Posts Tagged ‘Studying Humans’

Who’s actually TALKS with the REAL stakeholders when it comes to Stalking, Domestic Violence (not “abuse”), and Child Abuse??

I have a question, after finding an unusually honest commentary on how the model code for stalking laws was developed. I’ve spent some years, in the process of seeking help, becoming acquainted with the standards for what makes sense, according to LOTS of organizations. I then tried to bring this common sense into actual practice in our own case after it hit the family law venue.

Yeah, right..

I have a question. As usual, thinking aloud (and posting as I go), the introduction gets longer and the original content that inspired the post, lower and lower. Presently, scroll down to just below all the graphics (logos) and there’s the question, and in primarily BLUE content, the quote that started today’s post.

Eventually, over the years, I got to the point of connecting more and more dots, including why would it take this amount of diligent searching by a woman with two college degrees and highly motivated to get some answers, to come to the inclusion that the tipping point is where the intent to publish hits the point to put it into practice. This is a fulcrum.

Eventually I stopped just reading only content, and started paying more attention to in which publication things were published (most of which I couldn’t afford to subscribe to). THEN I started connecting which nonprofit (or, some of these are almost exclusively the project of some government grants, and say so right on the websites) with which publication, which which professionals. This is what would in interpersonal interactions be called “body language.” Only, without warm bodies and live voices and actual interaction face to face, the next best substitute, especially for those without a travel fund, is sometimes a little background check. On-line. Free.

What I post here today was written a while back by a professional now involved in addressing some family court issues, and who I hope to meet someday soon. We appear to have been circling around geographically within a few miles of each other, but consistently in different venues. In other words, she has worked for and at organizations I’ve sought help from and whose halls I’ve sat in as a “client.”

It’s probably time to make a phone call. Meanwhile, today’s a difficult time for me, and I can’t quite say why without revealing which case. Please bare with some of the over-writing here, and understand why today (and I acknowledge, yesterday), sarcasm is pretty high. Fact is, I miss my daughters, and it’s the beginning of a school year. Instead, I get the back hand and the ugly side (or no side at all) of the parent and other adults in control of their lives. I can and have read law, and after looking, still don’t see that I’ve committed a crime in these matters, and I most certainly HAVE seen and identified several ones committed since the case switched from civil to family law, which I to this day believe is where batterers go to hide, and keep up the same pattern of behavior, only with more validation.

Oops, there I go again.

ANYHOW, as to the conferences and subscriptions, I have a suggestion: Instead of a grant to explicate the context of domestic violence in custody decisions (apparently a recent one) and the “Domestic Violence Conference of the Decade,” whose speakers and sponsoring organizations I did take a pretty good (on-line) look at — and got the general picture for sure — and ANOTHER one I just heard of today:

(boy, the logos, and PR, and branding, is getting more and more professional!):

(SEE: http://dvinstitute.org), which it appears just happened in Detroit. . ..

Here’s another one about to happen in San Diego:

http://dvinstitute.org/announces/files/Partial%20Brochure-5-18.pdf

The logo makes me think I’m back in grade school again (check it out — I couldn’t click & drag).

It has a wooden post with 3 pointers, “Future, Present, Past” all askew on a sky background.

“FUTURE” is pointing right (the only one pointing right) and UP (ditto).
Present is horizontal and point left, indicating a change of direction. From WHAT?
Past is pointing left and down. Talk about not very subtle.

I could suggest some more detailed logos. Perhaps the length of the line I stood in yesterday for $15.00 coupon to go get food, which allowed me to get some nonfoods, which Food Stamps program, onto which I’ve been forced back because of former failed systems, most of which interfered with My system called, working! and complying with court orders. Because we might also have a problem with drugs, alcohol or tobacco, or who knows, perhaps just for simplicity, and of course for the safety of those distributing (i.e., no cash), we could only go to ONE store (a few miles away, which is great for those without cars, with children, and poor enough to need help with food). I figure out the expense to time ratio of this, and between wait, and buses, it was approximately $4.00/food benefit per hour, four hours expended in getting coupon and food. Not including getting home with it. A far cry from a conference.

This line contained live people with real stories, and mostly people of color, different colors, sizes, and manners; most of them also, women, many with children, and each with a story, and their own method of dealing with the long wait. It was detailed and usually cheerful, this waiting is routine. I didn’t see anyone I recognized although I’d been there many times before.

Perhaps I should show some children crying, with a forensic child psychologist, or CPS worker. Perhaps I should show a woman crying. Perhaps I should show General Assistance being cut (as it is) to make way for some of the grants I’ve been blogging on, including yesterday.

If economic distress causes violence (I don’t believe it does) than perhaps this is partly why. But an inane signpost over these words? – –

A New Direction for a Safer Tomorrow: National Conference on Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange

Yeah, that and a new specialty in the field, too. . . . . Not THAT new, but apparently . . . .

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and the Office on Violence Against

Women are proud to sponsor the first National Conference on Supervised Visitation and Safe

Exchange. This conference will inform professionals (WILL INFORM WHOM?? WHOM????)

about how to provide supervised visitation and safe exchange services that account for (HOW ABOUT PREVENT??) domestic violence.

THink about this: if there is a need for supervised visitation and safe exchange, that means domestic violence is already there.

Pare

nts who don’t threaten to abduct, or hurt a Mom without supervision, or do this (and many do), wouldn’t need this.

National experts will provide education on safety for adult victims and children; services for diverse populations; community

collaboration; and advocacy, in the context of domestic violence and supervised visitation and

safe exchange. The conference will highlight effective practice and programs, offer tips and

tools, provide an opportunity for networking, and inspire and invigorate participants.

Expert Faculty . . .

(I dare site visitors here to look up each and every expert and determine where they are coming from, and who pays their organization’s bills.. . . . . . )

Would you like to see a similar brochure? OK, here. I found it (this search) at

http://parentalalienationcanada.blogspot.com/2009/02/domestic-violence-conference-of-decade.html

California Alliance for Families and Children

cafcusa.org

Please forward to colleagues and friends

Family Violence Treatment and Education Association (FAVTEA)

favtea.com

THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONFERENCE OF THE DECADE!

From Ideology to Inclusion 2009:

New Directions in Domestic Violence Research and Intervention

With Featured Presentations By:
Murray Straus, PhD	*	Deborah Capaldi, PhD	*	Don Duton, PhD {{NOTE: S/BE “DUTTON”}}
K. Daniel O’Leary, PhD	*	Sandra Stith, PhD	*	Richard Gelles, PhD

Also Featuring:
Sarah Avery-Leaf, PhD	*	Mohammed Boabaid, PhD	*	Ellen Bowen, LCSW
Jan Brown	*	Wendy Bunston, MFT	*	Michelle Carney, PhD
Ken Corvo, PhD	*	Carol Crabsen, LCSW	*	Christopher Eckhardt, PhD
Lynette Feder, PhD	*	Richard Felson, PhD	*	Kimberly Flemke, PhD
Joel Garner, PhD	*	Lonnie Hazelwood, MSHP, LCDC	*	Denise Hines, PhD
Jodi Klugman-Rabb, MFT	*	Christopher Maxwell, PhD	*	Eric McCollum, PhD
Daniel Sonkin, PhD	*	Arlene Vetere, PhD	*	Carolyn West, PhD

Date:	Friday, Saturday and Sunday, June 26-28, 2009
Place:	Los Angeles Airport Marriott Hotel Los Angeles, CA
More info:	2009 Conference Flier

Most presenters serve on the editorial board of the peer-reviewed journalPartner Abuse, published quarterly by Springer publishing. For more information, go towww.springerpub.com/pa

Sponsored by:
California Alliance for Families and Children
and
Family Violence Treatment & Education Association

TO LEARN MORE OR SIGN UP, GO TO:
WWW.CAFCUSA.ORG

Domestic Violence Training DVDs Now Available!

See the founders, the pioneers, and today’s most respected experts together at the one-of-a-kind, historic conference, “From Ideology to Inclusion:.”Evidence-Based Policy and Intervention in Domestic Violence The conference was held February 15-16, 2008, in Sacramento, California.

Mail or fax in your order today!

Order form and catalog (click to order)

Summary of Speaker Bios

Read more about the conference

Online video from the conference

DID I forget, in addition to any conference fees, there’s (like any good market niche) the collateral sales market too. Incidentally, downloading information is one of the lowest overhead, most profitable fields of direct selling around, once it’s in place. It’s a GREAT business model.

Is that enough Ph.D.’s? Surely I should just their judgments about my danger level, experience of domestic violence, and whether my kids are or are not at risk of — shall we say — parental abduction — better than my own. After all, look at the degrees!

I wonder whether it has occurred to any of these people that some women leaving abuse might prefer going for not just “job training” but more degrees themselves, rather than defending from the latest round of accusations through this system, or for that matter, the latests fads sweeping through it. . ..

Speaking for myself, I already had the degrees, I just wanted “permission to practice” what I was already trained in and couldn’t, formerly, because of the domestic violence situation.

Remind me to get another Piled Higher Deeper (then I won’t call it that any more…), it may pay better than blogging for nothing, if I’m in one of these fixing people fields. Which, however, I wasn’t. I was in music, which helps heal people many times. It changes them. But it doesn’t approach from the point of view, unilaterally: “You need fixing, and we will do it!” It’s more transformative than legislative in nature. Funding for the arts is in jeopardy, but not for family-fixing.

SO, who attended THIS conference?

Who attended this one? (Sorry folks, if you just missed it, this past June): In the words of one of the groups above:

The conference quickly became an international event after its announcement. This was due to all of the internationally respected experts that presented at the conference, as well as attendees that came from all over the U.S., Canada, Europe and Asia. Easily 95 percent of those who had registered and attended the conference were with state, local and U.S. government agencies, including officials and staff from the Department of Health and Human Services. It was also attended by a myriad of public health agencies, Social Services, law enforcement, treatment providers and family law practitioners. The list goes on. In addition, several states had representatives from their Judicial Branches attend, including judges.

Seems to me about the only people NOT there were: family court LITIGANTS, battered women, protective mothers, children who had aged out of the system, in the custody of an abusive parent (these young people DO exist and are now speaking out: Courageous Kids, Alanna Krause, others. I WONDER what my daughter will say, or realize, when she turns 18, soon.) I don’t see the category “shelter workers” there. I don’t see “domestic violence advocates” as a category, do you? Family law practitioners and treatment providers, You BETCHA!

Because of the historic nature of the conference, {{and surely not because of PR, contacts with someone at the station, or anything of a mercenary or publicity-promotion nature…}} Radio Station KFBK-AM 1530, in Sacramento interviewed Erin Pizzey, the founder of the shelter movement and one of the conference presenters (incidentally, it seems Ms. Pizzey, daughter of an ambassador, has come to the conclusion that the shelter movement is run by radical feminists and socialists, and was turned on by them for not going along.).. . Everything is always “radical” “new” “Pioneering” and “launched” (etc.) in this field.

Perhaps this next testimonial may explain why the D.A. was so resistant to allowing me to not lose, or help me regain, custody of my daughters when it was their FATHER, not their MOTHER who had taken them so long ago:

After going through the post conference surveys, we learned that most attendees gave the conference overall scores ranging in the 4 & 5’s (with 5 being the highest score). We have heard directly from many attendees who are mediators and evaluators in family courts, and they called the conference the best they had ever attended on the issue. Many of them have been in the practice for 30 years. One District Attorney wrote:

“I thoroughly enjoyed the conference and felt it was one of the best I’d ever attended (I’ve been attending DV conferences ever since the Judicial Task Force put on a statewide conference after the OJ case!)”

(The clear and blatant theme of this one appears to be that women are equally as violent as men. Hence, the publication “Partner” abuse (and “abuse” not “Violence’) Title: From “Ideology” to “Inclusion.”

Oops: http://www.cafcusa.org/2008%20conference.aspx

It appears these reviews are from the 2008 conference, which was merely “historic” and not “the conference of the decade.” Sorry in searching on the latter term a merely Grand conference got confused with the truly Grandiose, which is about how the language goes too. But it’s not truly likely that the same organizations, in alliance are likely to change directions themselves. They exist, many of them, to change directions of OTHER venues, and other people’s, well, court cases.

