably” that the true crisis for the United States was fatherlessness, and they “resolved” (National Fathers Return day being one such resolution) to DO something about it (in both houses: 1998/1999)
- only 5 years before the half-bald, mustached, slightly-smiling, white guy to the right (see photo) was “unanimously” appointed Secretary of the HHS (2001-2007), and I gather in 2007, he kinda sorta was encouraged (??) to step down. At least he resigned.
- But not before the ball was really rolling on this idea that the REAL problem is Kids Minus Dads.
Since he’s white, middle-aged and half-bald,(and right-wing conservative), (and apparently well-off) why doesn’t he limit his concern to what he actually has lived? But know, he and his NFI prominent thinkers are going for the usual suspects, African American mothers who aren’t married to their children’s fathers. But attacking African American mothers, unmarried, isn’t QUITE PC enough, so the circuitous route is to express for or the kids lack of ROOTS (as defined , to their Dads).
- Psychologist Wade Horn, from NFI to HHS, and out again.).
DO YOU think I’m kidding? I’m not!
JUNE 17,1999, Congressional Chronicle(tm)
Topic: National Fathers Return Day
Mr. LIEBERMAN. (speaking) Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues. Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report, can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers.
(in some cases, those fathers got shot, in some cases those fathers were not interested in them to start with. In some cases those Dads may have been in a war and gave their lives for the country. In some case those fathers were violent. Perhaps in some cases those fathers may have been sports idols and are on the road. Does THAT put them at risk, per se? In some cases those fathers were womanizers. Should we put the Dads back with their sons and daughters to learn that this really doesn’t matter, when it’s Dad? In some cases, perhaps Mom OR Dad had a religious awakening, mabye like Mr. Horn’s, in which case the uninterested (in that brand of God) spouse may wish to continue (or re-act) by doing drugs or watching pornography, or being promiscuous.
I know one family (not African American) whose Dad decided to come out of the closet, with his new paramour, while his offspring were adolescents. Guess what. Those kids didn’t sleep in his home. Those poor (well, they weren’t poor) kids would have fallen under the Access Visitation grants definition programs. They had a noncustodial parent. If their Dad were nasty, or either parent poor, he could’ve been recruited through the child support program to further harrass her or impoverish the kids. It only takes one bad apple to get the whole family ensnared til kids reach age of majority.
Suppose Mom finds a second, healthy marriage. According to these theories, the kids are still at risk, because it’s not “Dad” in the home.
(LIEBERMAN, to CONGRESS, 1999, con’td.) We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
We are NOT amused at what’s actually taking place in government grants la-la-land.
Well, since all my technical (wordpress) wits was far below the level of the rhetorical wit, this crudely dropped the readers midstream, with no buildup or momentum, into the usual back-story commentary on the Wikipedia entry on the not-exactly-breaking-news that columnists and PR sorts sometimes do pay attention to what side their bread is buttered on be for buttering up the ideas of the person with the butter.
Ah well. . . . .
So I decided to “punt” and go to this topic: ACCESS & VISITATION GRANTS, where the real “conflict of interest is” in the courts.
Anyone that doesn’t like my profiling Wade Horn according to his race, gender, state of follicle challenge, age, and demeanor can go jump in a lake. I don’t like being profiled according to my gender, or having my household profiled according to how many adult males biologically related to my children in it, rather than to whether or it has a violent, battering, assaulting, property-destroying and chaos-inducing male (biologically or not biologically related to my children) in it. He can’t change his race, I suppose. He could even change his gender, if this were part of his right-wing religious preferences which I bet it ain’t.
I can’t change my DNA, nor can my ex, nor can my kids. But what I CAN change is whether or not I am going to sit around my home being slapped because I’m female in front of children, and mine happened to be female. Then let some (male) _______ (or female) come to me, after having ignored years of that, and then push this dogma that the real problem is, there’s not a “man” in the house.
There WAS a man in the house, and that was solved with a restraining order, temporarily.
I don’t feel like changing my gender either. And it makes equally as much sense (i.e., NONE) for a bunch of men (and some women) to get up there and saying, it’s a GENDER problem, starting with African American children (of either gender) — and they did! See below! — not having their OWN fathers living with them as it does to say it’s a RACE problem. I dare a bunch of Congressmen to get up there and have a national white folk day. And get it nationalized, with a straight face. CALL it that. Push it all over the state, county, and nonprofit institutions just like fatherhood and healthy marriages has been. State that as a lot of black folk are in prison, obviously the problem is their race — not the prisons, not poverty, and not communities, not behavior. And not racism. I am waiting for the day.
With President Obama now, no one would dare (let’s hope!) But one profile we CAN all gang up on is mothers, especially single mothers. Good grief! In another day and time, this would be Jews. In another, Tutsis. In another Hutu. In another Armenians. But the gender for all times to hate (and particularly if it stops hating its own, or protests) is for sure female. They must give up their kids and make sure that they have contact with Dads, even if Dad kills them (and this has happened), kidnaps them (and this has happened) and even if the ongoing conflict with a chaotic or controlling personality introduces years of needless conflict — AND more poverty — into the children’s home. And if Dad can’t restrain himself, or might rape, kidnap, beat, or hurt the kids during a visitation, no matter. There is ANOTHER government-funded and/or free-market-niche to make sure they still have contact: “Supervised Visitation.”
Now that’s not really safe either. No matter. There’s ANOTHER program to train the supervisors. How’re they going?
2008:
“Danger Zones: Battered mothers and their children in Supervised Visitation“
Supervised visitation centers (SVCs) have developed rapidly across the United States. Increasingly, courts are restricting contact between abusive intimate partners and their children by ordering visitation or exchanges to occur at SVCs. This article describes some of the key lessons the authors learned over 18 months of planning and then another 18 months of implementation at a SVC developed specifically to serve families for whom domestic violence was their primary reason for referral. The authors have organized their experiences around five major themes: (a) battered women in supervised visitation, (b) how battering continues during supervised visitation, (c) how rules at the SVC evolved over the first 18 months of implementation, (d) the importance of well-trained visit monitors, and (e) the need to embed SVCs within a larger context of coordinated community responses to domestic violence.
Key Words: battered women • batterers • children • supervised visitation centers
This version was published on November 1, 2008
2004:
There is no way to predict whether a specific batterer is likely to kill his partner. {!!}} Even though data are available about batterers who actually commit such murders, the batterer’s violence behavior alone does not provide enough information about accurate predictions about which batterers will go on to kill the partners. Psychotherapists can use a variety of checklists and other instruments to help determine the level of risk for a lethal incident, but these assessment devices have not been validated by empirical research. [16]
Who conducts risk assessment?
Despite their close ties with domestic violence shelters in their communities, many supervised visitation program staff do not have the level of expertise necessary to conduct formal risk assessments. Therefore, it should be domestic violence professionals who should conduct the assessments, not visitation personnel:
For those who haven’t “got” this yet, the majority of these studies are, (I finally “got” this) not about our safety or our children’s safety, or our children’s best interest, or to prevent family violence. From the front lines, and a front lines person who knows many families going through this AND has attended conferences, and probably reads as much as a lot of the professionals (at least to pass for one in a number of situations; all I lacked was the degree) on this, and has a REAL vested interest — my life, my family’s lives, my livelihoods, the safety and well-being of the communities I was in during all this stuff (before and after separation) and so forth — I pay attention, and try to place accumulated information in a growing database and I refile as necesary when stuff “doesn’t fit.”
It’s not about our lives, it’s about the professions. Here is a statement from a real well-respected site, now 5 years old, saying that the issue is not that we are bringing supervised visitation into the picture at all, but that it’s just that the visitation personnel are not properly trained by professionals, domestic violence professionals.
Here’s a question raised (finally!) by someone addressing a(nother) conference of ALL kinds of professionals associated with this topic about preventing violence, protecting children, and all kinds of REALLY nice healthy topics. I am thinking that PROBABLY the conference (Jackson’s Hole, Wyoming?) might have been an clean safe place. This (male) professional in the field started the first Domestic Violence Unit in Washington, D.C., he says in his opening remarks.
He broaches again the question I’ve twice posted on this site, in articles from 1989 and 1992, as to whether children need relationships with their (abusive) fathers. Let’s see if he qualifies in our eyes as a Professional. But first, the quote.
2009, June 2:
Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?
Even the question is a little “framed.” “have been abusive . . . in the past” is not the typical situation of a woman trying to leave abuse with her children. This mindset implies it was “over with” and that while broken bones, teeth, bruises, and blood may indicate “being abusive” (i.e. COMMITTING a pattern of misdemeanor or felony-level domestic violence), stalking, property destruction, intimidation of relatives, or keeping one’s ex in a nonstop pattern of defense against allegations in family court arena do not.
Oh yeah, incidentally this was the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and his short speech is on the date link.
It appears to me to be the present policy (I include practice) that mothers moreso than fathers, are considered dispensable to children.
Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?
Actually, by the time one sorts through how contradictory one policy is from the otehr, and then read about the conferences where organizations sponsoring BOTH sides of the contradictory policies collaborate together (but the parents involved are not invited, generally, nor their kids) I’d have to say that in the long run, one concludes that when it comes to dispensing TAX DOLLARS (my shorthand for grants, federal, local, state, and private) what’s really dispensable, and is being lost, are:
1. Justice.
2. Children.
(With justice, children will be safe, as long as laws against domestic violence and child abuse remain on the abuse, and SHOULD they ever start being consistently defined, and enforced).
and
3. OPM. Other People’s Money AND OPL. that’s other People’s Lives.
What really seems INdispensable, once underway, appear to be the systems dispensing 1, 2, and 3, above.
I am going to (re-)introduce you this concept “Access and Visitation” and its costs, starting with the HHS own site describing it. If the prose is lame and lacks vigor, just understand that I blew my wad on the first topic, so this is a pale second offering from a drained commentator.
However my commentary cannot possibly be as lame, nonsequitur, and incoherent as the concept of Designer Families at Public Expense, as executed by a centralized opaque bureaucracy in cooperation with private and nonprofit businesses, not to mention religious organizations that haven’t quite yet “got” that hitting women ain’t legal.
This is where “Access Visitation” concepts meets the “Supervised Visitation” concept. One encourages and ALLOWS certain services (this is the HHS source of grants) and the other DISCOURAGES but does not forbid, practically the same types of activity (this is the DOJ/VAWA source of grants, as I recall).
One is the government paying a LOT of government institutions (you have no idea, but I assure you, I do!) to make sure “NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS” have “ACCESS AND VISITATION” to their children, even if it means getting them free legal help while in prison to modify their custody orders, something I don’t recall getting of one second past the time our case hit the family law venue.
The converse of this is, when a parent is really bad and needs to be “spanked” or “supervised” somehow, then there is SUPERVISED VISITATION. I could’ve used solme of this and requested it, in fact, one reason was, I didn’t want the kids kidnapped. i asked for this in 2005 and was told No. Then when my kids were taken on an overnight in 2006, and we show up in court, I asked for it again, and was curtly told, there’s no money (meaning WE didn’t have some to fork over) for this. The result was, visits were so traumatizing I was hard put to get them. There was also no real exterior witness or regulation of the fact that the second this man got our children, theyw ere basically, not going to be seen by me again, even when a court order had stipulated, every othe rweek. So there you have it on SUPERVISED VISITATION.
Sometimes this also is used to punish mothers by forcing them to pay to see their chlidren after they speak up about something (seems like it could be almost anything — child abuse, harm done to the kid by the other parent, or some other violation of existing standards) and are silenced by having their kids switched, SUDDENLY, to the other parent. This has been described elsewhere better than I am summarizing here.
But, til I find the missing witty intro to a version of BUSH-WhACKED around MARRIAGE INITIATIVE type post, I give you:
OCSE Access and Visitation Grants Information
I suggest filing this under Congressional Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance.
Overview
With an annual appropriation of $10 million, 54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands) have been able to provide access and visitation services to over a half million non-custodial parents (NCPs) and their families since the program became operational in 1997! In FY 2006, States contracted with over 300 court and/or community- and faith-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services to NCPs and their families.
NCP is a “NonCustodial Parent.” Primarily, fathers. Note, that the CP (which obviously is another adult) does not even exist as an entity. it’s NCP’s and “Families.”
“STATES CONTRACTED” — Yes, the feds pay the states, and we’re not yet QUITE sure what happens once it hits state level, although some diligent research DOES ascertain that it’s pretty darn hard to track after that.
I. Enabling Legislation
The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
Goal: “..to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”
Cognitive dissonance: “It’s about money. It’s not about money, it’s about the children. It’s about reducing welfare distributions. No, it’s not, it’s about noncustodial parental access. Aw heck, Im not really sure! No it’s NOT a pay-per-hour-per child scenario (i.e., children as property), it’s about families. Well, on the other hand, though we really need to entreat these men to get on the stick and get some work (including after they get out of jail) so we will help them for free, LEGALLY, to get back at those Moms, get more time with their kids, in exchange for which we will then lower child support obligations (but, listen closely, this is NOT, we repeat, NOT a pay per child per hour arrangement) (unless it refers to SUPERVISED visitation) and maybe then, if we treat the disgruntled — or unemployed — or incarcerated — NCPS nice, they will respond in kind, step up to the plate and pay the past due child support.
Alternatively, we can switch custody and put HER in jail if she doesn’t pay, because women don’t need to be BRIBED to support their own children, generally speaking. And, again, we’re not ordering, we’re just “supporting and facililating’ (modification of custody orders). Without telling the custodial parent in advance, of course.
II. Allowable Services
According to the statute, States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:
- Mediation
Mediation is “premitted” for the States, but “mandatory” for the parents in many states, including mine, and that’s a PROBLEM when violence has been involved, already. Typically by the time the order was obtained (at least I know my case and many others), attempts to “mediate” the concept of not being hit, abused, threatened, etc., have already failed. Hence the protective order to start with. For protection, not negotiation! Well, mediation puts two parents in front of one mediator, which typically (given the little time he/she is going to have) will pick a side and stick to it, throughout the course of the case, which, given these factors, will probably stop when ALL kids hit 18. Or one parent has worn out, given up, or simply gone homeless, meaning, can’t fight back.
Moreover, all the opposing, “NCP” has to do is start a debate on almost any issue between them, and then it goes to mediation. This is simpler than presenting facts and evidence in the courtroom, adhering to all those rules of court, etc. All he/she has to really do is win the favor of the mediator, who then (although this isn’t strictly legal, it’s practice) sways the judge who then upends whatever the last status quo was. Note, abusers are great manipulators, it’s kind of their profession, that two-sided thing, or the abuse couldn’t be kept up for so long.
- Development of parenting plans
- Education
(And a REAL market niche for the would be parent educators, therapists, and counselors (see next item)
- Counseling
- Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)
Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
III. Annual Funding
- $10 million is divided among the States annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.
- Funding Formula (according to statute):”The allotment of a state for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the state living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all states.”
- Minimum Annual State Allocation $100,000 This statutory provision ensures that states with small populations of single parent households with minor age children are guaranteed a base amount of $100,000. Those states with larger populations are awarded an allotment according to the prescribed funding formula.
Required State Match States are required, by law, to provide a minimum 10% match of the Federal grant amount. This match requirement can be fulfilled via cash or in-kind contributions by the state and/or local grantees.
IV. State Administration
- Designation of State Agencies Following enactment of the AV Grant Program in 1996, the then-Governors of States were asked to designate a State agency that would be responsible for receiving the grant funds. Roughly half of the State AV Grant Programs are administered by State Offices of the Courts and the other half by State IV-D Agencies.
In California, it’s the California Judicial Council, which is THE policysetting arm of the Judicial branch in the state. Then it goes to the Administrative “office of the Courts,” and so forth. So we have pretty much a socialist type setup here. Read on.
- Funding Responsibilities States are required (that’s “REQUIRED“) to ensure that funds expended under the Access and Visitation Grant respond to and support the program goal which is “…to establish programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”.
Comment: The thing that facilitated noncustodial parents’ access to their children PRIOR to this was called a court order. It was signed by a judge, stipulated some terms of custody & visitation, and people who interfered with this were (depending on when the law I am thinking of was passed) to comply, or suffer possible contempt of court (order) sanctions, and fork them over to the otherr parent. The thing was done in a process called, formerly, the “LEGAL” process, also casually referred to in some circles still as “DUE process.” It’s what our country is about at its most basic denominator: Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth. Remember those? So, these grants and grant programs can’t quite come out and say “ORDER NONCUSTODIAL PARENT ACCESS” because, after all, they come from the U.S. Exec. Dept., which is supposedly separate from the Legislatives, which is supposedly separate from the Judicial.
This was actually intentional, from what I understand of the ffounding fathers. They wanted these strong powers distributed among different players. NOT centralized in one or just a few players, in which case we’d be an oligarchy, not a republic (cf. Pledge of Allegiance, US Citizens, if you forgot what that means). “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which (this flag) it stands, one nation, under (expletive deleted, according to some sources), indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice, for all.” While we know it doesn’t exist yet, this is the pledge and that is the gol. Notice: “Justice” not “program goals.
JUSTICE is a process. It is a MEANS. “Program Goals” is an end, and apparently the end justifies the means here.
- shall administer State programs funded with the grant directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit entities“;
- shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and
- shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs
- Reporting Requirements The enabling legislation requires states to monitor, evaluate, and report on services funded through the Access and Visitation Grant Program. This statutory requirement is satisfied through the annual completion – by states – of the “State Child Access Program Survey” which includes:
- State agency contact information;
- Services funded; {{Note: “permitted activities,” above.}}
- Provider agency contact information;
- Number of parents served; {Define “SERVED!” — forced through the programs??}
- Socio-economic and demographic information on families served; and
- Outcome data (i.e., number of noncustodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services).
DCL-07-15
DATE: May 24, 2007
TO: STATE IV-D DIRECTORS AND STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAM COORDINATORS
RE: New publication which assesses selected State Access and Visitation programs client outcomes especially with respect to subsequent payment of child support
Dear Colleague:
I am pleased to provide you with a copy of a new report entitled: “Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes.”
Since 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has been responsible for administering “Grants to States for Access and Visitation.” To date, OCSE has awarded $100 million dollars to states ($10 million per year) to “…establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children,” as mandated by Congress.
I cannot speak loudly enough to express how profound a conflict of interest this remains. Parents are recruited through jails, through child support offices (when in arrears) and sometimes flat-out through courtrooms by flyers, to participate in programs that are intended to sway the legal process, and THROUGh these programs. Many women leaving violence, or protective mothers, protest that the safety of their children should be left in the hands of someone who is having business funneled to them through these courts and through government mandate (and how are we to know whether or not actual money? It has happened, from what I understand) to tip the balance in the courtroom. THIS PROCESS makes a farce of the courtroom process.
In order to achieve this end, States are allowed to fund a range of services including (hint, hint, hint…) : mediation, development of parenting plans, education, counseling, visitation enforcement (including supervised visitation and neutral drop off), and the development of alternative custody and visitation guidelines. Between FFY 1997-2005, over 400,000 parents were recipients of AV services.
I’d estimate then, about 50% of them unwillingly, or unwitting that they have a right to refuse. Moreover (personal experience), quite often the mediator’s report is not even received before the hearing! I have twice out of three times received it IN the courtroom, which is hardly the place and sufficient time to reply and consider its ramifications!
This study assesses participant outcomes resulting from the Access and Visitation Program in 9 states for mediation, parent education and supervised visitation services. Mediation was studied in Missouri, Rhode Island and Utah. Parent education was assessed in Arizona, Colorado and New Jersey. Supervised visitation was looked at in California, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The primary findings for the 970 cases studied are as follows:
Let’s review this report here. Out of, in their own words “54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands)” only 9 (literally, only 1 in 6 states) were studied, and only 970 cases total. That’s approximately how many per state, and now we have math lesson #1 about this department: DEMONSTRATION SAMPLE — hardly any. APPLICATION FROM DEMONSTRATION (or even EVALUATION) SAMPLE — to the rest of the country. This study was in 2007 (10 years after program started).
- Child support payments increased from 53 percent to 93 percent by service in the 12 months following service provision. {{DOES THIS INCLUDE THE SUPPORT ORDERS HAVING BEEN MODIFIED DOWNWARDS, WHICH IS ALMOST INVARIABLY THE RESULT OF SUCH PROCESSES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THEM, TOO}}
- Child support compliance rose by 20 percent to 79 percent for unwed cases; but did not increase for divorce cases.
(I’M A DIVORCE CASE, AND THE REDUCED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS WAS BASICALLY TREATED AS A JOKE AFTER THIS PROCESS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GIVE A PERSON WHO ISN’T IN COMPLIANCE AN INCH, AND THE DOOR THEN OPENS WIDE TO NO COMPLIANCE. THIS IS WHY THROUGHOUT THE SEPARATION, I WAS TRYING TO STABILIZE ADN INSIST ON COMPLIANCE, AND AT EVERY TURN, I WAS DISCOURAGED FROM THIS, AND EXHORTED TO GIVE. FINALLY, I HAD TO “GIVE” MY CHILDREN. WELL, NOT FINALLY, ALSO A LOT MORE, INCLUDING THE SENSE THAT ANY COURT ORDER HAS ANY VALIDITY OR FORCE. THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF JIMMYING THE COURT PROCESS FOR A DESIRED OUTCOME, I BELIEVE.}}
- The level of child contact by the noncustodial parent rose from 32 percent to 45 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision. (HOW ABOUT 13-15 MONTHS?)
- The behavior of the youngest child as reported by the custodial parent improved by 26 percent to 41 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.
WAS THIS ABOUT WORK OPPORTUNITY OR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (REFERRING TO ADULTS!), OR ABOUT GRADING CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR? LET ME RE-READ THE LEGISLATION. ALSO, I KIND OF WONDER ABOUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF WHO IS MEASURING KIDS’ BEHAVIORAL PERCENTAGES, AND ACCORDING TO WHAT, AND SUPPOSE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT EXAGGERATED? GOOD GRIEF! “MY KID WAS 10% BETTER, THE OCSE SHOULD KNOW….”
- Twenty-five percent of both parents reported an improved relationship in the 12 months after service provision. The rate was the same for all service types.
Another way of stating this is that “75% of parents reported it didn’t make a damn bit of difference as to their relationship, high-conflict, violent, or casually friendly.
- Seventy percent of parents who mediated a visitation/custody agreement reached agreement.
If some of these cases were anything like mine, a good deal of threat was involved in the process. For example, when my kids went missing, I wasn’t about to be allowed in front of a judge unless I went through the gatekeeper, the mediator. I requested another one, but no one available for over month. So what would you do? Let the kids stay MIA or try to get it to court? That’s called extortion! it’s not a real choice!
- Nearly all of the parents who received parent education were satisfied by the education.
(or so they said, supposedly).
- Ninety percent of parents who participated in supervised visitation characterized this service as a safe place to conduct visits.
Applying the findings in this study should help states design, fund and measure better programs. For additional copies of this report, please contact OCSE’s National Reference Center at 202-401-9383 or OCSENationalReferenceCenter@acf.hhs.gov
Sincerely,
Margot Bean
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement
| State/Jurisdiction | Federal Allocation | State Match | Total Funding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $142,379 | $15,819.89 | $158,199 |
| Alaska | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Arizona | $169,198 | $18,799.78 | $187,998 |
| Arkansas | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| California | $957,600 | $106,400 | $1,064,000 |
| Colorado | $125,800 | $13,977.78 | $139,778 |
| Connecticut | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Delaware | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| District of Columbia | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Florida | $497,059 | $55,228.78 | $552,288 |
| Georgia | $295,222 | $32,802.44 | $328,024 |
| Guam | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Hawaii | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Idaho | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Illinois | $344,357 | $38,261.89 | $382,619 |
| Indiana | $191,496 | $21,277.33 | $212,773 |
| Iowa | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Kansas | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Kentucky | $122,440 | $13,604.44 | $136,044 |
| Louisiana | $139,592 | $15,510.22 | $155,102 |
| Maine | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Maryland | $166,481 | $18,497.89 | $184,979 |
| Massachusetts | $161,374 | $17,930.44 | $179,304 |
| Michigan | $292,451 | $32,494.56 | $324,946 |
| Minnesota | $133,277 | $14,808.56 | $148,086 |
| Mississippi | $109,483 | $12,164.78 | $121,648 |
| Missouri | $171,561 | $19,062.33 | $190,623 |
| Montana | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Nebraska | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Nevada | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New Hampshire | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New Jersey | $217,801 | $24,200 | $242,001 |
| New Mexico | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New York | $549,720 | $61,080 | $610,800 |
| North Carolina | $271,792 | $30,199.11 | $301,991 |
| North Dakota | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Ohio | $349,127 | $38,791.89 | $387,919 |
| Oklahoma | $108,016 | $12,001.78 | $120,018 |
| Oregon | $100,213 | $11,134.78 | $111,348 |
| Pennsylvania | $327,030 | $36,336.67 | $363,367 |
| Puerto Rico | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Rhode Island | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| South Carolina | $142,115 | $15,790.56 | $157,906 |
| South Dakota | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Tennessee | $188,867 | $20,985.22 | $209,852 |
| Texas | $687,405 | $76,378.33 | $763,783 |
| Utah | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Vermont | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Virgin Islands | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Virginia | $207,722 | $23,080.22 | $230,802 |
| Washington | $175,056 | $19,450.67 | $194,507 |
| West Virginia | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Wisconsin | $155,366 | $17,262.89 | $172,629 |
| Wyoming | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Total | $10,000,000 | $1,111,108.34 | $11,111,108 |
|
Number of rows returned: 54
NOW, the THEORY behind “access visitation” includes the concept that doing this will help the deadbeat NCP (Noncustodial parent) to be more warmly inclined, or able, or less discouraged, or have incentive, to pay up. This is why it’s related also to welfare reduction. So, basically, it’s a project about reducing outstanding deficits, and is of course administered by the OCSE. So we should presume that its purpose is somewhat related to the OCSE, which is child support collection. SO, at $10/million/year for (so far about 12) years, is this enough? NO, there is still more unexplored territory when it comes to Child SUpport Demonstration projects. Even after they reported on a whole 970 cases nationwide in 2007. I just looked under a different code (see chart) and here are the new explorers: WELL, the first one below, Center for Policy Research isn’t exactly new, in fact Jessica Pearson is behind a whole lot more in these matters, and in the family law field, than meets the average eye. (See website). She most definitely qualifies as a heavyweight, along with her (and six other’s) “Center for Policy Research” and an apparently? related “Policy-Studies.com which (I have to double-check, but it’s already posted recently) got a whopping $4 million (one year) recently for abstinence education too. Coincidentally, both organizations out of Denver. When you click on the site, it reads (on the URL address frame, at least on my computer): “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”
POINT BEING, if we already have all these other Child Support, Child Welfare, and other special demo projects going on, why all the extra, extra funds for Access Visitation?
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Policy-Studies-Inc-Reviews-E22614.htm (Funny review from two employees: “Its not just a job, its only a job!” Pros A stable paycheck and the coworkers are usually pleasant. A great place for people looking for just a job and who don’t want to work too hard. Cons Some of the technical folks seemed hesitant to make changes or use newer technologies. Bureaucracy was rampant and individuals could not make changes or improvements. Communication was completely lacking, and senior management would decide what they though was best rather than listen to the folks who were doing the job. Advice to Senior Management Be more open to the experience of the people in the remote offices. Discuss ideas before making broad policy and business practice changes.
“Proceed with caution” Pros Work with human services agencies, the people at the project level are usually very talented Cons Sr. Management has driven off key staff, few opportunities for advancement, poor communication about important events, high spend on initiatives that are risky Advice to Senior Management Get back to the basics of what made PSI successful.
Search on “Center Policy Research” (modest results, really). |
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | City | State | Award Title | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 50,000 |
| 2008 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 124,829 |
| 2008 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 99,908 |
| 2007 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 124,820 |
| 2006 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 24,730 |
| 2006 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 198,664 |
| 2005 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 100,000 |
| 2004 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DR JESSICA PEARSON | $ 99,926 |
| 1996 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | SYRACUSE | NY | HOW POOR HEALTH INFLUENCES WORK AND RETIREMENT | Aging Research | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | DWYER, DEBRA S | $ 35,910 |
And here, FY 2000-2009, is a cute little chart showing the top 10 states for receiving these Access/Visitation grants from USASPENDING.GOV. IN 2002, apparently someone was very enthusiastic or reported differently, whereas in 2006, the data (or its reporting) took a nosedive. However, it’s at least a resource for CFDA 93597, “Grants to States (again, to designated agency in each state, and then distributed locally to get the PROGRAM GOAL OF MORE TIME FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS WITH THEIR KIDS.”
SHARE THIS POST on...
911 + 1 + a bit about boxes from a woman who spent years in one.
My situation continues to unfold at its own rate.
unrelated to anything appropriate for honoring 911. I have been thinking about the times I called 911 and didn’t get help, or of the times the police RACED to the scene of an incident and did everything right, but still were unable to save. Or when they (as so many did on this 9/11/01) were there and gave their lives to help as many as possible escape the two huge boxes called the World Trade Towers.
As this blog is on family court matters, I still think the theme of boxes is appropriate, and particularly in regards situations of a child-stealing, kidnapping, or such. To be stuck in a relationship is one thing, to lose one’s kids is totally another.
The first article tells some more aspects of the Dugard case, but the second one, so well written I thought, is in the voice of Colleen who was kidnapped, stored in a box, renamed, tortured (etc.) She is alive, she escaped, has had help and healing and looks, today, beautiful from what I can see. (this photo is not most current — see end of post). Thank God. (Luke 4).
Colleen (NOT Jaycee or her daughters), shortly post-escape. Her escape was not from a 911 call, but when one of her captors opened a mental bar, revealed that one of the threats against her leaving was in fact a lie. She then got on a bus and went home. An amazing story.
FIRST story is about recent rescue, SECOND story (far, far below….) is about what this woman, Colleen, has to say to Jaycee Dugard, about recovery, and to the rest of us, about the types of prisons that keep kidnapped women in place. I believe much of this information is transferable to other situations.
Fasten your seat belts, this one has some unexpected twists and turns. . . . and little stylistic consistency (readers have been warned already) as I quoted within quotes, and pasted from WOrd perfect, dragged article information from the web, and added my commentary and tried to piece at least the more recent case together from the Web.
Police: Kidnap suspect fathered victim’s kids
Demian Bulwa, Jaxon Van Derbeken, Henry K. Lee,Kevin Fagan, Chronicle Staff Writers
Friday, August 28, 2009
(08-27) 19:56 PDT ANTIOCH —
Phillip Craig Garrido was already known as an oddball who said he could channel the voice of God through a makeshift box, but on Thursday, the eccentricity took on an aura of horror.
Eighteen years ago, authorities said, he kidnapped 11–year–old Jaycee Lee Dugard on her way to catch a school bus in South Lake Tahoe. Ever since then, they said, he kept her prisoner in a squalid backyard compound near Antioch, raping her and fathering two daughters by her – the elder of whom is now 15.
Those girls also were housed in sheds and other outbuildings in the backyard, which had been walled off so it couldn‘t easily be seen by neighbors or other outsiders, authorities said.
One of the sheds where Dugard and the girls were living could only be opened from the outside, Kollar said, and rudimentary toilets and electrical hookups were set up nearby.
“None of the children have ever been to school; they‘ve never been to a doctor,” the undersheriff said at a press conference in Placerville. “They were kept in complete isolation in this compound.”
Neighbors‘ suspicions
Neighbors in the unincorporated, semi–rural area outside Antioch where the Garridos live say they always thought he was bizarre, and even suspected something fishy was going on with the girls he called his daughters – but they thought authorities were keeping tabs on it all.
So much for THAT line of thinking. Compartmentalization, delegation of authorities to the authorities so the rest of us don’t have to really get to know our neighbors, watch out for them, hold them to a standard so much, and can focus on our own business. Protection and monitoring is not our job, it’s someone else’s.
Phillip Garrido is a registered sex offender, and authorities inspected his house several times over the years but never discovered the backyard compound.
The neighbors and other acquaintances said Garrido conducted religious revivals in a tent, claimed to hear the voices of angels and God, and said he had developed a device through which he could control sound with his mind. He propounded this all in a business he called “God‘s Desire.“
Apparently he himself wasn’t confined to a box.
In a telephone interview from jail with Sacramento TV station KCRA, Garrido said, “In the end, this is going to be a powerful, heartwarming story.”
Again, HOW heartwarming depends on whether one’s perspective is from outside, or inside the box. And whose voice we are hearing.
One article says that the first phone call a prisoner normally makes is for the attorney, but this man called the TV station instead.
Suspect did time
Officials said Garrido served time in Nevada on kidnapping and rape convictions in the 1970s, ‘80s and ‘90s and was paroled after one stint in 1988 and another in June 1999. It was not immediately clear where Dugard may have been while Garrido was in custody.
One of the rapes he was caught at, that sent him to prison, took place in a storage unit. This man seems to be an expert at boxes, and putting women in them.
It appears that after Garrido was “BOXED” up for this, he was sprung though, after marrying Nancy Garrido while incarcerated. Nancy was appropriate — she had a religious background (Jehovah’s Witness) and an uncle in the box as well, apparently. Kidnappers and rapers need love, too, right?
Neighbors of the Garridos on Walnut Avenue – and even some of his own family – considered Phillip Garrido strange as he proselytized to them about his messages from God and kept the females at his house from contact with outsiders.
The House Box.
Erika Pratt, 25, who stayed next door two years ago, said she was continuously “freaked out” by Garrido‘s behavior and that when she popped her head over the fence she saw his secret compound. There were tents, sheds and pit bulls, she said, and water hoses leading from her house next door.
‘They never talked‘
“He had little girls and women living in that backyard, and they all looked kind of the same,” Pratt said. “They never talked, and they kept to themselves.”
Pratt said people came and went from the property, but the core group consisted of two girls about 4 years old, one girl about 11, another girl about 15 and a young woman about 25. They were all blond, she said.