(Tell you what — this inclusion does not appear to work in reverse quite so well…)

But, who are the real stakeholders?

Why not instead just raise funds for subscriptions for women leaving abuse to some of the publications talking about us, and our children, and our batterers, and our stalkers, and our children’s abductors, and our options, and how to intervene.

If we could have some “supervised visitation” to some of these conferences, I’m sure we would be competent to stand up and dispel some illusions circulating around these topics. I have known for a long time what would and would not take this household towards safety and self-sufficiency and been asking for it from institutions that had it to offer, they said.

This has fallen mostly on deaf ears. So now I am more interested in talking to these people’s supervisors, and employers, which FYI, happens to be in many cases, the federal grants system.

(note: I talked myself into two such “Screening for Abuse (or, Domestic violence)” type conferences within recent years, AFTER I lost my kids, and while in PTSD, Poverty, dealing with stalking, and working one remaining job. I overcame the PTSD of speaking up, and was called “brave” for doing so, in front of many strangers. One was aimed at health professionals, and was nationwide. ANother was aimed at custody evaluators and was not, although I would characterize BOTH of them as having analyzed the problem of abuse pretty darn well.

It was extremely validating and didn’t make a damn bit of difference in the case, and I doubt will in a whole lot of others. Why?

Because INFORMATION is not MOTIVATION.

EDUCATION doesn’t produce behavior change unless the MOTIVATION to change exceeds the benefits of NOT changing.

Overcoming PTSD to speak in front of strangers, is not my definition of brave. My definition of “brave” entails facing potential death, which I have, not facing a strange audience. It entails facing down that man, with a loaded gun and crazy talk, in my own home, and not just once. The bravery THAT time related to the fact I was a mother, and young children were in the home. My definition of brave is, knowing the possible impact, telling my family to go take a hike and get a life, when they violated my boundaries post-restraining order, and made it consistently clear after this clear statement, that this was not on THEIR agenda.

Similarly SOME people need to start recognizing that surviving abuse may be luck, or it may show competence, and start getting a different attitude about who you are dealing with, when a person shows up not too coherent immediately after an incident. Or when they show up in court (repeatedly forced to, thanks to the family law venue, which specializes on hearsay vs. evidence) also not coherent enough, possibly because of who’s present, and because of the authoritatarian and “it could change on a dime” nature of the interchange.

At this public speaking at a conference for PROFESSIONALS in the FIELD time, I also almost spent a night on the street, because in the process of speaking up, I mislaid car keys, took a commute back home, and found out the keys were in another city. Getting them back took half a night, and more money (of the very little I’d gotten by chance the previous day, allowing me the commute to this conference), help from two friends by phone (my own cell being off) and it was cold, too. I then imposed on someone who was actually a music client (so to speak) to stay overnight so I might not, in the fatigue and stress, oversleep work the next mornign which at this point would’ve resulted in being dismissed.

About a year later (this being halfway through the court cases following child-stealing) I was indeed suddenly dismissed by this same group. Possibly they had what’s called “vicarious trauma” dealing year after year (and it was that) with my inability to get free from ONE abuser, and his friends, and the family law mishandling of a simple, simple restraining order renewal. Which I didn’t, FYI, get.)

I want to say something:

Since then, I have looked into the financing (funding, folks) of this same organization, and at its website. See my post on “the amazing, disappearing word “Mother.” (The group is not featured, but the principle applies). It is a premiere group in the war against violence, not against “women” but, well, “family violence.” I have to really question why in this same state, funds to shelters have been axed, but not to this group. I have to ALSO question why I couldn’t get simple help when I needed it (and that includes, to date) from any of the entities that exist to provide it, after some of the original ones made a few policy mistakes, major ones, in designing the original custody order.

So, why not just invite us to the conferences? Note: before, THAT, raise funds to make sure that their phone and internets stay on (and deal with on-line stalking as well). For example, the other year, had my phone been on, I trust I could’ve found a job and retained access to a moving vehicle through what’s called “work” — even though, through family law inanity, I lost custody on an overnight over a year earlier, all my profession in the aftermath (and buildup), and all hope of collecting any child support arrears in the process.

You know what these conferences are to me, any more? They are like ambulance-chasers. They are carpet baggers.

They are like a person with a boat with room in it, and not too far to BOAT to shore, but too far for most people, particularly people in danger of shock, or fatigue, or not in top marathon shape — they drive by in the boat and wave. Sometimes they grab a kid in the process. They congregate in boats, and talk to each other about the shipwrecks. They even SOS — the shore — for more gas, and refreshments — and “technical support” — to converse — exclusively with each other — about “how to rescue shipwrecked sailors.” SOMETIMES some of them even pull out a child or two, or three, and give the child into the care of other people making a living off the shipwrecks — OR the other parent that helped cause it. That’s bright.

Then they have conferences about “shared parenting.” Or, even about “the context of custody-switch.” Or sometimes even about “the advisability of mediation in family law cases involving allegations of domestic violence or child abuse.” I’ve read many of these, and they are (unlike this blog) generally copyedited, slick, and even have nice charts, sometimes color coded bar graphs, and the whole nine yards.

But what they don’t have is the voices of the people in the water which might show where they missed the boat in these discussion.

NOW — do I think ALL the people in ALL the conferences have impure motives and self-interest in the forefront of their minds?

NO — I know that ALL people are imperfect and have impure motives and self-interest to some degree, including me.

That’s what the Constitution is about, and why any sitting President is sworn, under oath and in public, to preserve, protect, and defend it. It’s about putting some restraint on tyranny.

This includes tyranny by simple exclusion from policy-making conferences.

It should NOT be necessary for almost every mother (or father) who goes through divorce to switch professions and join one that might help him or herself defend herself in a family law custody action, and it PARTICULARLY is not fair where one partner (and it’s most likely to be the female one) has a life in the balance. Not just an emotional economic life, but also a physical life to her or her kids.

TRUTH has a lot of depth and nuances, but the underlying principles are basic, and basically, SIMPLE. When we are talking about human behavior. As a teacher of many years, and I have taught, coached, directed, co-taught, co-directed and/or performed with beginners (tone-deaf) to professionals (in 3 venues: piano/vocal/choral), I know that the same basics work every time, as much as how people sing and their particular voices differ. Certain basics HAVE to be there, including: Air, vocal cords, something to sing, and to do it well — a REASON to sing.

Same for offices, lifestyles, businesses. There is income, expenses, cash flow, overhead, etc. There is some basic math involved.

What the extended decades-long (I’m approaching 10 years, I know others who have been in longer) nonending family law venue DOES is simply divert cash flow. It STOPS what existed before, and recreates a NEW version according to its paradigm. Many times, it stops the process and incentive for either parent to work.

So, IF the actual desire is to STOP VIOLENCE, or CHILD ABUSE and SAVE LIVES: I recommend starting to pay parents, particularly those who are experiencing stalking, abuse, or other threats, for some of these subscriptions, so we can keep up with what’s being proclaimed about us and our kids and our lifestyles,

Or, alternately, we could stop the conferences and get back to something halfway reasonable, like our own businesses. Right now, this thing is really getting out of hand. . . . . After a few years of chasing around the experts, and being ever so happy they had “analyzed” a situation well, I began to realize this is about where it stops. With the talk. (Well, not really, the dynamic of the situation is changing, but the “you’re making it up” folk are cancelling out the “you’re minimizing abuse” folk. Even when they “collaborate.”)

I actually DO have a life (still — not the same one, but a life) to get back to, and it’s clear that this is going to go on, well, forever. I DO have some things I wish to do in life than stop people so intent on stopping domestic violence, they have kept it going a good long while, and people so intent on sharing custody that they are not about to, ever, acknowledge that this is getting too many people hurt. No, “supervised visitation” is NOT a good alternatives, that I can see. For one, I was not offered it once in many years, although it would have been very appropriate given where the problems were happening in our case. Most people I know that HAVE supervised visitation (at their own expense) are women who got it AFTER they reported abuse. They lost custody and have to pay to see their kids.

Do I want to spend the rest of my life fixing this problem? No. I don’t think it’s going away soon. On the other hand, do I accept what has happened and zero accountability for what was stolen from my daughters, and me, and the unnecessary destruction involved? No. Do I want to lose something more if I confront again? No. Would you?

So. why not let the real stakeholders in on the discussions with the “stakeholders” in these systems? Why should we have to run around studying the industry, and finding out about each new conference half of us can’t attend anyhow? And with speakers we have already been exposed to their work, and a sometimes (I speak for myself) even know which grant or grants program is funding the thing and the policy? Have we become a nation of actually employed experts whose very jobs are robbing from the unemployed, whom they are studying?

(I do apologize for my sarcasm here. But my phone is only on today because someone had a good hair day, as opposed to a bad hair day, and another dribble of child support arrears showed up, enough for phone and not much more. In order to get some nonfoods (which is illegal on Food Stamps) rather than ask someone I know for this (again), I waited 2 hours to get a single coupon unredeemable except at one store — not nearby. I waited til the next day to redeem it. On that day, which involved approximately SIX total bus trips, none of them involving more than 10 mile radius total, and after having walked 2 of those miles without proper shoes, I took the baggage home (involving a sack of potatoes and more) and looked for work, a lead on charity cars, and more. Then my phone went off (as happens when one doesn’t pay in time). THIS MORNING, I talked the bus driver into letting me on half price, because the feet wouldn’t make a similar distance this time. It just so happened (couldn’t have been planned around or predicted) that — just under the deadline, a deadbeat Dad paid again. I reflected at how similar this was to life when I LIVED with this man (particularly as to unpredictable access to any kind of cash, and having to dedicate half a day or more to something that would take 20 min to an hour in a car).

The primary difference being then that I had the joy of a little company with my daughters, who were growing up still. I wonder where they are and what they are thinking today.

So, let’s change the dynamics:

Benefits (from OUR point of view, at least):

Life
Liberty, hopefully
Pursuit of happiness
Decreased National Debt ($1.9 TRILLION, I just heard?)
Safer classrooms, probably
Many, many more benefits.

Detriments (possibly from publishers, conferrers, model code designers, and a WHOLE lot more):

Some professions would have to find a new market niche, because the problems their professions live off would likely abate. Like those who have lived through (see subject line) they would have to be resourceful, flexible, think on their feet, and probably no longer have a “captive” audience or a steady stream of federal grants to solve problems, but enter the free marketplace like the rest of us.
The professed Ph.D. experts would have to move over for the actual “experts.” An expert is one who has experienced a thing, and has a vocabulary sufficient to communicate to communicate to others what it was. Typically, this entails knowing others involved in the same thing. OUR vocabulary, not the expert social science vocabulary.
Cash and jobs would flow in a different direction.

I think those would be the primary differences. The question is, HOW would America Survive without the economy of pathology? And the paradigm of the us/them; subject/object expertise heirarchy?

What year do you think this was written?

(Scroll to bottom for answer).

I have pasted an entire section from an article I found on-line today, as I was thinking about the mental segmentation and disconnect between different types of justice (courts), between courts & police, between police & prosecutors (from what I can tell), between “domestic violence” professionals and “child abuse professionals” (meaning, these professionals desire to STOP domestic violence and child abuse, by analyzing and, based on analyses, communicating their results and asking for policy changes. Then, if the policy changes, the matter comes up, is the PRACTICE changed. Again, the typical mentality is to “train” the professionals to practice what’s right.

Very few actually deal with the realities of human nature, namely, that there is no single branch of employment, business, and no profession, where most of the employees are altruistic, and none of them are dangerously self-serving, or motivated by, for example, basic human greed, denial, or lust for power.

This excerpt is a sample of what I’d call honest writing, which shows how even a “model” practice that is published — certain perspectives were omitted. I would imagine that in this case, the voices of the people with these perspectives (the victims the model code was hoping to help) were not present for the dialogue. THAT is indeed a problem, this gap.

it’s really a matter of language. You see, calling an intersection of court, law enforcement, and social services workers when discussing issues that affect people who come under the category victims (i.e., of crimes) without including the victims — IN THOSE DISCUSSIONS — is exclusionary.