Pratt said she had called Contra Costa County sheriff‘s deputies to investigate, but that officers “told me they couldn‘t go inside because they didn‘t have a warrant. So they just told him they‘d keep an eye on him.”
So like a well-trained citizen — or, like a woman who didn’t want to offend a freaky neighbor with pit bulls — she dropped it there. Leave it to the county sheriffs.
My message to any future 23-years old, especially women, who see things like this going on with their neighbors — it’s OK to seek information; please care enough to follow up beyond the Sheriff’s Office and/or WITH the Sheriff’s Office if you see anything like this, or which sets of an internal alarm. Keep seeking until some answer is found.
I would LOVE to see any records or hear any tapes of those calls. Let’s all start keeping recording devices handy and, if calling the police, inform them that we, too, are recording our calls.
You can’t just go barging in on someone’s boxes without a warrant.
Police said Thursday that the only people living in the yard when the Garridos were arrested were Dugard and her daughters.
Has anyone on-line followed up on who those about-4 year old girls were, and what year it was that Ms. Pratt saw them? Mr. Bulwa, Vanderbeken, Lee, or Fagan, who wrote this article? Who is this Erika Pratt, she seems observant where others weren’t?
. Time’s Person of the Week on 7/26/02? Of Wikipedia fame, an African-American 7 year old who, kidnapped from Philadelphia — in an attempt to extort money from her grandmother, on the belief that she’d received life insurance from the shooting of an uncle:
No, that Erica is now only 14 years old.
The story: Erica was held for one long night and day in the basement of an empty house, her hands and feet bound with duct tape. She chewed through the tape, kicked open a basement door and made her way to a window where she screamed until someone heard her and came to her rescue. The little girl was plucky, but also lucky. The motive for the kidnapping was not sexual but financial; her abductors asked for a $150,000 ransom, perhaps believing a false neighborhood rumor that Erica’s family had received that sum as a life insurance payment after her uncle was shot and killed last month. Police Thursday arrested James Burns and Edward Johnson in connection with the kidnapping.
EXTORTION OF ELDERS IS ANOTHER ‘CLUE’ AND WAS A PREDECESSOR IN THE GARRIDO CASE AS WELL.
THIS ADVICE STILL APPLIES, and is why I also suggest Mace & Self-defense classes, not Restraining Order Suggestions after Domestic Violence, which externalizes the source of safety and in practice, really consists of “hope-mongering,” at some level…
For parents wondering if it’s safe to let their kids even leave the living room without supervision, the most reassuring part of Erica’s story is that, faced with a situation in which many adults would panic, she kept her head and saved herself. In the end, maybe the best defense you can give your kids is not a blind fear of strangers but rather instilling self-assurance and presence of mind. “I have 21 years in the Police Department,” said Philadelphia Police Inspector William Colarulo, “and I have never seen this kind of heroic act of bravery committed by a 7-year-old.” Neither have we.
re: “911” —
This other Erika Pratt was taken from Southwestern Phillie, and it’s a moot point whether, had she had a cell phone, 911 would’ve stopped the event. Once you’re gone, most kidnappers are smart enough to cut off telephone and other contacts from the outside, so when being taken hostage in ANY manner, the key is to respond like this inner-city African American young girl, whose uncle had already died (or so rumor had it) in the streets, to fight Hard, til free, and RIGHT AWAY. She hadn’t been indoctrinated into passivity yet, I guess. Do we REALLY want to breed out “rebel” from society? ??
This Erika is the ex-girlfriend of Garrido neighbor Damon Robinson, per this article:
The house is in a ramshackle neighborhood of modest single-family homes in an unincorporated area of Antioch hit by the foreclosure crisis and job losses.
Garrido’s next door neighbor Damon Robinson was interviewed several times by the AP, Los Angeles Times and other media. During those conversations, he revealed his ex-girlfriend, Erika Pratt, had called police in 2006 to report Garrido had children living in tents in his backyard.
While Robinson was being interviewed by the AP and others, three members of a British media group walked onto his property without his permission.
When Robinson asked what they were doing, a British reporter told Robinson his deadline was coming quickly and offered him $2,000 if he would quit talking to everyone else and provide them an exclusive showing of his backyard.
The reporter flashed $100 as an apparent sign of good faith. Robinson, who acknowledged that another British outlet had also paid him, agreed. Robinson, who is unemployed, did not disclose what outlets paid him and it was not clear from the interaction.
Robinson led the crew deep into his backyard, where a hole in his fence provided a glimpse of the shambled compound next door.
Robinson said he would use the money for his two children and might also give some to Dugard’s daughters.
If this story, also from neighbor Mike Rogers, holds water, perhaps Erika Pratt was right to get her behind OUT of there. Perhaps (?) this also may relate to why CC Sherriffs were not so aggressive in follow-up? Or if Ms. Pratt was, like at least two of the Erika Pratt’s I saw on-line, African-American, this may be why her reports didn’t hold weight? Or was it her gender?
(ROGERS) The Antioch builder told theDaily Mail that Garrido made crystal meth using household utensils and frequently invited “perverts” to his home to regale in drugs, sex and drinking. Rogers went so far as to call the Garrido home a brothel.
He said he discussed the matter with his brother, Dean, who also lives in the neighborhood. Rogers said they agreed not to contact police explaining, “People don’t even waive to each other or say hello here. You just pay no attention to what is going on with other people. That way, you don’t get shot.”
He now agonizes (in public) over that decision and worries that Garrido may have been pimping out Jaycee and her young daughters to strangers. “I hope to God not,” said Dean Rogers.
(**Mr. Dean Rogers is also re-filing this information (at least acc. to report) in HIS brain as to agonizing, whereas earlier, acc. to the Rogers brother Mike, not getting shot for ratting to the police was the priority, and hence pimping out someone NOT a kidnap victim or one’s own daughters, alternatively, MIGHT be OK….)
‘A blank stare‘
Haydee Perry, 35, who lives next door, said that when Phillip Garrido helped her jump–start her car a month ago, he had a young girl clinging to him in a manner that struck her as strange.
“She stayed close to him at all times,” Perry said. “It wasn‘t normal behavior. She had a blank stare on her face. ***Now it seems like a cry out for help.”
i.e., according to Ms. Perry (age 35 now) the fact was first filed in a box in her mind (face it, we all have these, or we couldn’t function in life. WE would have to become not just ill-literate, but basically a wordless society. One of the first things “Adam” is credited with doing in the Bible is naming all the animals. Then here comes a woman, and he named her, too, “Eve.” The process of calling women names has continued to this day; it’s part of how one masters any situation, is by naming it.
A fascinating book on humans vs. animals, and how they interpret situations, is called “Animals in Translation.” Humans specialize in interpreting situations, animals that are other animal’s food are more prone to notice more detail and interpret less. The author, who is/was autistic, tries to describe her differences between these two extremes from the perspective of autism.
This book helped me become more aware of how people who had not undergone a battering relationships of many years, or post-traumatic-stress-“disorder” (actually a pretty normal response to life-threatening situations, it’s only “disorder” once the life-threatening aspects are out of the picture and there has been time to heal and deal….) just didn’t notice fluctuations in patterns of behavior, or things that others might. What they notice, and then wish action to be taken on (OR, wish to themselves take action on) then becomes a point of conflict with self-appointed experts on the situation, sometimes with lethal consequences. So understanding this becomes vitally important when a person leaving the abuse is forced to continually interact and negotiate with former abusers, or people who colluded with or enabled it.
The public MUST balance its desire to deny that abuse — or women in boxes, or kidnappers who start another generation of captives and get away with this in suburban California — or their neighbor/friend/business supplier, or someone in their religious organization — might be in another context, an insane sadist and unbelievable criminal, with women helping in the process, or participating. No matter how many “out there” headlines are read, I’d say that generally speaking, public behavior as a whole is not going to change radically. Why? It would — and face it, it really would — disrupt the economy severely, if citizens took policing or child protection into their own hands. Women have been thrown in jail for doing this when the abuser was related to the children; they overstepped their authority when it came to sticking up for their kids’ right not to be traumatized, and their own, through that. THAT is one of the most closely-sealed boxes in the family court arena, although certain groups are starting to pry some of it open in some counties, with some (although how much is yet unclear) result.
How I myself got out of a battering relationship involved calling it what it was, also. Without the vocabulary, including legal vocabulary, I believe, I’d still be in there, or in a box several feet under. Naming and filing is a VITAL human activity; and it’s important to put what we observe OUTSIDE us in a proper place in the thinking INSIDE.
This is important as a community also. What Ms. Perry >then< saw as “strange” and filed it away, she >now< has refiled under as a “cry for help.”
In another scenario, and the one which led to the girls and Jaycee being freed, Officer Allison Jacobs, another woman, recounted that one of Jaycee’s daughters blue eyes seemed to be trying to burn a hole in her. (See my post on police initution~mother’s instinct, or that article for quote). Both women in two situations noticed the girls’ eyes.. . . . GUYS — do men do this?
This whole process, in the press, may be also seen as an attempt to help the public also “file” this whole incident in its communal (?) databank for future reference (as well as a surefire way to increase readership/ratings).
I think that book and topic deserves another post, and will leave it for now.
(QUOTING NEWS ARTICLE, CONT’D.) A Web site containing statements from Garrido and others called “Voices Revealed” talks about a turnaround that allowed him “to open doors that will honor the creator and his eternal purpose for mankind.”
A PANDORA’s BOX, Oh No!
In which Let’s Get Honest laments that she has herein just opened the PANDORA’S BOX of what GARRIDO WAS SAYING BEFORE ARREST, WHERE HE GOT THOSE IDEAS FROM, and SOME OF HIS BUSINESS ASSOCIATES. On the other hand, I’m a mother who lost my daughters — to the courts, and their father — on an overnight visitation. Many things already make no sense to those who think that police police, judges judge, and laws are, well, upheld, who wonders why public indignation just takes a hike when a husband & wife are involved, even YEARS AFTER THEY SEPARATED!
LET’S GET HONEST COMMENTARY: There are times (added to post 09-13-09) I truly wish I weren’t as curious as I am. I just “HAD” to go and open another “Pandora’s Box,” in other words, I wanted to know what the heck “Voices Revealed” was.
I know that PART of my curiosity stems from simply wanting to find out WHY in this culture it took so many years for my local communities to “wake up” (if they ever did) to the fact that a husband was assaulting his wife in the home, and only ONE of them, a family violence law center, actually took action to legally put a stop to it. I was functioning as well as most people could as a mother, worker, and amazingly, teacher & musician and quite a bit more of professional involvements, without the tools MANY people can take for granted, for example, any possibility that I would have legitimate control over how the income earned was used, or my own access to bank, transportation, credit, and free association with people in my profession, without either sabotage or punishment for doing so. . . . . . . . So afterwards, what seemed REAL simple to me – — the fact we needed a LITTLE help didn’t mean that we needed to be placed in the back seat of life, permanently, and moreover told where the car was going. WHen one is on the bottom, the clear place to go is UP. FAST!
The other part is probably innate. I don’t remember NOT being curious, or something of a girl, young woman, or older woman, who just wanted to know WHY, and noticed things. When I say “innate,” I am not the first individual in the family line to either be subject to or witness, or both, beatings of a Mom in the home, and who knows whether this habit came from that environment or not? And, at a certain point, who cares? The question is, what to do with it.
Anyhow, here is that “Voices Revealed” website, and one part of it that happens to make some SENSE (and has a “not affiliated” comment at the end, please note) goes as follows (quote is shown by the font & typestyle change).
I wouldn’t quote it if there weren’t a few important lessons to learn from it (I know I did), including pay attention, if you’re going to be gullible enough to actually read newspapers about headline stories (which, obviously, I am) to be curious enough to want to know what they were talking about. I guess one UPside of being involved in this system and periodic, sometimes long-term unemployment, along with the desire to STOp the periodic, and sometimes long-term unemployment that comes with domestic violence by exploring ways to stop it, most of which don’t work, is finding out how a lot of systems DO work. ANYHOW, Voices Revealed, quoting another “private educational group” in Washington, pastes on its site:
CULTURAL TRANCE
Is a condition that exists when large bodies of people have accepted something as truth.
In the days of Columbus everyone knew the earth was “flat.” Today everyone knows it is not possible to produce voices for others to hear as experience clearly marked it as not possible.
The reason I have taken the time to qualify my findings through the legal system is obvious.
When you hear of my findings you will be experiencing a “flat world concept”
Because everything we know is based on our past personal and educational experiences in life thus we have all been conditioned in a variety of ways that can build “blind spots.” It is a sensory locking out of the environment that builds a Scotoma to the truth about the world and ourselves because of our preconceived ideas.
This causes us to:
SEE what we EXPECT to SEE
HEAR what we EXPECT to HEAR
THINK what we EXPECT to THINK
The result is we often develop scotomas to the “TRUTH.”
This awareness is also about to be apply to an age old book
That will be reading in a powerfully unique way
It will allow us to hear what we
Have never heard before.
(Isaiah 6:9)
9He said, “Go and tell this people: `Be ever hearing, but never understanding;
be ever seeing, but never perceiving.’ N.I.V.
The preceding information in its basic form** is from a private educational corporation
(THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE, INC. Seattle, Washington)
And is not affiliated with this project in any capacity
Re; “in its basic form”** I looked. While I didn’t find this section (yet), I did see, below, The Pacific Institute’s fields of enterprise, and the phrase about the human mind as software which needs periodic “upgrading,”:
However, the basic knowledge of how the mind works is constant from individual to individual, continent to continent. “The hardware is pretty much the same; what we are dealing with is the human software – and that, my friends, can and should be upgraded on a regular basis.” says Tice.
If my mind is software, well, I’m constantly in a learning curve. What frightens me as much, if not more than, the middle-aged, white-boy Phillip Garridos of this world, with their religiously compliant women in tow, trying to prove that the mind can channel external voices of this world through boxes in public, and kidnapping, imprisoning, repeatedly raping (possibly also pimping) and fathering little girls in private — and believe me, this DOES frighten me, I have daughters, and their father that parentally abducted them is a middle-aged, religious white-boy also — is ANY aged ANY color people in positions of responsibility believing that human minds should be (note passive tense) “upgraded” in time.
Whenever you see passive tense in a sentence (“Minds . . . . should be upgraded”) and there is no “by whom” or adverbial “HOW” in the same sentence, be afraid. Be very afraid. Especially when it appears on the mission page of any company which does business with jails, educational institutions, and other agencies.
Upgraded By WHOM? There was a Dr. Who mightmare TV program about this very upgrade process. It’s the stuff of science fiction.
1709 Harbor Ave SW
Seattle, WA 98126-2073(Seattle-Bellevue-Everett, WA Metro Area)
(The Tall man on the left needs no introduction. The two on the right are the co-founders of this Pacific Institute, Inc., which Phillip Garrido’s site quotes, and which in many ways resembles at least two organizations RUNNING (and I do mean that) the court system nationwide, if not internationally. I am going to blog on these now for sure. One is Public Strategies, Inc. and another (similar) is “MCDRC” (I will look up proper initials in a bit here); their BUSINESS, and it is a very prosperous one, is outsourcing, evaluating, and reporting back on the many “demonstration” projects across a spectrum of government policy initiatives and arms, i.e., courts, child support, child abuse, law enforcement, jails (yes, jails), and helping low-income people (makes one wonder how some of us GOT to be low-income people, or why some communities and ethnicities, overall, tend to stay that way, with some escaping the cycle, and others not). These are where socialization takes place by one part of society upon the other parts of society not lucky (or in some senses, immoral?) enough to be engaged in these professions, until eventually society viewed from the perspective of, say, outside itself, might start to look from a few feet above (or below) like THIS:
THE PACIFIC INSTITUTE (AND NOW MY POST IS GETTING TOO LONG..)
Global Vision
From the beginning, The Pacific Institute’s co-founders, Lou and Diane Tice, have held to the vision that the education they assembled would be beneficial to people all over the world. Yes, cultural differences do exist. However, the basic knowledge of how the mind works is constant from individual to individual, continent to continent. “The hardware is pretty much the same; what we are dealing with is the human software – and that, my friends, can and should be upgraded on a regular basis.” says Tice. {{SEE MY COMMENT ABOVE}}
1980 marked the beginning of a rapid expansion of The Pacific Institute beyond North America.
Like the “fatherhood” movement, it wasn’t marketed or promoted, it just naturally “expanded.”
Today, the Institute’s varied curricula have been translated and adapted to serve organizations in Europe, Africa, Asia, Latin America and the South Pacific, as well as North America. It is an honor for The Pacific Institute to be able to serve {{to serve WHOM, exactly??}}
as an agent for positive transformation in the world.
{{Transforming, or upgrading the human mind’s software? Transformation can be good, or bad. It’s not always good! Who defines which way “positive” is, anyhow?}}
Our Mission
As we continue to expand our reach around the world, {{IS this Marketing, or Colonialism? I’m a little uncertain which..}} our mission {{which as yet remains undentified…}} continues as a standard of excellence:
{{It continues “AS” a standard? Spoken like a true educator, in other words, in vague, noble-sounding, garbled -grammar, proclamation style. . . Thanks for explaining HOW (although not in much detail, here) your mission serves its unidentified master (servant/master, right?), but what I’m really concerned about is what IS your “mission,” kindly The Pacific Institute, sir/ma’am?}}{{If your mission is being adopted, or at least interpreted “in its basic form,” by rapist kidnappers, I definitely want to know what it is.}}
“We affirm the right of all individuals to achieve their God-given potential. The application of our education (BY WHOM?? TO WHOM??) empowers people to recognize their ability to choose growth, personal freedom and personal excellence.
As opposed to, say, Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, which in the US at least, are (supposedly) considered unalienable rights, and the fact that ALL men are endowed with these rights is considered “self-evident,” along with several other “self-evident truths.” . . . . Suppose all individuals are not interested in “growth, personal freedom and personal excellence” but simply want to stay Alive, Free, and go for “happiness” instead? Do they get to NOT choose to change the Color of their Parachute? ???
(i.e., compare, Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, among which are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”)
We commit ourselves to providing this education, all over the world, through all means that are just and appropriate.”
Indeed, this institute, which began with a high school football coach and art teacher (Note: sports and arts are typically areas cut when budgets are tight) who just wanted to help — everybody, of course. Now, it preaches to the world, capturing also the imagination of men like Phillip Garrido. But its clients most definitely include government entitites, acc. to the website, under “social solutions.” {{I shudder!}}
Government entities, from federal agencies to local municipalities; law enforcement agencies and correctional institutions; and the full spectrum of social service agencies all benefit from the wide range of The Pacific Institute’s services.
With so many differing, and sometimes competing, agencies working from different angles – yet committed to helping those at the margins of society – it helps to be speaking the same language.
i.e., The language of the educators, of Mr. & Mrs. Tice and people who think that their purpose in life truly IS, teaching the rest of the world to think, and have forgotten “all the world’s a stage” and a good deal of great literature, and instead see all the world as one Big, Fat, Market Niche. LOOK, for “all the world’s a stage” there is the medium of the BLOG. When it comes to captive audiences, literally in many cases, I protest!
Law enforcement agencies successfully implementCommand, Control & Choice™ into their officer training academies, Thought Patterns for High Performance™ for staff and non-badged personnel, as well as Investment in Excellence®
New for 2008 is Discovering the Power in Me™, a program focused on the suddenly disabled – those individuals, their families and caregivers, whose lives have been affected by sudden, permanent injury. The Institute’s effective thinking skills education is targeted to move these individuals from recovery and rehabilitation to contribution and achievement.
I have studied several languages, and also “speak” the language of music, which is a language. I am not in favor of Esperanto or any other form of one-world government, and I think that George Orwell and Aldous Huxley made some good points in their works of fiction, which I wish were more fiction than, as it turns out, prophesy. A good deal of some versions of “prophecy” is simply observation of the obvious, and then speaking it aloud. I like hanging out with people that are not “just like me.” If I wanted someone “just like me,” what would we talk about? Where would the growth come from? What would life be about?
I do not think THIS is a good idea. The metaphor of the Tower of Babel is appropriate here.
Does this language include the “old” language of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and a sense of modesty about the capacities within human nature that need restraint when it comes to “ruling” one’s fellow man? I don’t think so. Rather, we would all soon be playing God, or at least working for or the client of a business that is.
SCOTOMA (from “Cultural Trance” excerpt, above), unraveled:
The word “scotoma” (new to me, too, eh?):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotoma
A scotoma (Greek for darkness; plural: “scotomas” or “scotomata“) is an area or island of loss or impairment of visual acuity surrounded by a field of normal or relatively well-preserved vision.
Every normal mammalian eye has a scotoma in its field of vision, usually termed its blind spot. This is a location with nophotoreceptors, where the retinal ganglion cell axons that comprise the optic nerve exit the retina. This location is called the optic disc. When both eyes are open, visual signals that are absent in the blind spot of one eye are provided from the opposite visual cortex for the other eye, even when the other eye is closed. The absence of visual imagery from the blindspot does not intrude intoconsciousness with one eye closed, because the corresponding visual field locations of the optic discs in the two eyes differ.The term scotoma is also used metaphorically in psychology to refer to an individual’s inability to perceive personality traits in themselves that are obvious to others.
Translation, that he has special and remarkable powers….
(per:
My Blogs |
Team Members |
| Charging the angels with error. | |
|---|---|
| The Truth Will Set You Free | |
| Voices Revealed | |
| Exposed | |
| Voices Revealed
|
JEREMIAH 9:24 “But let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight,” 2 CORINTHIANS12:1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know–God knows. 3And I know that this man–whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows– 4was caught up to paradise. He heard inexpressible things, things that man is not permitted to tell. 5I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.
young females boxed in there, by fear, locks, trauma, rapes and lies, if the alleged charges are an indicator.
It may be that between the activity there, and if the “meth” and drunken parties neighbors allege took place, the MEN in the situation may have indeed had some “out of body” experiences, while (well, I won’t be crude here, but a turn of phrase comes to mind). And yes, Garrido DID have a weakness, apparently — for dominating young girls and having sex with them. See his compulsion to explain “the origins of schizophrenia” to the world, starting in Berkeley, below…(and on one of the blogs above). I wonder if the 330,000 visitors since 2007 relates (let’s hope) to the recent press in 2009…..And we’ll probably never know what “errors” he was going to charge the angels with.
April 4, 2006 12:20 PM PDT
MIT group develops ‘mind-reading’ device
By Candace Lombardi
Staff Writer, CNET NewsEl Kaliouby is developing the ESP device for her postdoctoral project as part of the Affective Computing research group at the MIT Media Lab under Rosalind Picard. Alea Teeters, also a member of the group and the ESP project, demonstrated the device.
The project stems from El Kaliouby’s doctoral work at the University of Cambridge, in which she developed the computational model on which the device is based. Like humans, the system determines emotional states by analyzing hierarchical combinations of subtle facial movements and gestures, such as eyebrow raising, lip pursing and head nodding.
The ESP consists of an OQO handheld, a tiny wearable video camera, an earphone and a small vibrating device that can be worn on a belt. The camera can be attached to a baseball hat, or worn around the neck on a stand akin to a harmonica holder. . . .
The ESP camera can be worn facing outward by the speaker, or as a self-cam by the listener. As conversation ensues, the device “mind-reads” for the wearer. When the listener, whom the camera is focused on, begins to exhibit signs of boredom, the speaker is signaled so that she can readjust her behavior to bring the listener back into the conversation.
The device is especially useful to those with Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC). people with ASC often lack the ability to evaluate others’ emotions on their own. The result is that high-functioning autistics, who might otherwise fair reasonably well in the world on their own, are hampered by a tendency toward misunderstanding and boring others.
Yes, “Boring others” (case in point!) is a social detriment, unless one is in government, or has taken hostages in some form or another, in which case it’s a moot point. Literally, “captive audiences” HAVE to take orders, including, to listen. Blog readers, on the other hand, can bore easily and simply click out of this triple-sized post….
The ESP device can prompt autistic people, who are prone to monologues or repetitive behavior, to ask questions, or give the listener a chance to participate in conversation. The hope is that with long-term use of the device as a self-teaching tool, ASC patients will eventually learn how to read for themselves the emotional responses in others.
According to Picard, the Affective Computing group has received human subject approval . . .
The ESP is exciting in that the technology has multiple possibilities in terms of use. (YES IT DOES. (shudder). Imagine it in the hands of a kidnapper, helping him detect the emotional state of his victim should she, say, be planning to escape! Then it seems to me, such people would already be adept at reading such things)
When one starts mixing MIT with religion, it gets a little hairy. . . . .
While I don’ t think that the concept of a “cultural trance” is anything too radical a concept, for example, to people in PR, marketing, or who has survived The Holocaust, or lived through a genocide, snake charmers, street preachers, drug users, self-improvement gurus, or for that matter, those who pay high prices to attend a concert (rock, opera, whatever). We all need some help to get through this life. In fact, this is also where the expressive arts begin, I believe, as far back as cave paintings on a wall in France. The expressive and performing arts are often associated with spirituality and/or religion, and serve a similar purpose.
The site also indicates that he gave a demonstration in Pittsburg last month with a homemade box to prove “the creator has given me the ability to speak in the tongue of angels in order to provide a wake–up call that will in time include the salvation of the entire world.”
Mary Thomas, accountant at J&M auto dismantlers in Pittsburg, near where Garrido set up his revival tent, said he “was always very professional and spoke the word of God whenever he talked.”
Reader alert: The use of the phrase “the word of God” indicates a belief in it. How many of you caught this? At the top of the article, it says neighbors (of whom Erika Pratt appears to be a sample) “proselytized to them about his messages from God.” The word “proselytized” indicates a non-belief in (whatever is being preached).
Note, the background of Nancy Garrido is Jehovah’s Witnesses, who go door to door and in public proselytizing, as part of their faith and (as I understand it), righteousness. Proselytizing is not illegal. Certain other activities, like boxing up women and repeatedly raping them, is. Not all people who proselytize rape and imprison women. Not all people who rape and imprison proselytize. What’s Joe Public and Jane I Dont Know Which Way is Up to think? . . . . .
I can’t answer that last statement for anyone else, but my point is simply to pay attention to language, and when things this horrible are at stake, and are reported afterwards, pay attention to who’s speaking. The woman who called him very professional may have been part of a similar religious belief system, so to her, Garrido was one of people of this mindset.
That said, incidentally, I”m of the “word of God” mindset, but I do not take it to criminal lengths and I tend to keep my internal radar in the ON position in general, and seek variety of input when in this arena. I don’t think I could ever join a “church” again.
Garrido had a printing business, making business cards for J&M and others in the area. Tiffany Tran, who runs Furniture Gallery in Brentwood, said she had seen and done business with “Phil the printer” for six years, as recently as last week.
We live in an interesting age, you can do business with people you basically don’t know very well. OR DID SHE?
Added 09-13-09 at 10a.m. “Oh dear.” (See below, where I actually looked up Garrido’s site, and posted from it. Ms. Tran, per this site, apparently signed a declaration about Mr. Garrido (better comprehended, if comprehension of such stuff is actually possible, by clicking on this link):
02/24/08, Tiffany Tran, born on 7-26-73, contacted in person at her place of business named Furniture Gallery, located at 50 Snad Creek Rd., Brentwood, CA 94513, phone #(925) 516-3554. Note- When I previously attempted two separate personal contacts there I spoke with her sister Stephanie Tran, showed herthe Declaration in question, and she said that she was present when her sister signed it. She also added that she too witnessed Mr. Garrido’s demonstration and had the same to say about it as her sister did in her Declaration.
Respectfully submitted,
Ralph A. Hernandez.This document is to affirm that I Phillip Garrido have clearly demonstrated the ability to control sound with my mind and have developed a device for others to witness this phenomena. by using a sound generator to provide the sound, and a headphone amplification system, ( a device to focuc your hearing so as to increase the sensitivity of what one is listening to) I have produced a set of voices by effectively controlling the sound to pronounce words through my own mental powers
FROM THE SITE “VOICESREVEALED.BLOGSPOT.COM”
Also from this site: Ms. Tran’s affidavit as to Mr. Garrido’s demonstration.
Affidavit
Dated 5/1/08Included in this package are six Declarations as Affirmations confirming several private demonstrations have taken place that allowed others to witness my freedom to speak in a tongue unknown to the medical field, scientific world and the public in general. The signatures that are located in the middle and at the bottom of each page are to confirm the statements of the entire document. Please note: many other people in the Greater Bay Area are also witnesses to this freedom generating a continued list of growth that in time will clearly become public knowledge.
In order to allow others the freedom to know and accept this ability does exist so they too may confirm it upon request a confidential investigation has been contracted with the following firm;
Aardvark Investigations & Consulting
Ralph A. Hernandez
(Retired career Peace Officer, 33+ years of Investigations experience)
Ralph A. Hernandez in not affiliated with this project in any other capacity
‘A little different‘
She recalled Garrido as being “a little different” and said he constantly talked about religion and showed her a device through which he claimed he could control sound with his mind.
Which appeared to have an odd set of boxes with in itself — one for rape, kidnapping, false imprisonment (felony crimes, which he obviously knew, having been in jail for them before), another for telling people about God; no apparent contradiction there. Detachment. Commiting crimes in one arena didn’t cause trouble, evidently, to the other. They were boxed up. Many people in the field of domestic violence talk about “crimes of passion” and recommend “anger management. My experience with (abuse) wasn’t that it was always a rage out of control thing. Far from this, many times it appeared to be calculated, to keep (me) within my mental/emotional/psychological “box” of behaviors and places and things that were either permitted or, off-limits, i.e., outside MY particular box. To keep one on edge, the limits often shifted, meaning, one was frequently on guard when engaging in something that MIGHT provoke, MIGHT be “off-limits” or so forth. This man not only controlled women, but also sound, including the voice of God.
In other words, detachment CAN be dangerous.
The concept of mental control is not THAT radical, I’ve seen a recent article from MIT on this, but you’ll have to look it up yourself..
“Some people have a story behind their smile, some don‘t – he did,” Tran said. “He was happy–go–lucky, but you knew there was a story behind it.”
Ms. Tran, if you are there, are you aware that your business card is pasted on this site as having given an affidavit as to Mr. Garrido’s special powers, and endorsed by Aardvark Private Investigations, above?
http://voicesrevealed.blogspot.com/2008/04/report-jan-20-2008.html
Attorney, University, & Law Enforcement Copy
This presentation contains six signed & notarized Declarations verifying there is new evidence concerning Schizophrenia that will affect the courts, the medical field and our institutions of higher learning worldwide.IN AUGUST OF 2008 AT U. C. BERKELEY’S FREE SPEECH PARK I PUBLICLY DISCLOSED NEW INFORMATION CONCERNING THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AND PROVIDED A LIVE DEMONSTRATION.
THE LECTURE WAS DESIGNED TO RAISE THE AWARENESS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC IN ORDER TO PREPARE A PLATFORM CAPABLE OF DISTRIBUTING A KNOWLEDGEABLE AWARENESS THAT WILL IN TIME PROVIDE A FOUNDATION POWERFUL ENOUGH TO UNDERMINE THE IGNORANCE THAT PREVAILS CONCERNING VOICES AND BEGIN SAVING LIVES
This indeed sounds like a kind of garbled version of something The Pacific Institute, Inc., whose own mission statement sounds as garbled and not too much less grandiose; Mr. Garrido’s just a little more upfront that he (or his truth) is the salvation of the world, forget about Jesus, although borrowing heavily from scriptures is of course helpful in the matter.
(I went to elementary school when they still diagrammed sentences, in earnest. Then I went through a violent marriage and now half my post sentences are incomplete, and the post has no style sheet either. But still . . . . . I pay attention to word “anomalies.” ).
The words “Voices Revealed” plus his attempts to prove sound can come out of nowhere reads like an attempt to show that what were thought by us “flat-earth, culturally entranced, unbelievers” to be craziness (schizophrenia) might just actually be possible. I think that MAYBE this was what he was obsessed with proving. Somewhere, he mentions a woman who threw 3 children into the SF Bay in this context of saving lives. I’m thinking, MAYBE, he was getting to the conclusion that actual voices (cf. “the box”) got her to do it. As opposed to, say, “the devil made me do it.” And the Secretary of State actually signed the articles of Incorporation for his organization.
What we deserve an answer for: Why was this dude released? and, why did they “drop” the comment that there were people in the back yard, when a sex offender was the person accused of this? They had no problem (once this all came to light) searching the Molino’s home in a different city, and confiscating some items:
Cheyvonne Molino, 35, who runs the JM Enterprises yard with her husband, Jim Molino, told the Contra Costa Times that 15 officers entered their Pleasant Hill home around 11 a.m. and searched through their personal belongings, seizing a Macintosh desktop computer as well as DVDs and VHS tapes.
“They just came in and violated our privacy,” Molino told the newspaper. “I don’t understand why we’re now the bad guys. I mean, they never asked to see if maybe we can help them instead of coming in on me and my tenants. What about my rights?”
Under the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement agencies are not required to obtain a search warrant when conducting a search of a person on probation.
>>SO, then this statement (above) to Erika Pratt was false?
Pratt said she had called Contra Costa County sheriff‘s deputies to investigate,
but that officers “told me they couldn‘t go insidebecause they didn‘t have a warrant.
So they just told him they‘d keep an eye on him.”
I mean, Garrido WAS on “probation” right? So they could’ve searched without a warrant, and I’m SURE they knew it.
Molino said that her husband Jim — who turned 60 on Wednesday — is on court probation, but that it is unrelated to the Garrido case. She told the Contra Costa Times they are “vicitms by association.”
Lee said the Molinos are not suspects.
The Molinos did printing business with Garrido, who sometimes visited their wrecking yard with the two daughters police say he fathered with Dugard.
MORAL: Always run criminal background checks on businesses you do business with. Then again, apparently JM auto wouldn’t have passed that, either.