It is a larger subset of a larger divide, called “service-providers” (including the “service” of JUSTICE) vs. Recipients/clients.

I’ve blogged on another post here about the effect of stalking on me, and including through other family members. It is a total life-changer (and illegal). I do not know how to sustain regular employment around the degree of it that has come into my life, and have totally switched goals in order to accommodate, if possible, the safety factor. I know other women who have done this. It’s NOT a game, and NOT a joke, but every law enforcement officer I reported to treated it as such, and added in some verbal abuse to go along with my attempt to report. I have reported it to almost every agency or type of individual involved in my case, as I also reported the risk of child-stealing (which happened) and my concerns about the lethality factor in our case, a combo. of gut instinct, only to then find literature that shows my gut was right.

It is an odd feeling to find out how much of one’s life had already been discussed and conferenced about, and how long ago, and relate this to how many women have been killed since because even this (in its own words) “flawed” model still isn’t being followed.

Nevertheless, here it is. It is in off-blue (not “link” color) italics. Any bold or underlining, or variations from italic blue, are my additions,or emphases, except obviously the bolded section headings:

National Institute of Justice Project to Develop Model Anti-Stalking Code for States

Limitations of Report from Domestic Violence Perspective

In response to the great and sudden interest in state stalking codes, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) created a project to develop a model anti-stalking code for states, releasing their final report in _________. (see below) Interestingly enough, the report does not refer to the NIJ’s history of involvement with this issue, which included the development of a model harassment code over 10 years ago.

Unfortunately, the resource group which developed this model code included no domestic violence advocates. (An issue which continues to this day/Let’s Get Honest comments in other fields) Presumably this accounts for the fact that domestic violence, rather than being seen as a central issue in the development of the model code, is relegated to tangential status.

Domestic violence is rarely mentioned in the report, and when it is it may be in a footnote. See, e.g., footnote 83, pages 38 – 39, which touches briefly on the overlap between domestic violence and stalking, and reports without comment on law enforcement attitudes that domestic violence stalking incidents aren’t worth much attention: “… While 77 percent of responding jurisdictions in Australia and Great Britain reported investigating stalking-type incidents, none considered stalking a major problem . High-profile cases were rare in the responding countries, and most agencies consider stalking primarily a domestic violence problem. Typical victims are women of any age escaping abusive relationships with dominant males , they reported… Stalker’s methods did not seem to vary from those used by American stalkers, and the course of events seemed to escalate from unwanted contacts to following and face-to-face threats…” (emphasis added) The message appears to be that a crime in which the primary victims are battered women is not “a major problem.”

Domestic violence is hardly mentioned again until page 92, where one paragraph acknowledges the usefulness of drawing upon criminal justice personnel’s experience with domestic violence in formulating strategies against stalking. However, the report then lays out a research agenda which downplays the body of applicable domestic violence research which has already been conducted. The report calls for research on stalkers (i.e. their behaviors, motivations, demographics, histories), stalking as a crime (i.e. its prevalence and reponse by the criminaljustice system), and the usefulness of restraining orders in stopping stalking (i.e. how well the victim, defendant, and criminal justice personnel understand how to enforce them). Given that the overwhelming majority of stalking cases are domestic violence cases, we can already answer many of these questions. {{I alternate emphasis so every sentence is read in this paragraph.}}

In the discussion on sentencing, the report does not mention batterer’s counseling even once in its three-page discussion of evaluation, treatment, and mental illness, {{I’m not at this point highly enamored of batterer’s counseling, probably because of so many incidents I’ve read where counseling was ordered over incarceration; the batterer then aced the counseling, and went promptly out and murdered his former, reporting, partner. And I believe that where even a 10% outside chance of “murder” as a side-effect of ineffective counseling happens, the chance should not be taken. The concept that behavioral science, which is “prognosis” can substitute some how for safety, is not sound thinking, in my view. }}or in the principal recommendations where counseling is mentioned. This is unfortunate, since there is a growing body of literature on the efficacy of batterer’s counseling which would be applicable to the 70-80% of stalking cases involving domestic violence, and since there are also studies showing that most therapists are woefully untrained and uninformed in the area of domestic violence. {{Cobblers see shoes. Lawyers see legal issues. Therapists see personality problems. I have been stalked, battered, and lost access to the children through “family court matters,” so obviously this is kind of what I notice, too. So even correcting the “training” and “uninformed” factors (imagine the expense) would still be in essence asking a professional in a field to change their outlook on the field. }}

The timing of NIJ’s model code report was also unfortunate. The research was done before any appellate cases on stalking had been published, before the volume of commentators in law review articles, and when very few states had amended their statutes. The model code was based on two surveys sent to police departments around the country and to four other English-speaking countries, telephone interviews with prosecutors and defense attorneys, and analyzing the various state statutes on stalking and related issues. {{THIS PATTERN IS COMMON WHEN IT COMES TO GRANT SITUATIONS FOR POLICY CHANGES. FIRST, “DEMONSTRATION,” SOMETIMES (NOT ALWAYS) STARTING SMALL. THEN, “PROCLAMATION” BASED ON THE PRIOR “DEMONSTRATION” WHICH WERE NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE PICTURE}}

It is unfortunate that the NIJ report was not seen as Part I of a two-part process, since it is necessary have an in-depth assessment of how the statutes are actually working in order to evaluate the NIJ’s proposed model code. {{This may have been “unfortunate,” negligent, or intentional. I don’t know which; I wasn’t there. At least this author comments on it. After a while, one begins to notice how many things termed “unfortunate” — weren’t quite left up to fortune. This word cropped up in a mediator report in my case, referring to something which had happened specifically and ONLY after repeated interventions and decisions prompted by said mediator. }}

Analysis of utility of model code proposed by NIJ for battered women

Benefits of Model Code

But even with all the above limitations, the NIJ Report has a great deal of useful information and policy recommendations which could help battered women and their children.

For example, the Report’s principal recommendations for a model stalking code include the following, all of which could be helpful to domestic violence victims:

a continuum of charges, including felony status

option of incarceration

orders to stay away from victim

counseling

victim notification before stalker released

early intervention

systems put in place so that civil and criminal judges know what the other courts are doing with the same case

a research agenda

a multidisciplinary approach

In Chapter Two of the Report, the proposed model code is discused in detail. Probably the most beneficial statement is the following: “Of utmost importance is a state’s decision to require the criminal justice system and related disciplines to take stalking incidents seriously.“

{{CAN YOU NAME AT LEAT 3 RECENT INCIDENTS WHERE IT WASN’T? TOM’S RIVER, A TOLLBOOTH IN CALIFORNIA, AND A HOME (WITH TWO LITTLE GIRLS TRYING –BUT FAILING — TO SAVE MAMA’S LIFE) WHERE THESE RESTRAINING ORDER VIOLATIONS OR STALKING OR SEPARATION DANGER WAS NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY?}}

The useful elements of the proposed code include a broad definition of prohibited acts; allowing “implied threats”, as opposed to “credible threats”, to be sufficient; the use of increasingly serious penalties to deal with increasingly serious acts, and encompassing misdemeanor and felony sanctions; and the broad definition of intent: “In other words, if a defendant consciously engages in conduct that he knows or should know would cause fear in the person at whom the conduct is directed, the intent element of the model code is satisfied.” The drafters made a similar comment in regard to the fear element: “In some instances, a defendant may be aware, through a past relationship with the victim, of an unusual phobia of the victim’s and use this knowledge to cause fear in the victim… a jury must determine that the victim’s fear was reasonable under the circumstances. ” (emphasis added) This language may open the door to the introduction of evidence regarding the stalker’s past threats toward the same victim, and to expert testimony on stalking generally, which will probably be beneficial to victims.

Similarly, Chapter Three’s sentencing provisions are also generally useful for battered women. The overall goals include protecting the victim, allowing law enforcement to intervene when appropriate, sanctions, and treatment for those defendants who can be helped.

The requirement of victim notification, and accompanying acknowledgements that some stalkers may be more dangerous when released from prison, and that stalking behavior often escalates into violence as time passes are very important for battered women. So are the enhanced penalties for restraining order violations, use of a weapon, minor victims, or prior offenses toward the same or another victim. All of these are typical of domestic violence cases. The no-contact orders upon release are likewise key for protecting battering victims. The advantages and disadvantages of requiring convicted stalkers to wear electronic bracelets are discussed sensitively.

Chapter Four, on pre-trial release, also contains recommendations which are generally good for battered women whose batterers stalk them. These include taking danger to the public into account, considering eliminating release on one’s own recognizance, recommended factors for courts to consider in each case, possible conditions of release, including no-contact orders, victim’s right participate in bail hearings, victim notification of pre-trial release and copies of release orders to the victim.

Chapter Five’s strategies for implementation are also generally helpful for battered women. The emphasis on a multidisciplinary approach underlines the need for all societal systems to work together to end this problem. The recommendations about the response of the criminal justice system are good as well, including training, better police policies and procedures, strengthening restraining order enforcement, providing judges with full criminal and restraining order histories of the defendant at every stage of the case, and the need to keep DMV and voter records of stalking victims confidential.

The NIJ’s proposed model code generally complies with the model code recommended by Susan Bernstein, which was discussed above. The NIJ code includes “threats implied by conduct”, and uses the history between the parties as a context in determining the nature of the threats. While the NIJ code does not mandate using computerized informational tracking systems, the larger NIJ Report recommends these, and also recommends the imposition of increasingly stronger penalties, including felonies. Though Bernstein’s recommendation that harassment include “unconsented conduct” is not addressed directly in the NIJ code, it appears that the NIJ drafters intended to encompass such conduct. Thus, the only key element listed by Bernstein which is not addressed by the NIJ Report is the reasonable woman standard.

Flaws of Model Code

On the other hand, the code has some flaws. First, threats toward the victim’s family are limited to those directed at her “immediate family”, which is defined very narrowly. It would be better to encompass the extended family, both because stalkers do not so limit their behavior, and because many ethnic groups in the US have a much broader definition of family than the nuclear version. Coverage should be provided if the stalker is threatening the victim’s aunt, uncle, grandparents, grandchildren, cousins, godparents, godchildren, in-laws, etc.

Second, “[t]he model code language does not apply if the victim fears sexual assault but does not fear bodily injury.” The drafters discuss the risk of contracting AIDS or being injured for resisting, and state that states may want to include fear of sexual assault in their statutes. However, the idea that sexual assault is not bodily injury in and of itself is ludicrous, and any historical distinction between these two types of injuries should not be maintained.

Third, the drafters propose that states allow for either restitution to the victim, or civil causes of action. It is unclear why victims should not have access to both remedies, since they are not interchangable: restitution is ordered by the criminal court, and covers only out of pocket expenses, while tort suits are under the control of the victim, and also allow for awards for pain and suffering and punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

Return to top of the page

Effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women

We last turn to the question of the effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women. On the one hand, such codes can be useful. They serve as an acknowledgement that stalking behavior is wrong, and should be criminalized. They contribute to societal awareness that stalking is often part of the overall pattern of domestic violence. They may be an additional charge which prosecutors can use. In some cases, stalking laws can stop the cycle before more violence occurs by criminalizing behavior which otherwise would be non-actionable. On the other hand, there are many limitations to the efficacy of stalking laws in preventing abuse and violence. In some jurisdictions, stalking laws are the latest fad: they represent feathers in the caps of legislators and criminal justice system personnel, without attempting to solve the underlying problems of men’s violence toward women generally and domestic violence in particular. Secondly, there appears to be a belief in some locations that stalking statutes will be a panacea, that if the legislators can merely write the magic combination of words, they will be able to stop this offense. Such viewpoints fail to take the big picture into account — i.e. without fundamental attitude changes on the parts of law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, juries, media, therapists, and the general public, the same old attitudes about domestic violence will attach to stalking cases and result in inaction, undercharging, light sentences, and ineffective orders.

In order to be effective, stalking statutes must be one piece of a much larger coordinated community response. Key pieces of such a response would include in-depth training and written policies addressing domestic violence and stalking, and would be an integral part of the criminal justice system, health care system, educational system, and other social stystems. The training and policies would state that domestic violence is wrong, criminal, and not tolerated. An additional key piece of the response would involve cooperation between all the different parts of the above systems, such as protocols for cooperation, regular interdisciplinary or inter-agency meetings, and death review teams, reflecting the reality that everyone has to work together if we will ever be able to stop domestic violence.

But even with a true coordinated community response, anti-stalking laws are still a limited tool in preventing domestic violence.Even with severe sanctions, some stalkers, like some batterers, will not stop or will repeat this behavior with other victims when released from jail. And some victims may still be reluctant to cooperate with prosecution because protections they are offered by the criminal justice system are inadequate to prevent retaliation. They may also feel sorry for the stalker, love him, want him to get counseling, etc., or they may be forced to deal with him for years to come because they have children in common. It is notable that many state stalking statutes do not cover situations where the former spouse/stalker has visitation rights. This is a major problem for battered women, whose batterers often escalate the violence after separation and transfer their attempts to control the woman to the custody/visitation arena.

In conclusion, anti-stalking laws are a step in the right direction, but in and of themselves will not solve the problems of battered women or other stalking victim.

MY SUMMARY:

(I only commented on top part of article, for a pattern of asking questions. ALL of it brings up good points, and I hope was read).

I COME BACK TO CONCEPT OF SELF-DEFENSE, AND a Survive! mentality for women. (See my Toms River, NJ post). Don’t break any laws, but do like the Boy Scouts, “Be Prepared.” AND, prepare to survive. I suggest that women pretty much be very pro-active in figuring this out themselves and with their own resources, until such day arrives where model codes are appropriate, or if appropriate, enforced, and if enforced, enforced seriously.

I deeply regret the years of my

(1) calling out for others to help me, while

(2) trying to maintain and help myself both, and immediately leave the situation.

I would have been BETTER engaged in time and energy not to have bothered with the first part. Unfortunately, like many women leaving abuse, economics was a huge issue, not just recovery and safety. This is why any effort to address DV issues not taking into account economic issues is simply unrealistic. At this point, i also believe that any discussion of domestic violence which does NOT discuss the negative impact that the realm of family law has had upon all the research, all the laws, and all the protective meaures in place, will not make a major difference. The efforts cancel each other out.

(Verbal Confrontation, or even taking protective action, on my part just brought greater escalations and punishments. In fact, this was typically where it got physical). I am talking about both IN the battering relationship (in my case, called “marriage, co-habiting years” AND in the afterwards years (taking a stand as a separate woman, with children in the household.). I remember one year of emotionally healthy, solvent, sanity — while a restraining order was in place. There was a storm brewing, but the majority of the situation was a sense of growing prosperity and strength, and — apart from the source of this — peace. This was BEFORE I’d had a few hearings in the family law venue.

The only benefit I can see from the whole process is that I now caution women to avoid absolutely every facet of it possible, and go about establishing their own: Safety, solvency and self-determination. It is also necessary to understand that doing so is not just a threat to one’s ex, potentially, but also to the entire “SYSTEM” if you don’t do it “their” way. Which means becoming dependent on aspects of this for safey, solvency, and forking over self-determination to a parenting plan (or something similar) obtained through a custody evaluator or mediator, who are influenced by forces one doesn’t normally have input to deal with, in part because one doesn’t know they exist to start with.

Now, as to my doing this myself, it may entail abandoning this blog, also. However, speaking out is part of a healing process also, and it’s a vital part.

While advocates from more than once side of the fence now dialogue and collaborate with each other (as women and thereafter sometimes men (including men who killed them) continue to die, and children continue to suffer abuse, and some go missing — the one side of the fence that is often not heard — IN the policymaking discussions, IN print IN the publications on these matters, IN the professional organizations that make a livelihood dealing with these matters, and basically on the IN, not the OUT, in these discussions — will continue to be the people with most at stake — their lives.

It is common sometimes to list the “stakeholders” in each new conference. I have looked at many of these lists. Rarely are the actual parents, targeted child, or targeted spouse (when it comes to child abduction or domestic violence or stalking, ALL of which are related, by the way) invited to confer. And if they did, and what such people said WAS published, or broadcast, what about retaliation? Ever think about that?

WHEN WAS THE EXCERPT WRITTEN?

About 15 years after Toms River, NJ – – 1994:

Found at:

http://www.mincava.umn.edu/documents/bwjp/stalking/stalking.html#id2355674

Domestic Violence & Stalking: A Comment on the Model Anti-Stalking Code Proposed by the National Institute of Justice

Nancy K. D. Lemon
Battered Women’s Justice Project

Publication Date: December 1994

(And the blank date in the excerpt was Oct. 1993).

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

August 26, 2009 at 6:42 PM

Only $118,310,126 (last year), in hopes of Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fathers

leave a comment »

Set this Press Release to the “SPIN” Cycle:

California Healthy Marriages Coalition Says GM Bankruptcy Could Create More
Than Financial Devastation for Families

SAN DIEGO, June 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The GM Bankruptcy is causing six
dealerships around California to be closed. These closures will create more
bad news for California's economy by increasing the already high unemployment
rate of 11 percent, and adding financial stress to the families involved in
these cutbacks. Statistics show that financial strain is one of the leading
causes of divorce and that divorce itself places additional strains on the
economy and on business. This is a distressing cycle for which California's
leading marriage-support organization offers some new reassurance.
{{Just "trust" our press release, statistics show.  Which, or should we say "whose", is
not mentioned..}}
 


{{And HOW did this premiere marriage-support organization (at least according to itself) race 
to the forefront of all California's marriage support organizations??  Clearly 
it must be on its own merits. . . . blood, sweat, tears, ingenuity (that's true), 
and entrepreneurship, standing on the shoulders of giants.  Seriously, the Dept. of Health
and Human Services IS indeed a giant, funding this group from the top down, and some of the
other coalitions under its w - i - d - e umbrella from the bottom up.)






Target Population:
Married and Unmarried persons in California, ages 15 and
older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds


Federal Award Amount:
$2,342,080/year


Program Name:
California Healthy Marriages Coalition


Project Period:
9/30/2006 - 9/29/2011




. . . 
SOURCE  California Healthy Marriages Coalition
 

Yes, alas, ’tis true. . ..  
 
recently, as well as, well,  not so recently, it seems clear from the various newspaper headlines that many marriages are not very healthy.  Also, the same could be said of divorces.      But, for those readers who, as either (U.S.) employees or employERS, actually pay taxes, I would like to reassure you that the U.S. Government is on it, it has a PLAN.  You may or may not be in on the plan, but I assure you it has many plan to fix the overall unhealthiness of both marriages, and the lack of safety attendant to divorce from, well, a spouse that doesn’t believe in divorce.  It would also like to assure you to trust the experts (its hired ones and delegated ones)  To analyze and fix the situation.  This IS, after all, what governments exist for right?  I seem to foggily remember something about the purpose of governments in the Declaration of Independence, and about the word “consent.”     It seems to me that somewhere along the line “We the People” got turned into a version of “You People,” and the posse of experts got called in to fix families.  What they actually ended up doing is breaking the legal system, by turning it into a behavioral health marketplace, clearly infringing on the niche of the faith institutions, for example, I heard that recently the Knights of Columbus, on behalf  of Catholics everywhere, have launched a(nother) fatherhood initiative, lest we somehow forget who’s the boss, called:  http://FathersForGood.org.  
 

 
Notice anything missing from the logo there?
 

(this time, WITH a Mom..)
And now again, this time with a little more style…
 
Now for all those little pieces of education that add up to $118, 310, 126 – – for 2008 — enjoy the panorama of organizations that are addressing this problem of, well, unhealthy marriages and irresponsible fathers.  (I have omitted “Abstinence Education,” because it would overload this post’s, well, capacity).
This wordpress page can only carry one year’s worth of links at a time.  Moreover these are alphabetical by Grant Recipient, nationwide, and not by state (although zip codes are listed).  The fun part is, they are “click-able,” meaning, you can click on an institution’s name and see what else it’s been up to, for how long and for how much.  Perhaps I might show a few more ways to search, but someone of basic intelligence (and motivated) can learn a lot simply by looking.  Another trick you might try is searching its name on “usaspending.gov” and see what kind of cute bar charts and stats show up.  
Thus one can get an overview of almost any CFDA number BUT this one, 93.086, on a certain database.  
Is this inintentional?  If part of required Civic Literacy was understanding the federal grants system, if rather than whine, moan, or complain — or complain to elected representatives –MORE AVERAGE JOES & JANE DOES (the alive ones) started monitoring our home states, state by state and agency by agency, we might stop asking why states are running out of money for domestic violence shelters and general assistance, because the answer would be obvious.  Instead, we would ask intelligent, and pointed questions from the point of view, these are public funds, and (if government) you are public servants, and (if nonprofit) you’re tax exempt for a reason — how does this fulfil the reason, and who is evaluating, and by what standard? 
And then question the standards if they are unreasonable, inconsistent, or do not exist.
Alternately, we could chug along and say, “isn’t so and so handling this? Because I’m busy, and have my own life to handle.”



Sure they are.  That’s why inbetween talking about this, I can’t keep up with the healines, or follow up with the last ones before there are new ones.  That’s why protective orders protect, law enforcement enforces (consistently), child support is collected (consistently and without gender bias), and welfare helps people be better.  AND, (case in point) marriages are clearly getting healed — either that, or they can’t keep up with the new babies (despite Abstinence Education, which I omitted from this list, but is still going strong).
(OK, that’ll have to be another post — WOW, I just pulled 653 records under one code, 93.010 (community-based A.E.)
(not a searchable code in “usaspending.gov,” at least not readily…)
However, top 5 programs with the keyword “abstinence” in the PROJECT title:



93.010: Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)
$128,610,003


 98.001: USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas
$11,058,644


 93.279: Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs
$9,561,182


 93.995: Adolescent Family Life_Demonstration Projects
$8,064,374


 93.273: Alcohol Research Programs
$6,222,97



AND as far as WHO is really interested in why people don’t abstain and trying to get them to:
Top 10 Recipients



 FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL (FHI)
$3,593,286


 SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE
$2,551,682


 PROGRAM FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN HEALTH
$2,233,162


 HERITAGE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC
$2,000,000


 BROWN UNIVERSITY
$1,672,760


 POPULATION COUNCIL INC
$1,613,000


 PATH
$1,500,000


 NEUROBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH INC
$1,466,239


 NEW HOPE CENTER INC
$1,399,907


 CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC.
$1,399,300



Results 1 to 500 of 653 matches.  restricted to “NEW” only, I got 240 new grants:
(AFTER ALL THIS, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO “ABSTAIN” FROM LOOKING FURTHER INTO THESE?)
Here’s a quick partial look:
 



Fiscal Year
Grantee Name
State
Award Title
Budget Year
CFDA Program Name
Award Class
Principal Investigator
($$)Sum of Actions



 
 
 



2009 
Columbus Hospital 
NJ 
COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
2 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
BERNADETTE VISSANI 
$- 739,820 


2009 
METRO ATLANTA YOUTH FOR CHRIST, INC 
GA 
COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
3 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
CINDY MILLER 
$ 300,186 


2009 
Saint Michael`s Medical Center, Inc 
NJ 
COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
BERNADETTE VISSANI 
$ 677,551 


2008 
A WOMAN`S PLACE MINISTRIES, INC. 
FL 
ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
MICHAEL LAYTON 
$ 600,000 


2008 
A WOMENS CONCERN, INC. 
MA 
HEALTHY FUTURES ABSTINENCE EDUCATION INITIATIVE 
3 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
ELIZABETH SNYDER 
$ 600,000 


2008 
ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP 
IL 
COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
SCOTT PHELPS 
$ 512,500 


2008 
ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONSULTANTS,INC. 
KS 
COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
LOIS THEIS 
$ 600,000 