Mr. Garrido wants to tell the world something about the origins of Schizophrenia. If there is truth to the charges against him, he would definitely qualify in that category. He is also quoted as being unable to get sexual satisfaction without dominating a woman (told to the arresting officer in about 1976), and I also note, an interview with, I believe a father or brother spoke of motorcycle accident with head injury (i.e., brain trauma) and experimentation with drugs in his (Phillip’s) youth, and that “transforming” him as well. Head injury can indeed do this.
So can going through a governmental institution serviced by groups concerned with upgrading the human software as part of a worldwide positive transformation of, well, everyone. Perhaps some of the gentlemen below could take a lookat some of the neighbors interviewed, or what’s up with Garrido & Garrido, Inc.. Again, “schizo-phrenia” refers to “split-thinking.”
I talk in this blog about “split personality court orders,” and they are this. One cannot take them always both seriously. The court says, a restraining order is just a piece of paper, make your own safey plan; then (or simultaneously) another arm of the courts says, but the children need frequent contact with their batterer parent no matter what, and parents shouldn’t have “high conflict” about this, or whatever takes place.
It also tells the custodial mothers, and clearly/repeatedly so, that visitation is not tied to child support, and no parent (especially mother) can literally withhold visitation because of unpaid child support. Then, through groups like Pacific Institute, above, here, and others I post about, and which are receiving federal grants to promote healthy marriages and responsible fatherhood, and through child support offices working with incarcerated fathers, etc., they bargain to reduce child support by getting a custody order modified. Who’s enriched? The organizations doing this, not the kids. . . . . That’s itself “schizo” (or, simply dishonest) so no wonder people after eyars in this system, or possibly in jails also, they come out totally wired and fired up to get even and prove a point, even if it means stuff like THIS, or worse. (Yes, when people are killed, that IS worse, although this is surely scraping the bottom of the barrel here).
I DIDN’T withhold visitation. MY KIDS WERE STOLEN, WHEN HE WAS THOUSANDS IN ARREARS! Then the child support arrears was retro-actively wiped out (leaving me childless AND penniless, and them without a source of child support from either parent — from him, because he owes me, and from me, because the back was broken economically in the process of custody switch). Another thing I can definitely say is, from afar, it appears that at least ONE is confused, quite understandably so, and this comes out as anger — towards the absent parent. When sense is lacking, because, being deprived of accurate information on the situation, it seems anger will do. What a waste of time, and talent.
So, Language is a key, and an indicator. I am a “bear” {which causes the forbidden “conflict” at times} about language when interacting, as I’m forced to, with people who cooperated in removing the restraining order (temporary respite) situation from me, and it really does matter, folks!
Perhaps later Jaycee may recover and tell us some of the truths of her experience, if she chooses to, and ONLY if she chooses to.
Chronicle staff writers Matthew Yi and Matthew B. Stannard contributed to this report. E-mail the writers at dbulwa@sfchronicle.com, jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com, hlee@sfchronicle.com and kfagan@sfchronicle.com
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/08/27/BA4N19EJ35.DTL#ixzz0QwwPOIS1
POSTED 9-12-09 (hence “911+1” ),
and really this was the original main point.
I simply had included the article on the Dugard case as part 1 of 2.
This woman explains how the mental limits can be just as strong and confining as the physical. Once a person is conditioned (first, usually by trauma, drama, threat, shock, as in kidnapping), then they can be made to believe that limits exist which are unreal. This is then easier for the kidnapper.
Colleen got out the moment someone told her that the ominpresent “Company” didn’t exist. Once she realized that fear was gone, she got on a bus and went home. however, while she believed it was still there, she was even able to visit home, and go back to horror.
I hope that this article will be read with appreciation and understanding by those who have NOT been abused, threatened, falsely imprisoned, or anything like it. Try to understand how things work. It may help you to help others, including to forgive captives for not getting free sooner, and help them when they do. It might also help you to listen to your instinct and find out HOW to act, the next time something looks “off” in a situation. Observation plus instinct. We live in a world when we’re taught to let others be our instinct and give us permission to listen or not listen, judge or not judge. These cases should help us overcome that where necessary. At the bottom are some photos of this woman, who is beautiful and poised now, and able to help others who have been through the situation.
September 2, 2009 6:30 AM
Exclusive: Woman Imprisoned in Coffin for 7 Years Has Special Message for Jaycee Dugard
Posted by Paul LaRosa
NEW YORK (CBS) Whenever I hear about a story like Jaycee Lee Dugard’s – kidnapped at age 11 and held captive for 18 years, bearing two children with her kidnapper – I inevitably think of Colleen Stan because if anyone knows what Jaycee went through and is about to go through, it’s Colleen.
Photos: The Search For Jaycee
Photos: Jaycee Lee Dugard Found Alive
Photos: Inside Jaycee’s Terror Tent
Colleen is not as well-known as Elizabeth Smart or Patty Hearst but, if anything, her story is even more incredible. Everyone wants to know why someone like Jaycee or Elizabeth or Patty, all of whom had some apparent freedom, did not flee their kidnappers. Well, Colleen can tell them why. Her story is horrible but instructive.
I met Colleen in 2003 when Elizabeth Smart was found alive, and I’ve never been able to stop thinking about her. Colleen was held by a husband and wife for seven years as a slave for sex and just about anything else the couple desired but here’s the kicker – for much of that time, she lived in a coffin-sized box underneath the couple’s bed!!
A book was written about Colleen by a prosecutor in the case and its title fittingly is “Perfect Victim.”
When I met Colleen, she seemed well-adjusted. She came to the interview with her daughter, a young woman, and then calmly but articulately spun out her incredible tale.
Colleen was a 20-year-old hitchhiker in 1977 when she was picked up by a young couple with a child in the back seat of their car. What could be safer, she thought? But the husband, Cameron Hooker, was a sexual sadist who took Colleen to the family’s isolated trailer and raped her. The abuse got worse and worse.
“He liked to whip me with whips,” she told CBS News. “He had electro-shocked me. He had burned me. He had done many things.”
Colleen explained that Hooker had warned her that, if she said a word about what was going on, his “men” would storm into the house and kill her parents and her and anyone inside the instant she opened her mouth.
“Because of the threats that people would come right in the house and people would be hurt,” she told Van Sant.
“And you believed him?”
“Yes, I did.”
Hooker’s control over Colleen was that complete. She went back to the box, and it was only because of Hooker’s wife that she was eventually rescued. Hooker’s wife went to the authorities at the behest of her minister. Hooker was eventually tried and sentenced to life in prison. His wife was never prosecuted under the theory that she too was abused and scared to death of her husband.
Sounds like that might have been understandable.
Photos: The Search For Jaycee
Photos: Jaycee Lee Dugard Found Alive
Photos: Inside Jaycee’s Terror Tent
Colleen recovered after years of therapy. She is now an office manager in Northern California. I caught up with her Monday and asked her about Jaycee Dugard. Colleen said she’d been trying with no luck to get in touch with Jaycee’s mother, and had met her mother on a talk show some years ago.
Colleen was of course concerned about Jaycee’s state of mind. “I read that she felt guilty but she should not feel that way,” Collen said. “You can’t be with someone 18 years and not have an attachment. I hope I get the opportunity to talk to her and tell her she did nothing wrong. She did everything right. She’s alive.
“I want to work with these women (Jaycee, her mother and her daughters) and help them readjust,” Colleen said. “It is not easy. After being away from the world for 7 1/2 years and all of a sudden you’re thrown back in the world and it’s hard, very overwhelming. My heart just goes out to these women who come out of these situations. It’s hard to adjust to your family situation.”
Hooker renamed Colleen “K” and constructed a coffin-sized box with holes in it and instructed her to climb in. He then shoved the box under the couple’s bed every night and kept her as his slave for the next 7 years.
Colleen felt she had no control of anything. She said he told her, “I’m in control and Colleen no longer exists. You are now K. You are my slave.”
Hooker wrote up a contract for Colleen that “basically said that he owned me body and soul.”
At one point, Hooker handed Colleen a gun. “I didn’t know if it was loaded or not and he told me ‘this is to see if you’ll do what I say,’ and he told me to put the gun in my mouth and pull the trigger, and I did,” she said.
Everything about this story is shocking and you might think that Colleen would do anything in her power to escape, and that is where her story intersects with Jaycee’s because people who are totally under someone else’s control – even given the opportunity to escape – do not. The brainwashing is complete. We as free individuals cannot understand it because we’ve never been in their situation.
Some 3 1/2 years into Colleen’s captivity – living in a box, being raped repeatedly – her abductor Cameron Hooker took her home for a visit with her family and left them with her overnight. She never said a word about what was going on with Hooker, and in fact went back with him the next day to live in the box again for another 3 ½ years.
CBS News Correspondent Peter Van Sant was incredulous: “Why then didn’t you tell them ‘I’ve been kidnapped, tortured?’ Why didn’t you pick up the phone and call the police and say, ‘Get here immediately. I need your help, I need your protection?’”
{{I have been many years outside the battering relationship I was in formerly. I still get, from people that did nothing to intervene, and probably to make themselves feel better, and more innocent for not helping, blaming for not leaving earlier. It is minimized, and I am supposedly “over it” even when many aspects of the abuse, in this case (no one ever went to prison in my case, unfortunately, I say) were continuing. I try to understand their point of view, but the converse is not always true. Victim-blaming is actually a self-solacing activity.
I used to try to become “normal” again and to a degree this is desirable. But there is no “past” to go back to before which one has undergone certain things. The brain also begins to work somewhat differently at times, which is biologically normal; for example, if PTSD comes up, that can be difficult, and is disheartening, but there are things I am going to notice, and possibly respond to, that people who have not been mugged (by an intimate), stalked, or repeatedly traumatized, etc., might not. When we are then discussing a similar situation, for example, something may be characterized as “over-reacting” but for that person, it isn’t. . . . There are some pros and cons to aspects of how one is changed by certain experiences. At times, I have learned to “translate” or try and understand why people may not “understand.” Would it be ideally normal to go totally back to normal for Colleen and Jaycee, if that were possible?
Maybe not — for one, while “normal” both of them were kidnapped. I imagine they are a little more cautious, as are their friends and relatives, than before. }}
What most shocked Colleen when she came out of captivity was something you might not expect. She was surprised at how ungrateful everyone was. “I was shocked,” she said. “People had nice jobs and houses and had plenty but they seemed so unhappy. They wanted more. I was coming out of a situation where I had nothing, and being exposed to these people who had so much and were unappreciative of it and complaining, I thought ‘My God why don’t they see how blessed they are?’
“It was overwhelming at first that people don’t take advantage of what they have. All I came home with were the clothes on my back. I had nothing. I was blessed with family and friends.
She received therapy from Doctor Christopher Hatcher from San Francisco, who has since died. Colleen considers him her savior. “He helped me to understand that I didn’t do anything wrong. I did everything right. People will ask you why you didn’t do this or that and they don’t know. They were not in that situation.
“I had a lot of support from my family but they didn’t know what to tell me so Dr. Hatcher helped me understand that people in this situation switch to survival mode. You have to do what you have to do and say to get through this situation and you shut down your emotions. I had to learn how to turn those emotions back on.
{{That’s beautifully said, and it’s true, too. As we run through life and notice people whose emotions ARE shut down, it might be something to also keep in mind. Perhaps there’s a reason they are. Anecdotal: Initially (and also at other times), when I would protest a form of abuse, there would be a punishment, to dominate, retaliate and establish that protesting abuse was UNacceptable. There were other times (this is talking DV in a marital situation) when I purposely stayed calm, flat-faced, did not react, or express what I think. My “me” went into hiding, for safety. Then I was criticized for being emotionless. When I say “Criticized” that means, namecalling, etc., some of it pretty nasty. I guess he needed someone reactive in there to get a feeling of power from the abuse.
There is a term for this (I think more re: childhood abuse) called “DID” — Dissociating, and literature around it. It’s a survival thing. I did not go through anything close to what this woman did — but she survived, and looks wonderful now and is able to speak out to someone else and help (see photos, below).
One book (person’s story) I read (reading other’s stories at one point — this is AFTER leaving the in-house abuse situation — seemed to gave me hope), she describes and attack and said, “immediately my mind split in two.” I remember this from one of the first most severe ones. The attack was happening, and part of my brain was compareing the two: “THIS — husband — THIS — husband” and trying to connect the two concepts. They didn’t connect. (I’d already hauled back in for trying to to out the front door and wrestled to the ground, pregnant, was being sat on and slapped across the face. It all happened very fast. I remember so much of it, even from many years ago).
}}
“I would like Jaycee to understand that (her recovery) will not happen overnight. She’ll carry around guilt, shame, anger and it will take years. I never got angry until long after (Cameron Hooker) was arrested. I did not feel safe until he was convicted because I was still afraid he would get off.
“It’s perfectly normal to go through these emotions.”
I asked her the question everyone always wants to know: why didn’t you escape when you had the chance?
“People don’t understand all the threats made against me, my family. There’s a lot more to it than just walking away. When you’re sexually abused, these things solidify the fact that if you don’t do what I say, I can take your life. I thought, ‘What if he catches me when I try to escape?’ It wasn’t like I never thought about these things. I did but I never felt safe to act out on them until his wife came to me and said, ‘We have to get out of here.’”
Colleen is 52 years old now, and on August 9th, she celebrated the 25th anniversary of the day she was set free, enjoying a cake and celebration with her recovery group. The cake, she said, was as sweet as life is now.
==========
One of the worst things people can do to someone coming out of trauma is judge them harshly for not getting over it fast enough. If it’s dramatic and awful enough, news headlines, mercy seems to come. But there is so much in just daily life, “routine” assault, battery, and long-term domestic violence. I still have family members scolding me for being “stuck in the past” (this happens to be actually a dodge attempting to derail a different conversation). Generally speaking, if you haven’t been through it, you’re just not in a position to judge.
Another thing not to do is go with the sympathy plus patronizing, i.e, making decisions for the person on the basis that because of her EXPERIENCE of domination and abuse, she just needs someone else to “take control” and dominate how she recovers, leaves, gets out, proiritizes WHAT area of life is most important, etc. What happened to me was that after years of negligence, it seems (at least) that the same people who weren’t competent to name and act on “danger” when it slapped THEM in the face metaphorically (as it did me, literally), and it wasn’t just hands, there were indeed weapons, which was also known – – the experts moved on in because I happened to be in a weakened state initially. Then I began to assert some boundaries and found this recovery resented. Kind of like a codependent need to know the person that was needy and in abuse. The, “She has a backbone and is utilizing it” wasn’t in the vocabulary. This saddens me, to have to fight a similar fight, again, and with different people.
The “experts” who aren’t can be every bit as abusive as the captors. It is necessary for others involved to “think outside the box” also.
I rejoice that these women got out.
=========
Photo: Colleen Stan today.
Colleen Stan at age 29, shortly after she was released.
Photo: Colleen Stan’s 20th birthday. She was abducted soon after.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Today’s post is a new blog page: “Lessons from Antioch” (California)
The pages are full of the Dugards and the Garridos; people what answers, and collectively, it appears there’s a need to process the trauma, and put names to the “Who, What When, How and Why?” this happened.
(As these posts get a little more personal, understand it’s not just for the blogger’s sake but for the bloggers’ hope that another perspective on these things might get heard.)
It triggers trauma, or perhaps it’s thoughtfulness, or perhaps it’s a desire to mention what other mothers have gone through that is different, but of some similar qualities: sudden loss of access to and contact with their sons or daughters, and lack of closure, or time to recover or heal from prior abuse(s). One can get so acclimatized to abuse, or to repeated violations of personal integrity, that this sort of “alternate reality” becomes “normal.” What’ I’m concerned about in this matter is future generations, and what “normal” has become for American women, both growing up and grown-up mothers.
My own father (deceased) I deduce was told, like many, to “man up,” shut up and step up to the plate when his (wife-beating) father abandoned the household. Retaliation for even CRYING about the violence, let alone reporting it, was simply part of his youth. After being locked in a closet for crying initially (so the family lore goes) he went on, and worked hard, educated himself hard, provided well, such that his own children (ALL of them) also got college educated. I’d say did all right (that’s one adult child’s perspective only; there ARE others), but as the youngest of these, and alone in the house as his marriage disintegrated, I certainly noticed and questioned that, despite the success, he also drank hard too (bottling something else up?), married several times, and, unfortunately, never discussed or addressed any of his own family shortcomings, nor did any of our own adult family actually handle these well, other than by transmitting what I could call UNhealthy family values: Zero dialogue on THE most important issues of life, a lifelong habit. Scapegoating. Tolerance of domestic violence towards, now, more than one member, and clan-like excommunication for anyone who dares to report any of the worst family secrets (and I shudder to think of the ones that haven’t yet come to surface).
My father died suddenly and under circumstances that were not explained to me. I learned more about him after his death from the Internet than from anyone I was related to. He has been described alternately as a genius, and modest (a side of him we didn’t know!), and creative. His mother was devout, and he rejected the concept and existence of God, another family value I myself later rejected, and paid dearly for over the years. I like to think that, had he realized one of his daughters would go on to marry and be exposed to what his own mother was, I like to think he’d be turning over in his grave, but fact is, I don’t know. I do know there was a certain sexism, not uncommon for the day and time. And I do thank him for not following the utterly insane policy that the HHS is nowadays, deciding and enforcing that children need contact with wife-beating fathers, for the good of, I guess, the country (???) and their little lives.