2008 
ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION 
OH 
COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
3 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
CATHERINE E WOOD 
$ 600,000 


2008 
AIDS RESOURCE CENTER OF WISCONSIN, INC 
WI 
COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
SCOTT STOKES 
$ 600,000 


2008 
ALPHA CENTER 
SD 
COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
KIMBERLY MARTINEZ 
$ 600,000 


2008 
ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 
TX 
COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
SHARI L CARROLL 
$ 454,922 


2008 
ARIZONA MEXICO BORDER HEALTH FOUNDATION 
AZ 
COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
ALBERT MORENO 
$ 550,000 


2008 
AWARE, INC. 
WA 
WASHINGTON STATE: COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE UNTIL MARRIAGE PROJECT 
1 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
JAMES N GRENFELL 
$ 499,849 


2008 
About Our Kids, Inc. 
MO 
STRATEGIES FOR ABSTINENCE AND VIRTUE EDUCATION (SAVE) 
2 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
ALICIA HUMES 
$ 600,000 


2008 
Abstinence the Better Choice, Inc. 
OH 
ABSTINENCE THE BETTER CHOICE 
3 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
CHERYL BIDDLE 
$ 600,000 


2008 
Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Inc. 
AZ 
POWER FITNESS ABSTINENCE PROGRAM- TEACHING YOUTH AGES 12 THROUGH 18 THE SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGI 
3 
Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)  
DISCRETIONARY 
EVA GODDARD 
$ 600,000 



 
 
 
and $427 mil (see above link “still going strong”) for another code 93.235, plain old “A.E.” Then I searched the word “abstinence” as a keyword in the project title, and got 
 
 
 
 
 In these venues, (once under the facuet of grants and publications  –  alittle easier to do while not being stalked, or in a court case onesself) talking (and publishing) about problems pays more than solving them, in fact, a LOT more.   This also provides an incentive to try to keep actual problem-solvers (like those who have observed and been hurt by the system, and been taking names and notes, too) OUT of the  talkfests, or decision making process, if they are heard.  And, more and more, out of being informed that the decisionmaking process is not where it should be — as to legal matters, in the courts, not the psychologists’ offices.  
Solving problems cuts off cash flow.  There’s  a clear disincentive.  Ask someone who’s life, or whose child’s life is at stake (and who has not got a history of perjury in the case file already) and SHE will tell you, safety first, shared parenting second.  Child’s right not to suffer abuse or be threatened (let alone the mother’s) or kidnapped supersedes person with history of threatening or abuse’s right to see the child. In re:  “healthy marriages,” her /their (if children) right not to be hurt or killed, or traumatized in fear of this happening, or expose her children to being abused, and deal with frequent exchanges with a former batterer (even if the children were not directly battered) supersedes 53 professionals’ need to reconsider this.  At what point are professionals to be forced to read these headlines that we read, and sometimes analyze, kind of like sitting through traffic court and watch graphic accident footage after one was caught speeding. 
I have been through this.  I have been IN a court case, same month, and domestic violence murder going on, same city, and one could not tell from the demeanor on the outside.  My case had a history of violence, injury, repeated disregard of laws, and treats to abduct (which in fact had just happened).  No matter, we are in la-la-land again. . . .   I had a PTSD incident in the courtroom.  No matter. . . .   
SO, my hope is that the general public will become generally acquainted with how this works, so that if one of THEIR friends is involved (and, of course this presumes that my readers are interested in justice, not perverting it) (which may or may not be wise) – – they can at least see where things went.  $$ wise.  This year.
 
Experts are being churned out at an alarming rate.  Grants go to this, too.  Grants sometimes drive the field of expertise, and very much so in this field of fatherhood and families.  I have looked, and can say this.  Have you?  Could you rebut that assertion with data from the top universities around the country, and colleges?  (Not unless several programs disappear fast….)
Do yourself and others a favor — become a LITTLE more expert in this today than you were yesterday.
And show someone else.  OK?
 
One philosophical question I have from time to time is how much of our adult lives (let alone growing up) are spent OUTside any government institutions to start with.  I mean, what part of our lives are NOT regulated, measured, examined and evaluated (at our own expense) to drive policiesi (without our informed consent, really) that will further tinker with the dynamics of eat, sleep, breed, marry, divorce, educate (let’s not omit that) and re-educate, regulate, and direct.    I have an unfortunate independent streak, and I tend to think there are often better ways to do things.  As a woman, I don’t think needlessly repetitive tasks are the natural inheritance of my gender biologically, and although sometimes there’s a comfort in them, there should be other ways to do one thing or another.  
 
Like better, or less wasteful.  The benefit is, getting more done.  Take for example, deleting religion from public school systems (supposedly) and then trying to re-inject it after criminal behavior, or during the divorce/separation scenarios.  Take for example, a system that itself stresses and dismantles families, and then another (equally chaotic and burdensome to the general public) system to put them back together again.  Take for example, the talk about “separation of church and state” and then nationally calling upon “faith-based organizations” to, though they are largely tax-exempt, at public expense put them back together again.  To WHOM are any of the organizations below accountable, and what demonstration of effectiveness are they showing, or are the “exempt” from that as well as (those that are) from taxes, too?
 
Anyhow, I give you a single “CFDA” (Category of Federal Domestic Assistance) called “Healthy Marriages Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.”  I guess it is assumed that mothers will be healthy without extra coaching and bribing.  Or, that if you get a responsible father (i.e., buy one, and this is explained through another grants systems as well, this IS indeed the premise in practice here – – one has to look at the child support system’s role in divorce).  . . .     or perhaps this acknowledges that for whatever reasons (let’s not mention any OTHER programs this same Of/By/For the people government might have had its hands in), there is a social crisis not just of “fatherlessness” but of “irresponsible fatherhood.”
 
I can vouch for the one I know — father of my children.  He’d rather fight than work any day, which process eventually put me out of work.  No matter, the government stepped in, through family court matters, enter mediation, exit civil rights, eventually exit my contact with my offspring (they did spring out of me, physically.  I pushed, they sprang. . ..  whatever… I was awake for the process and can verify:  I had two children a very long time ago).  And then out they go, to work their own way through life, lest Dad be humiliated by paying much of his child support arrears, which was partly what the battle was about to start with.  I felt that one of us should work, and offered the alternatives of (1) stop messing with me, so I could (since it doesn’t appear you want to) or (2) pay up.  Version (1) entailed requesting a restraining order renewal, or 2nd one, or  . . . . or . . . .   and version (2) required — and I pursued this through the assigned agency – – court-ordered child support should actually be collected before our daughters became adults.  However the MAIN conversation was not about what’s good for the children, but who gets to give orders — forever, basically.    I categorically disagreed with this philosophy as being anti-Constitutional and anti-civil rights and anti-reasonable.  My right to disagree was disagreed with, which makes the situation a GREAT pickings for the family law venue, it LOVES “high-conflict” situations — this draws federal moneys and justifies many professions.   
Anyhow, here they are:  the helpers, last year (2008):
While not all of these were birthed, or even nurtured, by California Healthy Marriages Coalition (“the coalition of coalitions model.”  Sounds kind of like the “war to end all wars,” I don’t know….), they were perhaps started as a gleam in SOMEONE”s eye, having been informed of what’s available from Big Brother, who, on behalf of us all, will make all those ouchies better, soon, soon . .       When we “consent” to taxes, it’s good to know what we have consented for them to be distributed to, well, do.    For example,   ///
CFDA Number = 93086 Fiscal Year = 2008  Recipient: ACTIVE RELATIONSHIPS CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 75205



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0037
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: AS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH  Recipient ZIP Code: 96799



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0054
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$450,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$450,000.00



Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY  Recipient ZIP Code: 36849



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0001
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$1,899,487.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,899,487.00



Recipient: AVANCE – AUSTIN CHAPTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 78704



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0063
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$261,825.00


Award Subtotal:
$261,825.00



Recipient: AVANCE – CORPUS CHRISTI CHAPTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 78415



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0071
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: AVANCE – HOUSTON CHAPTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 77092



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0084
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$236,851.00


Award Subtotal:
$236,851.00



Recipient: AVANCE, INC. – EL PASO  Recipient ZIP Code: 79902



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0100
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages  Recipient ZIP Code: 75246



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0072
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$903,425.00


Award Subtotal:
$903,425.00



Recipient: Archuleta County Department of Human Services  Recipient ZIP Code: 81147



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0055
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$200,000.00


2008
90FR0055
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$200,000.00



Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership  Recipient ZIP Code: 85741



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0136
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: BARAGA-HOUGHTON-KEWEENAW CHILD DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 49931



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0018
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 45230



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0100
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0100
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: BEST FRIENDS FOUNDATION  Recipient ZIP Code: 20015



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0058
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$500,724.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,724.00



Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES  Recipient ZIP Code: 49501



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0057
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$500,000.00


2008
90FE0098
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$499,980.00


Award Subtotal:
$999,980.00



Recipient: BETTER FAMILY LIFE, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 63108



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0023
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$1,097,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,097,000.00



Recipient: BILL WILSON CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 95052



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0096
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$243,469.00


Award Subtotal:
$243,469.00



Recipient: BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 22041



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0032
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$545,806.00


2008
90FR0038
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$795,806.00



Recipient: BOONEVILLE MUNICIPAL SEPERATE SCHOOL DISTRICT  Recipient ZIP Code: 38829



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0036
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$532,675.00


2008
90FE0036
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$532,675.00



Recipient: Brighter Beginnings  Recipient ZIP Code: 94601



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0099
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 90806



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0065
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$450,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$450,000.00



Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES  Recipient ZIP Code: 67214



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0112
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$530,368.00


Award Subtotal:
$530,368.00



Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 92705



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0080
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: CECIL COUNTY GOVERNMENT  Recipient ZIP Code: 21921



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0018
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 53211



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0013
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$1,096,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,096,000.00



Recipient: CENTERFORCE  Recipient ZIP Code: 94901



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0004
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$481,554.00


Award Subtotal:
$481,554.00



Recipient: CHARACTER COUNTS IN MAINE  Recipient ZIP Code: 04116



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0122
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 85716



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0059
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE  Recipient ZIP Code: 03101



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0077
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$315,830.00


Award Subtotal:
$315,830.00



Recipient: CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 33609



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0052
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL  Recipient ZIP Code: 49503



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0038
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0038
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$1,016,258.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,016,258.00



Recipient: CHILD DEVLOPMENT RESOURCES, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 23127



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0043
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$249,999.00


Award Subtotal:
$249,999.00



Recipient: CHILD, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 78751



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0078
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$511,133.00


Award Subtotal:
$511,133.00



Recipient: CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE  Recipient ZIP Code: 02903



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0030
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY  Recipient ZIP Code: 16830



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0118
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$226,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$226,000.00



Recipient: CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 90005



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0076
2
ACF
1
 09-25-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0076
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$500,000.00


2008
90FR0088
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$1,000,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,500,000.00



Recipient: CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 27869



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0001
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$245,296.00


Award Subtotal:
$245,296.00



Recipient: CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 90015



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0071
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: CIRCLE OF PARENTS  Recipient ZIP Code: 60611



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0098
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$1,000,000.00


2008
90FR0098
2
ACF
1
 06-06-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,000,000.00



Recipient: CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 27620



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0059
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  Recipient ZIP Code: 80236



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0085
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$2,000,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$2,000,000.00



Recipient: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY  Recipient ZIP Code: 80523



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0028
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$482,687.00


2008
90FE0028
2
ACF
1
 03-18-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$482,687.00



Recipient: COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSN OF COOK COUNTY  Recipient ZIP Code: 60604



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0089
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$450,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$450,000.00



Recipient: COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 18109



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0033
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$228,603.00


Award Subtotal:
$228,603.00



Recipient: CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES  Recipient ZIP Code: 59855



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0007
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


2008
90FN0007
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$149,940.00


2008
90FR0006
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$465,494.00


Award Subtotal:
$615,434.00



Recipient: CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ  Recipient ZIP Code: 97380



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0009
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$149,918.00


2008
90FN0009
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$149,918.00



Recipient: COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 99508



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0066
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0066
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$418,832.00