I consider refusal to address violence endorsing it. They consider it “dwelling on the past,” even when the ostensible past was as recent as last week or last month. They got that one down, and in order that my children should not know the truth about this family, have endorsed further criminal behavior towards them, and me, and this state, again in the name of “Family.”
It appears that the family law venue is also in the business of telling people to shut up about both their own family secrets (retaliation on custodial parents for reporting abuse in the form of switching the kid to the accused parent!) as well as ITS own secrets, which (as family secrets tend to) includes the financial business deal driving the steamship that’s steamrolling over (well, I could go on and on with that analogy, it’s an apt one) – — that’s steamrolling over the years that SOME families might have otherwise had in peace to recover from the initial trauma, and rebuild a few lives. Big Brother had a supposedly Better Idea for the country, you know, and so we are to sacrifice the duration of our children’s — well, til they are legally adults — and stay in the system until all the proper tolls have been paid, and “Therapeutic Jurisprudence” has run its course, replacing the former language of right, wrong, crime & punishment, and deterrents for doing it again.
Which deterrents Phillip Garrido had, but in the words of one of his several kidnapped for the purpose of raping women, (the 1976 woman that got him the 50 year jail sentence, that he served a few years of), it just made him a smarter and wiser criminal.
However it’s not the men’s doing this so much as the institutions they create doing this, which frightens me the most, for at least my own children’s futures. Put against this, is their spirit and, I hope, smarts.
And the VOLUNTARY donation of the national resources and sort of “conscience” to the federal government. Kind of like the cycle of rain, rivers flow to the ocean, evaporation, clouds, rain, etc. The concept is that justice and a better society will somehow rain down on us.
I’m not holding my breath.
However, sometimes this happens when the parents may even know where they are; this happens in the “family court venue.”
Recent articles talk about how the girls are recovering from trauma, and that’s partly where I started in this new page. I note a difference of perspective from the experts quoted and what i know about the trauma thing from experience.
I end up talking about the importance of the declaration of independence, and personal defense of boundaries. And how it MIGHT help if the public were a little less self-delusional, compartmentalized, and dissociative when it comes to US vs THEM and the role of government in kissing all our “ow-ies,” settling our squabbles, raising our young, monitoring our marriages, determining our public visions, and protecting our boundaries.
NO, let’s get back to the foundational principles. And add women and girls in the mix as citizens, not as items to be devoured or dominated.
If overall, we ALL had less tolerance for unreasonable dominance, I think a lot of partnerships and society would be healthier. You can force compliance, but you can’t force love, and when force gets into the family business, then we are REALLY in trouble. And we are.
I don’t think the culprit is god or godlessness. I don’t think the culprit is men OR women. I think the loss is of a sense of selves as individuals (socially) and a loss of language — transformational ideology throughout the internet, and our institutions.
As imperfect, or OK< sexist racist classist (etc.) as those colonists were in the latter 1700s, the three “charters of freedom” still shed light and common sense:
- Declaration of Independence
- Constitution
- Bill of Rights.
If we don’t like the middle one, we should change the oath Presidents take on assuming office. Barring that, we should hold them and every one else in any form of government to the same standard of these 3. “Consent of the governed” still counts.
So I recommend we start thinking in those terms again, starting with putting some of the terms back into our heads and coming out of our mouths. Expect a fight, in that matter, though!
That’s all for now. If you want straighter talk and fewer words, get it from the street:
http://www.thestreetspirit.org/
3. If God is, whence come evil things? If He is not, whence come good?
BOETHIUS (Roman philosopher 480?-524 A.D.) The Consolation of Philosophy, translated by W.V. Cooper, 19814. I still believe that standing up for the truth of God is the greatest thing in the world. This is the end of life. The end of life is not to be happy. The end of life is not to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. The end of life is to do the will of God, come what may.
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., (U.S. clergyman and human rights activist, 1929-1968), “The Most Durable Power,” sermon, Montgomery, Alabama, 6 November 1956(LIFE LIBERTy and PURSUIT of HAPP(y)NESS, and in that order. Physical, mental, or spiritual Welfare =/= happiness, but the first can sustain life. Moral proclamations by government about how to live, how free to be, and what happiness consists of is not the government’s province, it’s ours).
On poverty, who are you going to believe? A Harvard Ph.D. or a poor person?
This stereotype is that poor people can lift themselves out of poverty because, it assumes, they are responsible for their own poverty. Linda Burnham explained in her opening, the myth in America is that “everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” This myth allows the public to discard “a whole layer of society” who can’t pull themselves up.
Linda spoke of the American economy as both an engine of incredible wealth and an engine of poverty. This engine “creates and recreates poverty everyday in the US and all over the world.” During the war, discussions of poverty have been swept off the table. It is important to connect the war against the poor to the war abroad. Burnham mentioned that Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, has just been awarded a contract to run the welfare system in Florida. The company, who makes huge profits off of war, will now be making huge profits off of managing Florida’s poor.** In order for a country to subjugate and dominate another population, it has to first dominate its population at home. All you have to do is look at the streets of your city to see that this is being done on an everyday basis.
**This is why I don’t think much about the conversations on solving domestic violence. IF it were solved, there’d be less cash flow all round, less poverty, and poverty IS an industry!
Or Ask the Beat Within
Violence And Material Madness
by Speedy, posted May 18, 2009I think violence comes from people who has a bad life style. They don’t get the good things in life and so they get angry, so they look to robbing and stealing. That’s what gets them in here. So then, when they get in here, their whole life is starting to mess up. And when that happens, they’re in the system. Then they get even more madder because they’re missing out on a lot, so they get to more stealing.Some people grow up with anger, and some are taught to be mad and act bad. Like some parents say, when somebody hits you, you supposed to hit them back. But sometimes that’s not the right thing to do, so than they get in trouble for what they parents taught them. But when they get home, he or her mom says, “That a’right.” So than they keep getting’ in trouble.
But some violent stuff mostly come from material madness, so they try to steal and stealing ain’t the right thing. You should just get a job, have some money in yo’ pocket and that’s go be you. And if that material thing is really expensive, so that’s when you save up and get that thing for yourself, so than that’s when you see you don’t have to look to stealing. When you don’t have to steal and you see that you don’t have to do that no more.
OR: (This issue had several letters to President Obama….)
A Letter To The President-
by TAE, posted May 18, 2009Dear Mr. Obama,I think you should make certain things that keep young black men busy for the weekends, so we could stop killing ourselves. I also think that you should start building new colleges for people who cannot afford that type of money, so they could be something in life to take care of their family, and get the majority of the tax money every year.
I think there should be less education about African-American people and more about other cultures so people wouldn’t have to feel down all the time by hearing the word “Nigger” a lot.
People who’s getting abused in their family should be taken care of in a shelter that provides a little bit of discipline, so they could grow up and succeed in life, and keep innocent people out of the pen.
OR:
Dear President
by Richard, posted May 19, 2009How are you Mr. President? I am writing from Santa Clara juvenile hall. My name is Richard. I am facing a life sentence for kidnapping, attempted murder, carjacking, and 2nd degree robbery. I am 17 years old.I would like to congratulate you for becoming the 44th President of the United States of America. You inspire me to do many things. It gives me hope to become something I thought I couldn’t be in life no matter what it is. I believe in you, that you are going to make things right in this world. I know when I go to prison I can try my hardest to get my education and other things. I didn’t think I could at first, but with you as President, I have faith.
I know I am in here and might not get out soon, but I know you will be there for those on the outside of these walls. I know you will make a change. I hope the best for you, Mr. President. Thank you for reading this, and I apologize for taking your time.
Our Mission
The Beat Within’s mission is to provide incarcerated youth with consistent opportunity to share their ideas and life experiences in a safe space that encourages literacy, self-expression, some critical thinking skills, and healthy, supportive relationships with adults and their community. Outside of the juvenile justice system, The Beat Within partners with community organizations and individuals to bring resources to youth both inside and outside of detention. We are committed to being an effective bridge between youth who are locked up and the community that aims to support their progress towards a healthy, non-violent, and productive life.
Regarding recovery from violence (WHICH the Antioch/Dugard articles from today dealt with),
from http://www.Lundy Bancroft.com:
- Addressing the healing needs of children: There is a wide consensus that children’s recovery from exposure to domestic violence (and from divorce) depends largely on the quality of their relationship with the non-battering parent and with their siblings.20
Of course this statement runs entirely contrary to the bulk of the “fatherhood” premises and the entire family court venue basically doesn’t validate or practice.
- Therefore, in addition to safety consideration, court determinations should take into account whether the batterer is likely, based on his past and current behavior, to continue to undermine the mother’s authority, interfere with mother-child relationships, or cause tensions between siblings.
This becomes kind of irrelevant when the court itself does the same things. My experience is that the past was considered to be a totally blank slate, and therefore any fallout was attributed to whoever it “fell” on. Extended family influence (which I tried to bring up, and was significant) was ignored. It was an unbelievably stereotyped reaction. Possibly the reason I’m writing so much is from the impact of the years of being told POST-separation not to talk about this, or any other subsequent criminal behavior(s). Oh well . . .
- Because children need a sense of safety in order to heal,21 juvenile and family court decisions may not want to include leaving the children in the unsupervised care of a man whose violent tendencies they have witnessed, even if they feel a strong bond of affection for him.
So when it typically does, often right after the filing of a civil restraining order, or when divorce is started almost immediately after someone files a protective order, resulting in the “joint custody” “Shared parenting” mindset, then we have a serious values conflict, as I did, in the past, now almost ten years. A move was made (locally) to extend the initial restraining order time to 5 years from 3. I know I would’ve made it had this happened. Certain agencies, and entities, made sure this was defeated. Now that I have time (called unemployment!), I did find out who they were in that case.
If you want straight talk on some poverty, justice, and crime policy issues, again, (although I try, there’s the verbiage issue!), try: Street Spirit, Poor Magazine, the Beat Within (although that’s getting slicker and slicker since I first saw it),
Thanks. Happy Labor Day (USA). Unemployment rate _ _ _ _ _???
Labor (or rest) well, we have one more day off in America. I gave up the concept of seeing a daughter at this time in favor of not fighting that fight until I have some income. The lack of closure is a constant source of stress. Closing has to be done right to be safe. Go figure. This is one reason I think if women leaving abuse could get a bit of space and time, they could run some great businesses. It appears that Jaycee/Alyssa both helped her captorS S S S Ss s s s s run a business (not including any horrors she endured IF the brothel rumor was true) and educated her also-imprisoned daughters, the product of her rapes, but nonetheless her DAUGHTERS, the best she could. I wish her well and the family that’s now reunited with her.
SHARE THIS POST on...
My Copy Editing Disclaimer: While I CAN Copy-edit for stylistic consistency, I DON’T herein: Let’s Get Honest, this blog just ain’t about to be copyedited
Excuse #1: PTSD (what’s YOUR excuse?)
re: The PTSD – There’s no Excuse for Abuse!
Like my approach to this Blog, it’s a choice. (see photo to right)
Almost every excuse I’ve heard, mostly from family members, calls it something else, like “helping.” The real struggle affecting the wider public in this arena (Family Court) is naming. Name-calling. It’s a language issue. Language controls SO much. It controls children and money, which are unfortunately closely related here, and my sense of the courts is that the system has become closer to an auction block than a process dispensing justice, or fair decisions based on facts. We are the state where it’s not only profitable to work in and around the courts, it is ALSO profitable to work for nonprofits dedicated, so they claim, to advising and changing the courts.
The amount of help I would’ve needed at specific dates in time, to be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY solvent and free from abuse in short order after leaving it, almost never, once I had my income set up, exceeded a single child support payment, which at this point in time was set at lower than cash-aid for a family of two, which we’d been on briefly and which generated the initial support order tos tart with. Alternately, I could’ve, with only a half more year of non-intervention policy from my family, omitted the child support entirely, and gone on our merry way, with two great children regularly seeing both parents, while living with one.
Instead, someone coached someone how to stop this, and the answer, the salvation, was the family law arena. In the middle of recovery, and almost to safety or to “shore” (financially speaking, and this counts!) I was kicked back into self-defense mode, as a single mother and the nonbattering parent who’d finally worked up courage to file a restraining order.
By the time I got myself up to speed on domestic violence literature, the laws, the rules of court, and the fact that any and all of the above are, in essence and in practice, “moot points,” my income, safety, boundaries, and stability were gone. It took a very short few years to get this household BACK into trauma and poverty, and from there, snatch my kids.
This did not just affect one family, or three generations, and relatives in one family, though it has. It affected the wider community and burdened the social services, as I called crisis lines, again started attending DV support systems. I hemorrhaged jobs and professional connections, and had a traumatic bonding relationship with law enforcement in two counties (and more cities). MORE police reports were generated from my attempts to get kids back on a weekend exchange (after restraining order was removed) and then retaliatory frivolous calls by my ex (for example, if I was supposedly 1 minute late, when I wasn’t even that), than even happened during the years of physical violence and assaults upon me, my property, and animals in the home. Some severe (physical) threats to me were generated from protesting animal abuse. Still gullible, I continued to hope that law enforcement would help enforce laws. Even when they allowed my children to be removed illegally from my custody based on clear perjury and after a judge’s order had directly forbidden this — less than 24 hours earlier — these peace officers failed to enforce when asked to. The same office knew of the former domestic violence restraining order, and in fact, I think this exchange was beginning to get a bit of a reputation there (though I can’t say for sure).
I did not understand HOW necessary it was for me to understand the ENTIRE system in these matters. And it is appropriate to respond according to the truth of a situation, not to our myths about the truth of our situation. IF I had made it through this website: NAFCJ.net — BEFORE my kids were stolen, I might have acted differently.
No one goes through all that without seeking answers. While few hours go into copyediting, MANY have gone into researching what I blog about, and that’s what underlies the confidence, as unpleasant as what I found was. Namely, if I could summarize it, organized crime in high places. Not exactly breaking news, but still we like to think, protectively, it’s not going to affect us, somehow.
Certain professions attract certain personality types. It’s unfortunate but true, and public service is simply not always the prime motivation.
Old myths die fast.
Life and death truly are in the power of the tongue. When any group seeks to pre-empt language, and re-write history, we had best be VERY cautious.
Name-calling is a basic human trait defining social groups, and always has been. However, when a larger conglomerate of social groups is to function somehow, they have to have a “language” to describe the interactions, and some sort of regulation of those to minimize fighting. As one age gives way to another, language is a real clue. The largest clue is where the greatest silence is. In this arena of family law, there has been an intentional, and arising from a single set of sources (date, places, and times have been identified on their own websites) to CHANGE TERMINOLOGIES, and make excuse for abuse. I speak about this, as well as refer to (hopefully not in totally identifying detail; this is always an internal struggle, how much to say) some of the major areas of silence in this venue.
HOW MANY blogs are you going to find which post grants data from BOTH the fatherhood/marriage and the Violence Against Women (i’m going to, today, some more) groups and ask pointed questions about how many lives are those funds saving — and according to whom? I have limited time, limited brain capacity and when focused on content, cannot also focus on polishing content.
The fallout from failing to SEE and ACT on the truth in this venue is sometimes death, poverty, homelessness, and intergenerational transmission of trauma, to those involved, or sometimes those associated with those involved. What we as a society fail to see is where loss to ONE set of people (in these venues) is gain to another — the profit from prolonging the distress.
No one likes to talk about that, but we must, and I DO — and the fact that I do, in the history of who I’ve been personally dealing with, and now, seeing the wider scope of the problem (which isn’t any prettier), there is an element of fear associated with breaking cultural tabus, speaking up. Families with histories of violence or incest have kept it going through silence, as mine did for 10 years while it happened to me in front of God and a lot of other on-lookers.
But I do because of what’s in me that loves and wants to speak truth, not suppress it (I know ALL about that) and because of what’s left in my heart (which is a lot!) regarding my daughters, who have been lied to, lied about, and induced to lie in some of these matters.
Therefore, getting it “up and out” is an act of some courage for me, and when I focus too much on editing, the courage fails. It’s a totally different process and mode. (This “serious” section was added after the more lighthearted stuff below). In my marriage, when I spoke, he sometimes hit – doing so was ALWAYS trauma, sometimes caused serious injury, and always was intended that I should not speak. This is why I believe some abusers target the neck and mouth area. They don’t want us to speak, or breathe. When it comes to economic abuse, there is difficulty with communication and transportation infrastructures — isolate and intimidate is the name of the game. And then, once this is in place, interrogate and degrade.
Why do they go for the neck? (I learned at a conference in 2007 that this is a lethality indicator, in a publication addressed to dentists! I went to a dentist with teeth knocked loose years before, it didn’t raise any eyebrows even, that I could tell! The story I gave them (at that point) was ridiculous. It wasn’t questioned. That was a serious missed opportunity, and followed up on, might have produced a criminal report and a night in jail; it might have changed things. It SHOULD have. But by this time in the marriage, I’d been through the round of reporting, and reaching out, and speaking up. I was beginning to take a stand against abuse IN my marriage, and things were heating up as a direct consequence.