Award Subtotal:
$418,832.00



Recipient: CORNERSTONE OF HOPE CHURCH  Recipient ZIP Code: 46221



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0119
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$350,560.00


Award Subtotal:
$350,560.00



Recipient: COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 40204



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0007
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$259,532.00


2008
90FR0015
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$499,968.00


Award Subtotal:
$759,500.00



Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER  Recipient ZIP Code: 85006



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0010
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$275,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$275,000.00



Recipient: CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES  Recipient ZIP Code: 06106



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0031
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$1,000,000.00


2008
90FR0031
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,000,000.00



Recipient: CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI  Recipient ZIP Code: 65211



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0130
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$499,775.00


Award Subtotal:
$499,775.00



Recipient: CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS  Recipient ZIP Code: 44113



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0052
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$533,730.00


Award Subtotal:
$533,730.00



Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition  Recipient ZIP Code: 92024



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0104
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$2,400,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$2,400,000.00



Recipient: Child Find of America, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 12561



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0020
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 47714



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0034
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$543,303.00


Award Subtotal:
$543,303.00



Recipient: Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 93726



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0053
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


2008
90FR0053
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  Recipient ZIP Code: 20032



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0087
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$2,000,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$2,000,000.00



Recipient: Denver Indian Family Resource Center  Recipient ZIP Code: 80226



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0081
2
ACF
1
 09-26-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0081
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$198,280.00


Award Subtotal:
$198,280.00



Recipient: Detroit Workforce Development Department  Recipient ZIP Code: 48202



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0073
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY  Recipient ZIP Code: 27858



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0017
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$525,161.00


Award Subtotal:
$525,161.00



Recipient: EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION  Recipient ZIP Code: 90022



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0056
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$1,100,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,100,000.00



Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN  Recipient ZIP Code: 79930



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0088
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 45405



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0035
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$1,859,692.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,859,692.00



Recipient: Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster  Recipient ZIP Code: 18503



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0060
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$225,608.00


Award Subtotal:
$225,608.00



Recipient: Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse  Recipient ZIP Code: 34981



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0025
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$242,822.00


Award Subtotal:
$242,822.00



Recipient: FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 74120



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0007
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: FAMILY RESOURCES INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 33733



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0132
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$1,100,000.00


2008
90FE0132
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,100,000.00



Recipient: FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 98122



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0032
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY HEALTHSOURCE  Recipient ZIP Code: 87108



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0061
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$300,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$300,000.00



Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST  Recipient ZIP Code: 37405



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0031
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$1,099,953.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,099,953.00



Recipient: FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY  Recipient ZIP Code: 54520



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0006
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


2008
90FN0006
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$150,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$150,000.00



Recipient: FOREST INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY  Recipient ZIP Code: 65807



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0110
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$940,669.00


Award Subtotal:
$940,669.00



Recipient: FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC (THE)  Recipient ZIP Code: 10011



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0017
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE  Recipient ZIP Code: 54115



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0108
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$550,000.00


2008
90FE0124
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,100,000.00



Recipient: FOUNTAIN OF LIFE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES  Recipient ZIP Code: 33027



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0073
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$438,383.00


Award Subtotal:
$438,383.00



Recipient: FRIENDSHIP WEST BAPTIST CHURCH  Recipient ZIP Code: 75232



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0117
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$542,025.00


Award Subtotal:
$542,025.00



Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 15143



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0103
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$1,510,098.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,510,098.00



Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County  Recipient ZIP Code: 77006



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0082
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$477,539.00


Award Subtotal:
$477,539.00



Recipient: Family Service, Inc  Recipient ZIP Code: 01840



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0087
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$227,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$227,000.00



Recipient: Family Services of Westchester, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 10573



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0036
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$497,812.00


Award Subtotal:
$497,812.00



Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center  Recipient ZIP Code: 46208



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0048
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: Florida State University  Recipient ZIP Code: 32306



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0022
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$530,009.00


Award Subtotal:
$530,009.00



Recipient: Future Foundation  Recipient ZIP Code: 30344



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0045
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$402,632.00


Award Subtotal:
$402,632.00



Recipient: GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES  Recipient ZIP Code: 30303



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0064
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$225,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$225,000.00



Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 55104



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0068
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL TEXAS, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 78753



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0051
2
ACF
1
 09-25-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0051
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$240,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$240,000.00



Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH  Recipient ZIP Code: 15202



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0063
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$225,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$225,000.00



Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES  Recipient ZIP Code: 22182



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0006
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$548,932.00


Award Subtotal:
$548,932.00



Recipient: GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 30515



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0104
2
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: HEALTHY FAMILIES COUNSELING & SUPPORT  Recipient ZIP Code: 64119



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0008
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: HEALTHY FAMILY INITIATIVES  Recipient ZIP Code: 77074



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0081
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$537,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$537,000.00



Recipient: HEALTHY START, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 15208



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0103
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$900,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$900,000.00



Recipient: HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT  Recipient ZIP Code: 95546



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0001
2
ACF
1
 09-26-2008
$0.00


2008
90FN0001
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$146,750.00


Award Subtotal:
$146,750.00



Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou  Recipient ZIP Code: 20009



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0049
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC  Recipient ZIP Code: 82001



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0025
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$549,952.00


Award Subtotal:
$549,952.00



Recipient: IOWA FAMILY POLICY CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 50327



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0126
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: Identity, Inc  Recipient ZIP Code: 20877



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0090
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program  Recipient ZIP Code: 92243



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0075
2
ACF
1
 03-18-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0075
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$515,615.00


Award Subtotal:
$515,615.00



Recipient: Indiana Department of Correction  Recipient ZIP Code: 46204



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0019
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$249,896.00


2008
90FR0101
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$400,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$649,896.00



Recipient: Indiana Youth Institute  Recipient ZIP Code: 46204



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0086
2
ACF
1
 09-26-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0086
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$999,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$999,000.00



Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY  Recipient ZIP Code: 72761



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0004
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$544,782.00


Award Subtotal:
$544,782.00



Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,  Recipient ZIP Code: 34237



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0068
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$494,943.00


Award Subtotal:
$494,943.00



Recipient: Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 25064



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0012
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$497,514.00


Award Subtotal:
$497,514.00



Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 40475



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0125
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$490,680.00


Award Subtotal:
$490,680.00



Recipient: LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 20007



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0072
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$250,000.00


2008
90FR0072
2
ACF
1
 04-29-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: LAUGH YOUR WAY AMERICA  Recipient ZIP Code: 54481



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0005
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$274,933.00


Award Subtotal:
$274,933.00



Recipient: LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 45206



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0005
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: LIVE THE LIFE MINISTRIES  Recipient ZIP Code: 32317



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0077
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$549,985.00


Award Subtotal:
$549,985.00



Recipient: LONGVIEW WELNESS CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 75601



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0091
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$1,500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,500,000.00



Recipient: LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA  Recipient ZIP Code: 57105



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0097
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0097
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY  Recipient ZIP Code: 45503



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0009
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$540,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$540,000.00



Recipient: MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES  Recipient ZIP Code: 21201



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0091
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$899,991.00


2008
90FR0092
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$441,514.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,341,505.00



Recipient: MODEL CITIES – EL PASO  Recipient ZIP Code: 79935



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0053
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$499,758.00


Award Subtotal:
$499,758.00



Recipient: MOREHOUSE COLLEGE  Recipient ZIP Code: 30314



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0066
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$549,147.00


Award Subtotal:
$549,147.00



Recipient: Madison Cty Com Health Centers, Inc  Recipient ZIP Code: 46015



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0039
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$546,983.00


Award Subtotal:
$546,983.00



Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation  Recipient ZIP Code: 60187



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0011
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$2,000,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$2,000,000.00



Recipient: Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry  Recipient ZIP Code: 92116



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0016
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$268,349.00


Award Subtotal:
$268,349.00



Recipient: Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice  Recipient ZIP Code: 55406



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0028
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$400,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$400,000.00



Recipient: Montrose County Health and Human Services  Recipient ZIP Code: 81401



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0079
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$249,552.00


Award Subtotal:
$249,552.00



Recipient: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT  Recipient ZIP Code: 85022



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0040
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE  Recipient ZIP Code: 20877



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FB0001
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$999,534.00


Award Subtotal:
$999,534.00



Recipient: NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY  Recipient ZIP Code: 10017



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0090
2
ACF
1
 06-06-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0090
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$495,285.00


Award Subtotal:
$495,285.00



Recipient: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 20006



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0047
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY REGENTS  Recipient ZIP Code: 88003



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0135
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$494,996.00


2008
90FR0057
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$218,336.00


Award Subtotal:
$713,332.00



Recipient: NJ ST DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS  Recipient ZIP Code: 08625



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0026
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$394,248.00


Award Subtotal:
$394,248.00



Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES  Recipient ZIP Code: 97213



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0079
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$1,100,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,100,000.00



Recipient: NW Marriage Institute  Recipient ZIP Code: 98682



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0041
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$275,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$275,000.00



Recipient: New York Youth At Risk, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 10038



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0093
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$225,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$225,000.00



Recipient: Northwood-Apppold United Methodist Church  Recipient ZIP Code: 21218



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0062
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$400,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$400,000.00



Recipient: Nueva Esperanza  Recipient ZIP Code: 19140



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0069
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES  Recipient ZIP Code: 48053



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0070
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$200,170.00


Award Subtotal:
$200,170.00



Recipient: OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY  Recipient ZIP Code: 48056



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0010
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$368,555.00


Award Subtotal:
$368,555.00



Recipient: OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ  Recipient ZIP Code: 43215



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0109
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$544,140.00


Award Subtotal:
$544,140.00



Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES  Recipient ZIP Code: 73125



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0030
2
ACF
1
 03-18-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0030
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$549,791.00


Award Subtotal:
$549,791.00



Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE  Recipient ZIP Code: 44087



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0021
2
ACF
1
 03-18-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0021
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$459,419.00


Award Subtotal:
$459,419.00



Recipient: OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIAL CENTER OF AMERICA, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 19122



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0016
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: Osborne Association, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 10455



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0050
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$448,856.00


2008
90FR0050
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0056
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$698,856.00



Recipient: PAIRS FOUNDATION  Recipient ZIP Code: 33332



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0029
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$990,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$990,000.00



Recipient: PARENTS PLUS  Recipient ZIP Code: 54952



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0113
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$549,629.00


2008
90FE0113
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$549,629.00



Recipient: PEACE, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 13202



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0107
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$465,937.00


Award Subtotal:
$465,937.00



Recipient: PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 80231



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0020
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$525,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$525,000.00



Recipient: PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 90003



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0092
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 94565



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0012
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: PREGNANCY SUPPORT CENTER OF STARK COUNTY  Recipient ZIP Code: 44708



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0055
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$535,075.00


Award Subtotal:
$535,075.00



Recipient: PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF WESTMORELAND FAYETTE INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 15601



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0075
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


2008
90FR0075
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 32224



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0074
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$454,332.00


Award Subtotal:
$454,332.00



Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 73116



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0026
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$1,000,000.00


2008
90FH0001
3
ACF
0
 09-29-2008
$3,250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$4,250,000.00



Recipient Recipient: PUERTO RICAN FAMILY INSTITUTE, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 10011



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0013
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$900,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$900,000.00



Recipient: Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 63146



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0080
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: Professional Counseling Resources, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 19805



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0046
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE  Recipient ZIP Code: 98350



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0002
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$150,000.00


2008
90FN0002
2
ACF
1
 09-26-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$150,000.00



Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 33157



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0043
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: RED CLIFF TRIBE  Recipient ZIP Code: 54814



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0003
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


2008
90FN0003
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$146,672.00


Award Subtotal:
$146,672.00



Recipient: REGION II COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY  Recipient ZIP Code: 49204



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0078
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$203,854.00


Award Subtotal:
$203,854.00



Recipient: REGION XIX EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 79925



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0042
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$900,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$900,000.00



Recipient: RIDGE Project, Inc  Recipient ZIP Code: 43527



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0044
2
ACF
1
 06-06-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0044
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$412,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$412,000.00



Recipient: ROCKDALE HOSPITAL & HEALTH SYSTEM  Recipient ZIP Code: 30012



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0014
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$455,510.00


Award Subtotal:
$455,510.00



Recipient: ROSALIE MANOR  Recipient ZIP Code: 53210



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0037
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: Read To Me International Foundation  Recipient ZIP Code: 96815



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0062
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: Relationship Research Foundation, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 92612



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0058
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: Resource, Inc  Recipient ZIP Code: 55404



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0022
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: Resources for Children`s Health  Recipient ZIP Code: 19102



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0040
2
ACF
2
 09-26-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0040
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: SAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTER  Recipient ZIP Code: 87102



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0067
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$549,961.00


Award Subtotal:
$549,961.00



Recipient: SAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTERS  Recipient ZIP Code: 97212



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0121
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$462,919.00


Award Subtotal:
$462,919.00



Recipient: SOUTH PUGET INTERTRIBAL PLANNING AGENCY  Recipient ZIP Code: 98584



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0004
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$150,000.00


2008
90FN0004
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$150,000.00



Recipient: SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE  Recipient ZIP Code: 70813



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0027
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$249,548.00


Award Subtotal:
$249,548.00



Recipient: SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 78704



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0034
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$460,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$460,000.00



Recipient: ST MARY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY  Recipient ZIP Code: 70538



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0094
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$230,092.00


Award Subtotal:
$230,092.00



Recipient: SUNY, STONY BROOK  Recipient ZIP Code: 11794



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0131
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0131
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$549,910.00


Award Subtotal:
$549,910.00



Recipient: SUQUAMISH & KLALLAM HEALTH PLAN  Recipient ZIP Code: 98346



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0010
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$150,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$150,000.00



Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project  Recipient ZIP Code: 95821



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0015
2
ACF
1
 09-26-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0015
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$549,256.00


Award Subtotal:
$549,256.00



Recipient: Scholarship and Guidance Association  Recipient ZIP Code: 60603



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0042
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$483,333.00


2008
90FE0137
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$242,770.00


Award Subtotal:
$726,103.00



Recipient: Shalom Task Force  Recipient ZIP Code: 10274



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0106
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$480,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$480,000.00



Recipient: Shelby County Division of Corrections  Recipient ZIP Code: 38103



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0067
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0067
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$500,000.00


2008
90FR0095
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$485,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$985,000.00



Recipient: South Coast Business Employment Corporation  Recipient ZIP Code: 97420



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0023
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$400,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$400,000.00



Recipient: St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition  Recipient ZIP Code: 63103



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0133
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$1,099,882.00


2008
90FE0133
2
ACF
1
 06-06-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,099,882.00



Recipient: TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE  Recipient ZIP Code: 99701



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0005
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$146,016.00


2008
90FN0005
2
ACF
1
 09-14-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$146,016.00



Recipient: TEEN-AID, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 99207



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0102
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$495,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$495,000.00



Recipient: TEXAS ARMS OF LOVE (dba, PEOPLE OF PRINCIPLE)  Recipient ZIP Code: 79761



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0102
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$425,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$425,000.00



Recipient: TEXAS HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION  Recipient ZIP Code: 78711



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0019
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$900,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$900,000.00



Recipient: TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS  Recipient ZIP Code: 78666



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0128
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$497,641.00


Award Subtotal:
$497,641.00



Recipient: THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION  Recipient ZIP Code:



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0024
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: THE FAMILY HEALTH AND EDUCATION INSTITUTE, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 20706



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0084
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$500,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$500,000.00



Recipient: THE HIVE CREATIVE GROUP  Recipient ZIP Code: 36303



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0093
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: THE VILLAGE FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN, INC`  Recipient ZIP Code: 06105



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0045
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: THERAPY HELP, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 80220



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0123
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: TLINGIT & HAIDA TRIBES CENTRAL COUNCIL  Recipient ZIP Code: 99801



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FN0008
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$150,000.00


2008
90FN0008
2
ACF
1
 09-26-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$150,000.00



Recipient: TRINITY HEALTH-ST JOSEPH MERCY-OAKLAND  Recipient ZIP Code: 48341



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0099
3
ACF
0
 09-17-2008
$545,730.00


Award Subtotal:
$545,730.00



Recipient: The Family Life Line, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 87124



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0115
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$495,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$495,000.00



Recipient: The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families  Recipient ZIP Code: 29204



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0021
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$499,456.00


Award Subtotal:
$499,456.00



Recipient: Trinity Church, Inc  Recipient ZIP Code: 33168



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0060
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$550,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$550,000.00



Recipient: UNITED WAY OF JACKSON COUNTY, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 49201



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0138
2
ACF
0
 02-11-2008
$1,099,461.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,099,461.00



Recipient: UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES  Recipient ZIP Code: 10467



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0086
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$495,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$495,000.00



Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES  Recipient ZIP Code: 72205



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0041
2
ACF
1
 08-26-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0041
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA  Recipient ZIP Code: 32826



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0003
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$273,293.00


Award Subtotal:
$273,293.00



Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE RESEARCH FOUNDATION  Recipient ZIP Code: 40292



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0002
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$542,920.00


Award Subtotal:
$542,920.00



Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL  Recipient ZIP Code: 27599



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0094
2
ACF
1
 06-06-2008
$0.00


2008
90FE0094
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$530,482.00


Award Subtotal:
$530,482.00



Recipient: UPPER DES MOINES OPPORTUNITY, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 51342



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0082
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$225,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$225,000.00



Recipient: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY  Recipient ZIP Code: 84322



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0129
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$417,324.00


Award Subtotal:
$417,324.00



Recipient: Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation  Recipient ZIP Code: 55408



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0033
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION  Recipient ZIP Code: 05401



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0029
2
ACF
1
 07-31-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0029
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC  Recipient ZIP Code: 92084



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0024
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: WAIT Training  Recipient ZIP Code: 80111



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0051
3
ACF
0
 09-26-2008
$1,010,330.00


Award Subtotal:
$1,010,330.00



Recipient: WAYNE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY  Recipient ZIP Code: 48192



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0008
2
ACF
2
 06-06-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0008
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



Recipient: WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT  Recipient ZIP Code: 80632



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0134
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$974,358.00


Award Subtotal:
$974,358.00



Recipient: WOMEN’S OPPORTUNITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.  Recipient ZIP Code: 59802



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0054
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$212,399.00


2008
90FR0054
2
ACF
1
 06-06-2008
$0.00


Award Subtotal:
$212,399.00



Recipient: WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 43420



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0011
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$249,492.00


Award Subtotal:
$249,492.00



Recipient: YORK COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION  Recipient ZIP Code: 04073



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0014
2
ACF
1
 06-06-2008
$0.00


2008
90FR0014
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$245,333.00


Award Subtotal:
$245,333.00



Recipient: YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, INC  Recipient ZIP Code: 87105



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0047
3
ACF
0
 09-25-2008
$900,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$900,000.00



Recipient: YWCA OF SAN ANTONIO  Recipient ZIP Code: 78205



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FE0127
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$529,585.00


Award Subtotal:
$529,585.00



Recipient: YouthLaunch, Inc.  Recipient ZIP Code: 78731



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0069
3
ACF
0
 09-14-2008
$243,315.00


Award Subtotal:
$243,315.00



Recipient: enFAMILIA, Inc  Recipient ZIP Code: 33033



FY
Award Number
Budget Year of Support
Agency
Award Code
Action Issue Date
Amount This Action


2008
90FR0039
3
ACF
0
 09-22-2008
$250,000.00


Award Subtotal:
$250,000.00



 



Total of all awards:
$118,310,126.00



   FOR OUR NEXT “CLASS” WE WILL LEARN HOW TO EXAMINE ONE OR TWO OF THESE GRANT RECIPIENTS.     ///
SHARE THIS POST on...
Share

				Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
				Email
			

				Click to print (Opens in new window)
				Print
			
Tweet

				Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)
				Reddit
			
Share on Tumblr
Like Loading...

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

August 24, 2009 at 2:32 PM

Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, public education

Tagged with Abstinence Education, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, Education, fatherhood, Healthy Marriages Promoting Responsible Fatherhood, HHS-TAGGS grants database, obfuscation, Responsible Citizenhood, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.., USASPENDING.GOV database

WHY won’t we ask WHY judges underestimate lethality risk in domestic violence cases? (papers.SSRN.com)

with 10 comments

Before this:

I would like to personally apologize for the lousy hyphenation in the last post. I will bring this to the attention of my webmaster (when I get one). As to blogging, I’m an old dog learning new tricks. As to polishing my blogs — my life still falls under these lethality risk categories, which the abstract below refers to as “Danger Assessment” (“D.A.”, not to be confused with “D.A” meaning “District Attorney” in some jurisdictions), and has for years, and when I feel that the “survival” aspect has changed, I will probably (from thence forward) be more careful.

Til then — and I do realize partly BECAUSE long-term family law entrapments have made long-term planning a “moot point,” I will for the short-term, get them up there, period. I tried about 3 ways yesterday to get the chart within the confines here. I also know that one cannot post a link to this particular database which actually saves the search. Instead, it brings one only to the search page.

If I were a different person, I’d just slap up the article and barely commment on it. All these “Says Who?” and “Why THIS focus in such an important field?” wouldn’t resonate within my mind.

But being who I am (daughter of a research scientist who talked back to ideas, including writing his backtalk to the author in MY books), and also, no longer so credulous about the “helping” institutions / nonprofits that structure most of our environments, for any single promiment assertion — and even moreso for any “intervention” into my life on the supposed basis of helping (and PARTICULARLY) from an expert whose own life — or whose children’s, or friend’s children’s — safety, futures, and course of life are not affected — I will continue to say WHY are only THESE questions being posted, and not other, seemingly obvious ones, and post this as I can.

I‘ve found that the answer to Why Not ask THIS?” usually points to financial emotional involvement, or other vested interests between the theorist and the ongoing business that such an unsolved problem drives in the direction of these fields of theory. (In other words, conflict of interests…)

The other part of “who I am” is someone who experientially understands the profound disinterest shown by court denizens (may I use that word?), and moreso, policy-setters (including judges) in whether or not their decisions actually compromise someone’s safety or solvency, or a child’s contact with the parent who just experienced the switch from custodial to NONcustodial.

(The long sentences is bad writing. I don’t recall this coming from my father, so I’ll take personal responsibility for it. Especially the long sentences with all the parenthetical phrases, which lack a main verb, that I typically see later. I guess my brain’s RAM filled up, and the main subject just dropped off the back end somehow before I got in the matching verb. I’ll work on this, but doubt I’ll join the “Twitter” generation.)

Anyhow, sorry, it’s not on the map, to fix everything, I don’t have time. I will try to get some help on how to quote articles, though, so hyphenation happens. In former work life, I was a stickler on format, down to the commas and unseen spaces, and in fact something of a copyeditor. (Long-term exposure to trauma-producing events DOES change one’s priorities, and thinking, too).

Meanwhile, my policy is to get the information POSTED, and those who care to follow up (are highly motivated to do so) will have some more tools, and possibly ask some questions they might not have thought of before. IN short, I am leaving a track record and a paper trail, in part in CASE something untoward happens. The status quo of my case — and life — since the moment it left renewing a restraining order, and took the exit chute into family law — has been, both inside and outside the court — that if I accepted the current abusive status quo (whatever abusive, work-destroying and income-deleting level it was at), and did NOT try to enforce ANYTHING (or expose prior illegal/criminal activity), then POSSIBLY, like a good little doggie, I might get some tidbits, even POSSIBLY a glimpse of one of my daughters. If not, then escalation.

This same venue applies I believe in the courtroom arena. As domestic violence has been exposed, action on it has mostly been diverted to TALK and TASK FORCES. And publications. As thankful as I am for the developing body of research by all these experts which seemed to validate both my experience and what I wanted to happen, appropriately given the violent background of our marriage, somehow it just never did.