Though I have lost a tooth, income, children, and thousands of dollars (as have others who then attempted to support me but took not action to confront the abuse or violence), not one cent of “Victim Compensation” funding came this way. Not one identifiable “help” other than naming the abuse that was happening, came from one of the best-funded groups in this area. I believe we deserve answers, and I blog about this while I’m still here, still have housing, still have some health left. The women I link to also do this.
Again, as to abuse — What’s your Excuse for (your SILENCE about) Abuse?
I have and will continue to post some unpleasant $$ figures as to the nationwide economic cost of not understanding “the name of the game” in these fields, and attributing pure motives to every one who has a smooth speech. Which, I don’t think I do, but I try to get facts out, and assemble them in reasonable fashion, if not always in grammatically complete sentences.
Excuse #2: I’ll let Wikipedia (so to speak) speak to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing
OVERVIEW
The “Five Cs” [1] summarize the copy editor’s job: make the copy (i) clear, (ii) correct, (iii) concise, (iv) comprehensible, and (v) consistent; that is: make it say what it means, and mean what it says. Typically, copy editing involves correcting spelling, punctuation, grammar,mathematics,[2] terminology/jargon and semantics; ensuring that the typescript adheres to the publisher’s house style; and addingheadlines and standardized headers, footers, etc.[2]
The copy editor is expected to ensure that the text flows, that it is sensible, fair, and accurate, and that it will provoke no legal problems for the publisher.[2] Newspaper copy editors are sometimes responsible for selecting which news agency‘s wire copy the newspaper will use and for rewriting it in accordance with house style. Often, the copy editor is the only person, other than the author , to read an entire text before publication. Newspaper managing editors regard copy editors as the newspaper’s last line of accurate defense.
Hence, EXCUSE #2: I’m the author, not “other than the author.”
At least, I’m an “author” in a loose sense of the word.
I assemble, react (in print), cut and paste, and think about it. Aloud. This is NOT “copy editing.” They are entirely different processes, and for a good reason.
A copy editor may abridge a text, by “cutting” and “trimming” it, to reduce its length to fit publishing or broadcasting limits or to improve its meaning.[1]
There is no universal form for the job or job title; it is often written as one word (copyedit)[1] or with a hyphen (copy-edit); the hyphenated form is especially common in the UK. Similarly, the term copy editor may be spelled either as one word, two words, or as a hyphenated compound term. (And if you’re paying attention, I intentionally used all three forms in my title to make this point).
Copy editing is done prior to the work of proofreaders, who handle documents before final publication.[1]
(NOR DO I PROOFREAD, ENOUGH):
Under Wikipedia “Author”:
“According to the studies of James Curran, the system of shared values among editors in Britain has generated a pressure among authors to write to fit the editors’ expectations, removing the focus from the reader-audience and putting a strain on the relationship between authors and editors and on writing as a social act.
I am writing as a social act, and there is a very strained relationship between the author and editor parts; they are not happy yet. However I have made a deliberate decision to go with the first, and relegate the “editor” to a back seat. This may seem backwards, but relates to how I deal with post-traumatic stress issues on some of these topics, and the “fear of speaking” issue. (OR, it may be my way of rebelling against the “perfectionism” tendency). Sometimes it has to come out nonstop, and there isn’t enough time or emotional energy left to go back and revise.
When I do, instead, more reflection and more writing gets in there. Perhaps hearing about the process may help people who haven’t been through certain kinds of trauma understand a bit about some who have.
In my case, i am still mastering “bloggery,” and I am alleviating (by this disclaimer) with the copy editing training I have, and trained, and fairly accurate eye I have when I’m NOT cutting, pasting (or trying to) and trying to figure out which font or margin changes will actually stick.
The “accuracy” and with to avoid public embarrassment thing crawls up my back especially when I, for example as I just noticed today (8-29-09), I caught someone else’s Freudian slip/typo (“simulate conversation” where clearly “sTimulate” conversation was meant. IN these fields, “simulating” conversation, dialogue and openness, mediation, negotiation, and conciliation is blatantly rampant. Never get caught SIMULATING dialogue when you wish to be seen as STIMULATING it!
But further down, regarding a missing foster child case which has now become a homicide INVESTIGATION, in, from my own fingers and brain, in slipped the word “visitation” (topic of today’s post, in part). These word-switches (“hear” for here, or “know” for “no”, etc.) were much more common after the event of the child-stealing than beforehand. I am a crack typist (over 100wpm) and used to be known for a sharp eye for grammar; I have worked in accounting and legal fields also, where accuracy counts. There are definitely different parts of the brain in operation now, to do the same tasks. Sometimes they jump tracks temporarily, I guess. Never used to do that so much.
So, while no author in the general sense, I am in this sense:
Wages
There are no normal wages for authors. The pay for authors is normally based on provisions after standard contracts with companies.
[edit]
> – > – > – >
I have some ideas, but am not interested in fully analyzing why I write, any more than I formerly questioned why I played piano and sang, or why I ate and slept.
There are pros(e) and con (artists) to the habit.
Maybe I’m half hunter by nature, and like to bring home what I caught, like a cat brings home half-alive, half-in-shock mouse. The point isn’t the trophy, but what a great hunter the cat was.
However, this blog is NOT just for the act of blogging or the act of seeking. I have indeed been on a personal hunt to explain WHAT’S UP? with this venue? After i read the literature on “what’s up with the venue” I began looking at the organizations PUBLISHING the literature and pronouncing what’s up with this venue. They are better funded than almost any family court litigant ever will be.
That’s where the real story is. The real story is in what is NOT being talked about it. I talk about it, and I request public action on the information, in the form of taking this information, following up, and being highly motivated to know that this is affecting YOUR life, this particular kind of government waste and lack of accountability as to HOW its funds are being spent.
Regarding the PTSD factor – – these are difficult topics and truths to put out there. They are also, many, personal. Putting together a narrative can be healing, but done wrong, it can also re-traumatize. Hence, I fear that what you see hear is what you GOT. Get it?
One more thing about perfectionism: This also runs in my family line, and I do know (at least so is the family lore) my father watched HIS mother being beat by HIS father; it appears to be what they did back when in many cultures. He was if nothing perfectionist (in his field) and a researcher, creative thinker. I am beginning to understand why, and I happen to know that THIS applies to at least one of my two offspring.
Quote is cited on today’s post. (Note the 1980s dates of the cites)
In my opinion, it would be better, in most cases, for the children of homes where there has been domestic violence not to be in the custody of the abusive parent at all. In many cases it is even advisable that visitation be limited to controlled situations, such as under a therapist’s supervision during a therapy session, unless the batterer has been in batterer’s treatment and demonstrated that he has changed significantly in specific ways.
Caveat. Batterers can often “perform” well for an hour or two, and have been documented doing well in class, but outside class, and sometimes shortly AFTER, murdering. On this basis, I challenge that assertion, it begs the question of demonstrating what, how, for how long, and to whom. Like religious “repentance” it can be very much faked. My personal measure was compliance with court orders: the ability to TAKE an order rather than, when it came to me, the ex-wife, only ISSUING one. What the courts saw as my obstinancy, possibly, I (accurately, I assert) saw as my VERY healthy need for boundaries, and asserting them. One thing family law tends to do (for the uninitiated, if there are still some of these around) is break down personal boundaries, and then judge the person with the broken fences harshly. In a given case, this will be one parent OR the other, not both, and typically it is the female one.
“Merely” observing ones father abuse ones mother is in itself damaging to children. My clinical experience is consistent with the research literature which shows that children who witness their father beat their mother exhibit significantly greater psychological and psychosomatic problems than children from homes without violence (Roy, 1988). Witnessing abuse is more damaging in many ways than actually being abused, and having both happen is very damaging (Goodman and Rosenberg, 1987).
For the past few years — actually several years — I have had to witness from afar things that I knew to be damaging to my daughters, and was unable to do anything about this. I REMEMBER being physically assaulted, traumatized, and a lot more, and I will concur, although I’d surely not want to repeat the experience, this DOES feel horrible. It’s an internal wound hard to get at except by amputating something natural and innate, which is to care how one’s kids are doing, and do something to make sure they are thriving, and most specifically (in my case) headed in a good direction in life, and among people with decent values, and I’m not talking conservative or progressive, I’m talking, respectful of women and respecting the law, and not participating in “dissing” or hurting another parent. Forcing (minors in particular) to do this is part of a gang initiation, it’s like a ritual hazing, to prove membership. I’ve seen the lower middle class version of this, enabled by people who ought to know better, based on the self-assertions. yes, in short, it hurts, adults and children alike, but children moreso in the long run, I feel, because they have more lifespan ahead of them.
Studies show that a high percentage (as high as 55%) of fathers who abuse their wives also abuse their children (Walker and Edwall, 1987). In my experience, if one includes emotional abuses such as being hypercritical, yelling and being cruelly sarcastic, the percentage is much higher.
I was the target of this (as well as blows and choke-holds, throws, kicks, slaps, etc.) during marriage. I NEVER saw physical violence by my father towards my mother (and have in recent years asked, and was said, no it did not happen), and although he was highly critical of me, he was not cruelly sarcastic. I saw it as part of his professional mind (scientific). However, he WAS cruelly sarcastic and critical of my mother, which I believe did affect my sense of integrity as a young woman. I woke up to them arguing. We became a family that didn’t talk about important things, and as the youngest (in such families, everyone has an assigned role), and when siblings left home and before it, I became the “peacekeeper” too often. I disappeared into my own world, happily enough, until I became hungry for something approaching true and relationships/friendships, as I matured. I found these in music and writing, books, etc.
This cruel sarcasm, in the family realm, has been directed at me in my late middle age by this family of origin. I think it is possibly in order to preserve a sense of “family” in that our father is gone, suddenly, and decades ago. I do not think they are as comfortable with their worldviews, and a challenge to them seems a challenge to the core, somehow.
OR, it could just be about money and basic human passions, unrestrained by empathy or concern for the long-range impact. I don’t know, I know it apparently “works” for them and not for me to punish outsiders, namely, those who challenge their authority to usurp authority, which happens to be MY definition of family violence, or abuse, to start with!
I became a teacher professionally, and know that one must KNOW who one is teaching, and that the sarcasm doesn’t motivate for long, the put-down, the cruelty. Does it? Did this work, as a whole and entire person, would you say for, for example, Michael Jackson? He did amazing things. Was it a good life? Well, he didn’t see his kids grow up… He was on medication to survive. . .. Amazing music or no amazing music, and it was.
The damage that children suffer is highly variable, with symptoms ranging from aggressive acting out to extreme shyness and withdrawal, or from total school failure to compulsive school performance. The best way to summarize all the symptoms despite their variety is to say that they resemble what children who suffer other trauma exhibit, and could be seen as a version of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Walker and Edwall, 1987).
As I reflect on my own childhood, and recall some diary entries I had as to my daughters’ (plural) behavior immediately post-incident, I noticed both aspects. They witnessed some horrible stuff, and when they are of age (and if interested), I will show them the entries, of how these little girls, after an incident would try to “distract” their Dad, by doing some super-feat for their age, or planning something to reconcile us. I am talking, under 5 years old, BOTH of them.
I suspect that my father realized (being without a man in the home) he had to grow up and perform REAL fast, and he sure did. He also drank heavily, tried to handle it later in his work life, a work life that was full of awards and financial rewards too, well-decorated, well-acknowledged. What’s more, he married a number of times (although only to our mother til I was out of the home), and died suddenly shortly after retirement, the circumstances of which I still (quite honestly) have significant questions about.
Both of my daughters are supremely smart and intelligent (I know this), but one was chosen as super-performer, and the other one, after a period (early on) of trying to differentiate herself, even saying as of Kindergarten, “I hate reading” (but became a very competent, and observant reader close to this time), and another time blowing things off, apparently. I tried to accommodate this through the public schools and was soundly punished for NOT having them both in the same format of school, even though I neither respected it (for either girl) nor did it work for them, or our family unit, nor did the idea for it even originate from either Dad or Mom at the time. it was one of those outside “interventions” by “helpers” whose motives are not what they claimed to be. At all.
Then when I finally put them BOTH in the same school, was truly a compromise between my ex’s position (or, his ostensible position, i should say), which might have made someone happy, they were abducted out of it and put, at the time into a strange school system in a new city, each girl in a different school. So “go figure” the rationale behind that.
And so, since this was a post about “copy editing,” about FORM not CONTENT, I will say this content is still relevant. And this is as good an introduction to why I’m blogging here as any:
Equally serious is the long term effect of domestic violence – intergenerational transmission.
I rest my case and my disclaimer.
FYI, the longwinded style, and associative, full-thinking (one hopes) that is natural to me, may be unnatural to others. If you (reader) do not understand how or why this happens, please read up on some writings regarding trauma. The constant interruption of thought is a means of control and setting off balance. I’m completely aware of it. I have had music, which really worked for me, unnaturally deleted from my life along with the children. At a gut level, and through behavioral conditioning (NOT accidental in either marriage or divorce, I assert — unless it was simply generalized narcissism, but based on things I’ve heard and read from my ex, No, it wasn’t. It was intentional to target music. I KNOW that what I got from it threatened this man. Not just the income, but the personal validation and emotional support. It’s hard to dominate someone who is having fun in music! Regularly! (and getting paid for it, and connecting with people through it). For one the existence of those relationships counters the character-smashing that is necessary to “win” in family court and necessary to “win” in abuse, which is in part about winning, anyhow. Period.
So part of what a mind does is healing by speaking, and by connecting thoughts together. I call it “hyper-focus” — although as a musician at the piano, I could most certainly practice and focus for hours (why not?), this is different. It’s like a going “under water” until the thought is complete, and a sense of rising to the surface as it approaches what MY sensibility calls completion. I suppose that’s somewhat meditative. I know that it helped me during the most traumatic months (years) leading up to the abduction, and part of this was having AN audience, not just writing “myself.” Hence, a longwinded (but hopefully informative, and sometimes at least entertaining or interesting)
B L O G. It is my ‘attuned” relationship with myself, and for now, will do. I also wish to leave a bit of a track record (if you read more, you’ll realizing stalking has been an ongoing concern, and I have not reconciled myself either to lifelong economic or emotional abuse by family members, or never seeing a daughter while courts and truth both exist! if not in the same place, at least separately. I call this “hyperfocus,” and while there are drawbacks, in some senses also, it works for me.
So, remind me to hire a copyeditor, once I myself get some income. . . . While the best of art has a SENSE of artlessness about it, THIS stuff is indeed, for the most part “thrown up” (an awkward term, I admit!) on wordpress, not for its art, and I’ll just try to pick up a little artifice along the way, but it makes me very uncomfortable.
Note. I do not know my ex’s mother too well (like our family, by “lore” more than actual face time or communications. Some, but not much since we split, which I do out of respect for her). She had a rough marriage, and one thing I noted in the few letters that got through was that the first person singular was absent. Although narrating what she did, she began with the verb, and omitted the “I.” Maybe she was another “amazing, disappearing, virtually invisible mother” like the noun I blog about sometimes; mothers have become “WOMEN” (There is an office of Violence against WOMEN, but when it comes to MEN, there is a major web section on “FATHERHOOD.” On “marriage” on “children” and on “families” (as to vocabulary). As mothers, we are possibly becoming a vestigial function in society, only kept around (for now) for the biological production of infants, for scapegoats (every religion needs a scapegoat, right?) and to give social status to some man: He is a FATHER, he has a FAMILY, and he is head of the HOUSEHOLD (religious version). If not much else in life.
SPEAKING of “FLOW” (I was, really!), along with hunting and gathering, or should I say (web) surfing, how does this name FLOW off your tongue?
“Csikszentmihalyi“
Mine either, and I found this following a craigslist ad, to which my reaction was, Is there NO area of life which is not a market niche?
And I found, probably not. I hope we have SOME private lives left within the next three decades, but I am skeptical how many of us in the middle ranges of society will be able. Anyhow Wikipedia to the rescue (if for phonetic pronunciation here):
Personal background
He received his B.A. in 1960 and his Ph.D. in 1965, both from the University of Chicago.
He is the father of MIT Media Lab associate professor Christopher Csikszentmihalyi and University of California – Berkeley[4] professor of philosophical and religious traditions ofChina and East Asia, Mark Csikszentmihalyi.
{{His son is one REALLY smart dude too, so perhaps we should listen up!
And, sit at his feet to be taught, too!**}}
[edit]Flow
Mental state in terms of challenge level and skill level. Clickable.[5]
In his seminal work, ‘Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience’, Csíkszentmihályi outlines his theory that people are most happy when they are in a state of flow— a state of concentration or complete absorption with the activity at hand and the situation. The idea of flow is identical to the feeling of being in the zone or in the groove. The flow state is an optimal state of intrinsic motivation, where the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing. This is a feeling everyone has at times, characterized by a feeling of great absorption, engagement, fulfillment, and skill—and during which temporal concerns (time, food, ego-self, etc.) are typically ignored.[6]
{{This includes during sex, where applicable….}}
In an interview with Wired magazine, Csíkszentmihályi described flow as “being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you’re using your skills to the utmost.”[7]
To achieve a flow state, a balance must be struck between the challenge of the task and the skill of the performer. If the task is too easy or too difficult, flow cannot occur. Both skill level and challenge level must be matched and high; if skill and challenge are low and matched, then apathy results.[5]
The flow state also implies a kind of focused attention, and indeed, it has been noted that mindfulness meditation, yoga, and martial arts seem to improve a person’s capacity for flow. Among other benefits, all of these activities train and improve attention.
In short, flow could be described as a state where attention, motivation, and the situation meet, resulting in a kind of productive harmony or feedback.
Sorry to inject this (hey, not really — it’s my blog), but to a mother this might be nature (we give birth, remember?), or a musician, but to a scientist, it’s a field of expertise. These are very elementary (and true) observations!
Did I say, teacher?
QUESTION: Am I the only person here that thinks an article on “FLOW” with a Square Graphic with uniform, segmented, labeled dissections of it seems a little, well, Rigid?
Should it be called “Flow, Dissected”?
What can’t the same people that can discuss, with engaging intelligence, the difference between particle and wave theory, not figure out that trying to dissect and label humanity is going to INTERFERE with the same humanity! For one, the thumb is on the scale, and even a child in “supervised visitation” knows that SOMETHING is up, like, a performance. And perform, they are likely to. The only thing that apparently truly FLOWS in such scenarios, is cash, in the form of grants, to analyze, dissect and (another endless stream) report on it. To observe anything in some depth, one needs at LEAST two points of view, and one I recommend is “IMMERSION” (INside) and another “SPECTATOR” (outside). I do this in music. There’s theory, and then “applied” studies. Moreover, there’s some differences between rehearsal and performance, as any musician knows. And the performance IS affected, to a degree, by (a) venue (resonance of the room) and (b) resonacne is sometimes dulled by a full room of bodies. Physically, it changes the resonance for the room. Walls can be hard, and sound waves bounce off it (as I would characterize My interaction with the mediator) or they can be soft, warm, and fuzzily receptive, as too many custody evaluators are with one parent but not the other.
If we can figure this out in music, why cannot a family law system figure it out?
I believe the system was well-designed to do what it is, at this moment in fact doing, and that is interrupt lives, divert cash (FLOW) and create an artificial, and at this point, society-wide source of trauma, which then will generate and justify ever more intrusive monitoring, measuring, calculating and declaring behaviors on the part of the social scientist and utopia-mongers. And I predict that what’s left of individuality in human beings aware of their humanity, and perhaps seeking to be HEARD, erupt in whatever manner it may be. I believe that at some level of policy making, surely (I believe, surely) someone realizes what direction its heading, and is quite OK with that direction, so long as they — and their progeny and cronies — are riding the wave.
In looking at more ancient literature, the analogy of people as water, and final Armageddon, etc., (jihad, etc.) is expected and predicted. I do not believe the Bible calls it honorable, however, but it does predict this. I would say that’s possibly an accurate reading of human nature, given past and future. Ethnic cleansing is not exactly a new concept, but what I’m concerned about is the commmunal cleansing of ETHICS, not ETHNICITIES so much. Although we can see that trend, too.
(I never DO know when to quit, sometimes. . .. . )
AS to Institutions that Specialize in Uncertainty and Flow-Disruptions, I could (but won’t, here) name three signficant institutions in the U.S.A. (home of the largest per-capita incarceration rate in the W-O-R-L-D. This is after the fall of the Berlin wall, too!) who teach authority by interrupting flow. That is the primary characteristic. OK, I’ll tell you one, because I’ve experienced it:
Law Enforcement.
Here’s another:
Public School (bells, periods, whistles, lockdowns, fire drills, etc.) It’s training, folks!!
Basically, any dominator institution will use some of this. The question is, how much?
When people reach a certain level of adulthood, they should have a level of discipline to at least ONE thing (trade, profession, pasion) or another, and be able to transfer discipline in it to discipline in something else. Perhaps we should talk about the “infantilizing of America,” I don’t know. Another topic, hey?
The fact is, biochemistry is related to emotions is related to one’s sense of place in this world. We DO difffer, and resonate to different frequencies. You want total unity and uniformity? Nationwide? There IS a way to get it. . . . at a cost, a human cost, and we are I am afraid headed into either this direction, or a real protest against heading in this direction:
(Found through Google Images search on “GooseStep”, and 3 times I’ve tried to paste the link. However, I’ll still close with notes from the source of this photo, apparently a narrative from a man’s 1969 visit to the Berlin Wall. You will probably find it again:
(Entry was Aug 1 2006)
A 1969 STROLL INTO COMMUNIST EAST BERLIN
October 7, 1969. I had just finished a photo assignment in Austria and visited a friend near Frankfurt. Now I wanted to see what Berlin, isolated well behind the Iron Curtain, was like.
People from all the Communist nations, including China, were doing their thing there. Folk dancing, music, demonstrations of solidarity, and just plain admiring this brave new world of the workers. Several stands in the side streets sold sausages and beer, both of which were pretty good and quite cheap.
As the day wore on I got hungry, and waited in line at the Café Moscau, which featured Russian food. Being alone, I was paired up with what might have been a general in the Russian army, or a doorman, in any case a guy in uniform covered with gold braid and medals. I ordered Beef Stroganoff, which was delicious.
There was a changing-of-the-guard ceremony at the Neue Wache, an old Prussian guardhouse now rich in propaganda value with its eternal flame for the victims of fascism. The soldiers there did a great goosestep.
Let’s all seek a better way, eh?
Anyhow, I ain’t copyediting, I’m thinking aloud, on-line.
Have a nice day. Don’t forget the blogroll.
The difference between my on-line monologues and what I experienced in abuse, and what my kids watched growing up, and what I suspect may or may not have “driven” my ex to expose us to (hours-long manic personal talks, and I DO mean, hours at a time, and afterwards he’d be relieved, and I’d be totally drained and sometimes emotionally dysfunctional, as though his “burden” had been deposited, by direct, face to face injection, into my brain. I would lose all desire to do whatever it was I had just then been doing, typically housework, or getting ready to work, or paperwork. This is NOT what a spouse is for! However, my spouse didn’t write, and apparently this was what I was for, an “ear.” Up to a point it’s OK, beyond that point, it’s using the other person. We were beyond this point shortly after the children were born, when I truly did have other things I needed to do, and they needed from me. We had, hence, a real roller-coaster relationship, the entire household.
Oh yes — the rest of that sentence, at least as to a main verb and object:
. . . . . The difference between an on-line monologue and an (in your face lecture) is that listening is optional.
Now, as to family law venue — there are points at which fighting that battle is not really optional, or will come to any closure before either the energy is totally expended (or funds — my current situation, and still not “resolution” or closure) – – or, it will explode in some manner. Neither is acceptable.
Anyhow, I suggest you exercise the website-exit option if you got this far, and perhaps have your head examined as to why you did!
(Just kidding!)
Unsure how? Look for the closest interactive (e)X, typically lurking in a top right corner, slightly off-the screen, like a spider in a room with high ceilings. (Just kidding).
Click on it and see what happens.
Or don’t. After all, it’s OPTIONal!
(Like so-called “mediation” should be, but that’s another topic)
There are obviously downsides of not having a live audience, with gongs, or tomatoes. I miss singing! . . . . . .
(Not that performances ever ended in that manner! Sometimes people stood afterwards, but it wasn’t too throw tomatoes!)
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
“Here Come da Judge!”
with 14 comments
Some times, hard times, a little humor helps me. I seem to notice things that maybe others don’t (oft-burnt, twice as observant?)…
This is from Womenslaw.org about Custody, and a good question, plus a sidelong plug for (what else) supervised visitation. . . . And no absolute commitment either way on this topic:
Can a parent who committed violence get “custody” or “visitation”?
Maybe. It is possible that a parent who has committed violence will get custody or visitation if the court determines that it is in the “best interest of the child” to do so. Generally, judges beleve it is in the child’s best interest to have frequent contact with both parents.*1
{{so, the “court” kind of being the “judge” who signs the order, we get back to what judges generally believe… For more of that, see the AFCC conference as to what’s being promoted among many of them…}}
Conservatorship / Custody:
If a person is filing for sole or joint managing conservatorship, the court will consider whether the person has been abusive toward his/her spouse, the parent of the child and any person under 18 years old within the 2 years before filing for conservatorship or during the proceeding. A judge may deny joint managing conservatorship if s/he finds that there is a history or pattern of child neglect or physical or sexual abuse of a parent, spouse or child.*2
{{then, again, they also may not. Sounds like a toss-up to me…}}
The judge may not {{OR, may…}} appoint joint managing conservators if reliable evidence is presented of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect, or physical or sexual abuse by one parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *3
Likewise, the court [[as opposed to “the judge?”] will consider {{but will it act on?}} any incident of family violence in deciding whether to deny, restrict, or limit the possession of a child by a parent who is appointed as a possessory conservator.*4
Possession and Access / Visitation:
If a parent has been violent within the last two years before filing or during the court proceedings, a judge may {{or may not, we have no committed policy here, right?}} deny that parent possession of or access to the child unless:
the judge decides that allowing the parent access is not a danger to the child and is in the best interest of the child; and
the judge approves a possession order that will protect the child and any other victim from the abusive parent. The order may require:
exchange of the child in a protective setting (see note below);
that the parent not drink alcohol and not use any drugs within 12 hours before or during the time the child is with him/her; or {{See my comments on Oconto, Wisconsin, where the father was caught DUI with the daughter in the car, but still it was the MOTHER who was jailed for failing to force the daughter back into that situation.}}
that the parent attend a batterer’s prevention program or any program the judge finds appropriate. *5
Tell the judge if you have gotten a protective order within the last 2 years against the parent seeking possession of and access to your child. The judge will consider this when determining whether there is a history of family violence.*6
{{Note: Some women get SMART after the first several violent incidents, and survive more than 2 years in a relationship before someone shows them how to get out. In this case, asking what happened in the last 2 years may not indicate that the father/husband/partner has reformed or settled down, or repented, but simply that the mother/wife/partner simply got cagier and smarter in how to avoid them. As many abusers also are control freaks, as toa ccess to transportation and ways to escape their abuse, this may involve shutting down emotionally, and teaching the kids to also, i.e., “walking on eggshells.” how many judges take the time to tell the difference?}}
Note: If the abuser is granted possession and access to your child, ask the court or a local domestic violence program for information about visitation centers or visitation exchange facilities in your county if you think that is a good option for you.
GOT THIS? The judge MAY respect the danger of domestic violence, or the judge MAY instead choose to drop-kick the problem to some cronies in the supervised visitation field.
{{Which of course they will prime you to. . . .. . I asked for this, and was of course, not told that there is federal funding for this, but not available so readily for MOMS… Not being incarcerated, an abuser, or behind on my child support (as the custodial mother), there was no outreach program to help me. And as I wasn’t preventing access, that wasn’t an issue. Thanks, dudes for rewarding me for compliance and good-faith allowing regular access to my growing (and healing) children by totally removing them from me, failing to enforce child support — at all, practically — and allowing him after custody switch to totally cut off contact, failing to report felony child-stealing (meaning, no Victims of Crime compensation), and no help after this event trashed my jobs. Thanks. Merry Christmas to all, and let’ em eat cake…}}
It is assumed by the court that it is not in the best interest of a child for a parent to have unsupervised visitation with the child if there is credible evidence of a history or pattern of past or present child neglect or physical or sexual abuse by that parent directed against the other parent, a spouse, or a child. *7
*1 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.131
*2 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(a)
*3 Tex. Fam. Code §153.004(b)
*4 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(c)
*5 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(d)
*6 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004
*7 Tex. Fam. Code § 153.004(e)
======================
(Since I’ve already dated, if not geographically marked (as to California) myself, I’ll go one step further and admit, this “well, it depends. . . .. ” approach to whether an abuser (or “a parent who has committed violence”) can get custody of a child approach reminded me (see highlit words, above) on the old comedy routine:
“Here Comes Da Judge!”
A little more judicial humor, even more dated (i.e., not my own…):
“THE INSCRUTABLE WORKINGS OF PROVIDENCE“
More, “HERE COME DA JUDGE” info:
I’m not really “playing around” so much as it might appear. Did you do your homework last few posts, and look up the L.A. County Judges Slush fund (at least acc. to Marv Bryer et al.), how it started out of the county court house, not paying taxes for years (til basically forced to), morphed into CCC then somehow AFCC, and now we have these tremendous professionals, and social scientists figuring out our problems for us…..?
ETHICS, TRANSFORMATIONS, and Dr. JUDITH REISMAN, Kinsey, etc….
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/CaliforniaCripplesWomen.pdf
I cannot find the exact article where Dr. Reisman was talking about the importance of ETHICS in public servants, and referring to a certain (old) law that was being undermined. She is a controversial figure for sure, but I responded to her personal story, which you might also, and how her own world got rocked when it was discovered a relative had been molested. …. I’d also like to note: articles are published onto “WND” (World Net Daily) which I do NOT espouse overall….
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/about_dr_reisman.html#journey
Summary:
HER STORY:
What will your judge believe? Suppose it was your daughter? As a mother — like the Berkeley (female) officer who finally noticed something was “off” regarding Phillip Garrido’s twoa ccomplices, will “da judge?” be receptive to your story, your kid’s story, or your partner’s story? Will all of them be considered “stories” and then business farmed out to a mediator, because the story now, is, equal parenting, pretty much no matter what….. And we MUST resolve our (irreconciliable?) differences in Conciliation, excuse me, Family Court, because it’s emotionally damaging to have irreconciliable differences with real damages.
I really believe the only way out is to find out who is paying these pipers. My research, to date, shows that it’s NOT just the litigating parents, but the entire taxable workforce. And the organization spouting all this stuff began by dodging taxes itself, allegedly. Go figure!
(THESE few from NAFCJ.net, home page — links may or may not be current, but are searchable):
“Protective Mom Accused of Witchhunt”, 11/23/1999, By Cheryl Romo, LA Daily Journal — Karen Anderson, one of the retaliated protective mothers mentioned in the Insight story, has since obtained hard evidence (cancelled checks) that federal money from fatherhood programs was used without her knowledge to pay-off all court officials in her case. Anderson along with Connie Valentine are heading up NAFCJ’s reform action in California.
A Financial Fiasco Is in the Making, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara, Insight Magazine, Los Angeles Superior Court Judges Association, 2002, still slushing funds
and not paying taxes…
Insight Magazine “Is Justice for Sale in LA?”, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara – Marv Bryer fights against corruption in Los Angeles County Court – the original AFCC court judges’ association, and promoters of Dr. Richard Gardner’s discredited pedophile theory, “PAS” Parental Alienation Syndrome.
Insight Magazine “New Scandals in LA Courts”, By Kelly Patricia O’Meara — Continuation with more of Marv Bryer’s evidence details on an alleged slush fund for the L.A. Superior Court Judges Association (AFCC judges) and the possible extortion of civil litigants by some officers of the court.”
Retaliation Against Professionals Who Report Child Abuse, By Katherine Hine, J.D., Exposé The Failure of Family Courts to Protect Children from Abuse in Custody Disputes, A Resource Book for Lawmakers, Judges, Attorneys and Mental Health Professionals.
I’m still looking at the googled “Marv Bryer” myself: here’s a sample of printouts:
You know what? Maybe the love of money IS the root of all evil. Not using it, not having it, but loving it more than, say, children. Or oaths of office, etc.
DISCLAIMER: Note, this seems to be a survivalist, gun-toting, all-American (you get the picture), I’d say for sure conservative site. I am just curious to read the Marv Bryer article, and don’t know if this represents his philosophy either. Sort through it, though.
THE THING IS:
If you are going to the fruit stand in a store, are you going to sort and pick through apples for the good ones? Or pick a pre-bagged, inspected, certified organic (etc.) one, whose packaging you trust? Or, alternately, skip apples for today.
They say one bad apple spoils the whole bunch. When you get divorced and can’t figure it out OUTside court, you must go INSIDE, and in this case, you can’t forum-shop or judge shop. Remember, if there is conflict within a family, the parents just lost jurisdiction, acc. to that old law (see last few posts). Your kids and your life are no longer your own.
Therefore it’s IMPERATIVE that ALL financial incentives to defraud the public be removed for ALL judges. This ain’t going to be a walk in the park, and I wish that the Moms and Dads both (the honest ones) would quit yakking about social science studies and do their math homework.
Hope you appreciate this sacrifice of my own internet time just made to day. Have a nice day… and Let’s Get HONEST! And make sure our public officials do also!
Thanks.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
December 19, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Posted in AFCC, After HE Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, Mandatory Mediation, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Split Personality Court Orders, Who's Who (bio snapshots)
Tagged with Child Molestation, custody, Dr. Judith Reisman, Due process, Jaycee Dugard, parental kidnapping, Phil Garrido, retaliation for reporting, social commentary, Studying Humans, Supervised Visitation, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..