I now believe all this is a stalling technique. The researchers, building their reputations, often have a leisure the “participants” don’t.

The EXPERTS are generally “ABOUT” developing liaisons, alliances, conferences, and sometimes (unfortunately) cronies. The LITIGANTS are NOT invited, generally. This is the EXACT opposite of what I believe those leaving abuse need. They need to be free and self-sufficient as MUCH as possible, and not have to sell their souls — cheap, at the most vulnerable points of life — to the closest available bidder, and cheap, too.

Survivors generally don’t have that long a leash, timewise. The thing they need is safety, and a long enough break from abuse, to get free and economically independent. This goal is intrinsically opposed to what the controller/abuser/batter wants, as we gradually come to learn (I use the “we” as to that category). Any policies which require them to depend in any way upon that batterer are going to be a recipe for trouble, and a chink in the protective armor.

Anyone who has survived BOTH abuse AND then a season in family law (and if they won custody, AND maintained it under a challenge from the ex-abuser; i.e., stalking through family court or otherwise, I think there’s probably one of two main reasons:

1. They already HAVE strong alliances in this venue, and resources (which are a protective factor in leaving abuse, incidentally), OR

2. They REALLY have some savvy, or are with someone who REALLY has some savvy on the HOW to get corruption to “back off.” that requires a different, skeptical, and challenging (whether openly or not) mindset. For example, “I know who’s paying you off.”

Anecdotal:

An acquaintance of mine (not mentioned anywhere on this blog) recently found evidence that a forensic videotaped interview of her child, one that I think was instrumental in a custody switch, had been tampered with (sections deleted / edited) illegally. That is a powerful tool for her.
My case has had multiple transcript errors, some of then understandable, but still significant, including getting two individuals’ names confused, and then a significant deletion to a clear, coherent and concise statement I knew that the entire courtroom heard (no expletives, but a pointed comment). The mediator’s report is almost not worth a mention; every one had factual errors, and there were substantial procedural errors, also.
The bottom line is the judge. The judge is the one who signs the order. Beyond that, in practice, there is the issue of what happens when those are ignored. (What a morass!).

If you don’t understand the dynamic of trying to “please” and “cooperate” with an abuser, or abusive (essentially meaning corrupt and intentionally oppressive, in order to achieve a private — not public — personal benefit, typically related to power or money) organization, then either talk to a woman who got out of such a relationship or pick up Patricia Evans’ “The Verbally Abusive Relationship” and read the chapters about Reality I (Power Over) and Reality II (Cooperation, or whatever its term was).

The family court language AND structures THROUGHOUT talk about sharing, cooperating, mediating, conciliation and so forth. In TRUTH, it’s exceptionally abusive and tyrannical in how this plays out.

So, here’s my attitude: I give credit for altruism where it’s due.

“In God We Trust. Every one else pays cash, upfront.”

“Pays cash”-in the form of evidence of other cases helped, or having stemmed the tide of family wipeouts, or in short whatever the case in point is — and they do so upfront, like an attorney’s retainer. This should go for attorneys and nonprofits alike. Unfortunately in this venue (once in it), often a crisis of some sort provokes a series of hearings.

Operating on hope in this venue is certifiable insanity. Don’t go that route — do your own research, even in a crisis. Do your best to NEVER get caught in a crisis. I did, but the reason was, I kept hoping in the wrong institutions. Leaning on a broken post or fence.

I would like to personally THANK the judge that provided the first restraining order, which enabled me to physically/financially PROVE that even under severe duress, and after a lot of destruction, that with a LITTLE space and a LITTLE support, I could indeed make it financially, emotionally, personally and socially, etc., and so could (have) my daughters. I have already proved that the issue was indeed the abuse, and that with this person out of my household, and not in daily contact, I could manage.

I would also like to personally thank the organization in the city where I lived (it had the word “Family Violence”) in it, even though in several aspects, the order and the process WAS a real screwup, they DID get that initial order. For that I think them, and the mistakes they made, I later called back in. I don’t see that practices have changed in the past 10 years or so. They are beholden to who pays their lease, as we all are, and which MOST people don’t think twice about, but litigants SHOULD.

Well, let’s get to today’s point, which struck a nerve with me, although it was incidental to looking up something else):

I don’t know WHY I ask questions that I don’t see getting asked VERY often among — especially not among — experts in the fields I am an “expert” (absent a Ph.D. saying I am) as to experience AND reading lots of the literature.

TOPIC:

WHY? do judges so underestimate the lethality risk in cases that involve domestic violence?

This abstract of an upcoming social science article proposes that they “just don’t understand,” as do many well-intentioned family court reform movements, which I am not part of for that reason. This upcoming appears to propose that inserting a lethality risk assessment IN the courts — although I think a good thing to publicize — might save lives.

I disagree.

The underlying premise is that the judges, including most or all judges, in these venues care.

Based on experience and hearsay, and headlines, I also disagree.

In fairly recent months, in the United States, we have had (anecdotal from my memory, some details may not be precise):

An Illinois Governor ousted for corruption.
Another Governor caught cheating on his wife, although WHY that is actually headline news beats me….
2 Pennsylvania judges convicted of taking kickbacks, depriving hundreds of juveniles of their legal rights and sending them into detention or camps at locations the same judges had financial interest in. THey DID get caught, but it took time.
A Texas area (Fed. District) judge sued for sexual harassment, long term, of some of his female employees.
This is older, but a NJ (as I recall) judge with last name Thompson was caught traveling to Russia for sex with (as I recall) an underage boy, and also caught substantial child pornography. This was a JUDGE.

The illusion that all people in public office, or working to protect children — or for that matter women — is a dangerous one that needs to be dropped. The motto is not appropriately, “Just Trust Me…” but the Texan “Don’t Tread on Me,” when it comes to governmental representatives on public payrolls. With the vacant space of warm fuzzy feelings of connection in one’s mind, insert principles, and phrases, from the U.S. Bill of Rights AND our Constitution, which our President is sworn to uphold, and if He or should it some day become a She, does not uphold this, He or She should be impeached or “encouraged” to resign.

Side-benefit — you’ll be better informed, and this is great for self-confidence.

This Constitution and those civil and our legal rights (in any individual custody case) are a “use it or lose it proposition.”

The social science of risk assessment may have validity, and I believe many times does, BUT the key issue should be due process in decisions, and afterwards enforcement.

An honest look — and “Let’s Get Honest” — I’ve got a start here, AND some tools on the site — at the finances of our government will show that a way COULD be found to get sufficient law enforcement of existing laws if there were a communal, a corporately communal policy will to do so.

Beyond that, the 2nd Amendment is a crucial one for survivors of Intimate Partner Violence, and it’s time we understood this. Perhaps when more abusers understood that we UNDERSTAND this, they might back off, and let us get back to the other principal issues of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness — or at least a roof over our heads, and food.

Advocacy is necessary, but we need to pay close attention of which of our advocates are advocating for what, HOW they do so (do THEY respect due process, and open communications) and what they are really about. The best advocate in any situation for an individual is the one that has the most at stake, and when it comes to DV, that is, literally, lives, honor, and fortunes, like those (OK, men), who signed, so long ago.

OK: from the valuable site, http://www.SSRN.com, free to join and informative. …. with a warning, it’s not a standalone in “family court matters” — there are major players and publishers also in the courts, whose abstracts I don’t find on here, and a warning that one needs to look at the funding, and in short, spend a good amount of time researching the people in the field to get a grasp of it, I was glad to find this database (huge) on a variety of topics, many of them within “Family Court Matters.”

http://papers.ssrn.com

Stop the Killing: Potential Courtroom Use of a Questionnaire that Predicts the Likelihood that a Victim of Intimate Partner Violence Will Be Murdered by Her Partner

Lynn McLain
University of Baltimore School of Law

Amanda L. Hitt
Government Accountability Project (GAP)

Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society, Fall 2009

Abstract:
(The draft of this article is currently undergoing cite checking and revision by the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society and will be published in final format in the Fall 2009 issue of the Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender and Society.)

Judges in domestic cases often underestimate the risk to a mother and her children that an angry and abusive father or other intimate partner poses. In a recent Maryland case, for example, {{CASTILLO}} two judges refused to deny a father visitation or require that visitation be supervised, despite the fact that the father had threatened suicide. During the father’s unsupervised visitation, he drowned all three of his children, then attempted to kill himself. {{THE MOTHER IN THE CASE WAS, I THINK, A PEDIATRIC DOCTOR, THE IGNORANCE OF EVIDENCE IN THIS CASE WAS OUTRAGEOUS – IT WASN”T JUST HEARSAY TESTIMONY AS TO HIS MENTAL STATE}}.{{Or in at least one Maryland case, “Castillo”}

The Danger Assessment tool (the D.A.) developed by a Johns Hopkins Nursing professor and validated by herself and other social scientists shows how much the father’s thoughts of suicide increased the risk that he would commit murder. Had the judges had that Danger Assessment, the children might have been kept safe.

NO, I say, “had the judges had — AND HEEDED — that Danger Assessment”

The attached article does something that we think has never been done before. It takes the D.A., which has been used widely to counsel domestic violence victims, and investigates whether and how it might be admissible in myriad types of court proceedings, both civil family law proceedings and criminal matters. The primary goal is to inform judges of the importance of the impact of the complex of factors in a particular case, including unemployment of the abuser, access to a gun, the presence in the home of children from an earlier relationship, and threats of suicide.

My co-author and I hope this will be a pivotal article that will lead to the taking of steps that result in heightened understanding by judges and provision of greater protection for victims and their children. We suggest (1) how the D.A. evidence may be admissible (or not) under current rules; (2) the possible advisability of amendments to current rules or statutes; and (3) judicial training on the D.A. factors.

Keywords: domestic violence, intimate partners, suicide, homicide, Danger Assessment Tool, family law, visitation, abusers, guns, weapons

JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K49, I18

Accepted Paper Series

<><><><>><><><><><>

This (still being checked for cites) informative paper is available at link above; I recommend reading it.

The “LETHALITY RISK” or “HOMICIDE /FATALITY REVIEW” is not exactly new:

National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence

Warning: list of links/titles may trigger PTSD in survivors.

Can you handle this?

1985, by a Ph.D./RN, Jacquelyn Campbell

and possibly the study referred to above:

1990, by an attorney, Barbara Hart

Formerly @ PEnnsylvania CADV, now property of MINCAVA (Minnesota; below).

ASSESSING WHETHER BATTERERS WILL KILL, Barbara J. Hart, Esq.,

Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, 1990,

Barbara J. Hart’s Collected Writings, Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse, St. Paul, MN.

1999, Campbell et al.

Stalking & Femicide

Homicide Studie.

STALKING AND INTIMATE PARTNER FEMICIDE, Judith M. McFarlane, Jacquelyn C. Campbell, Susan Wilt, Carolyn J. Sachs, Yvonne Ulrich and Xiao Xu, Homicide Studies (volume 3, number 4, pages 300-316), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA: November 1999. Copyright © 1999 Sage Publications.

2000, CDC Epidemiologist

Maternal (pregnancy) mortality had fallen 99% this century,

except homicides…..

In the mid-1990s, Cara Krulewitch sat in a dark, cramped file room in the office of the D.C.

medical examiner, poring over autopsies for days that became weeks, then months. She was an

epidemiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, assigned to the District.

Krulewitch wanted to see whether maternal deaths were being undercounted, as was common

elsewhere across the country. Granted access to confidential death files, she assumed she would

find more deaths from medical complications of pregnancy – embolism, infection, hemorrhage –

than anyone knew.

What she stumbled upon instead was a surprising number of homicides:

Krulewitch dug into medical archives and came across a 1992 journal article from Chicago and a

1995 study from New York City. In both, homicide had emerged as a significant cause of

maternal death. It was difficult for the uninitiated to comprehend: Were pregnant women being

killed in notable numbers?

“I didn’t understand it at all,” said Krulewitch, whose study was published in the Journal of

Midwifery & Women’s Health.

Her research came at a time when maternal mortality rates in the United States had fallen a full

99 percent from the last century, with fewer than 500 women a year dying of medical problems

related to childbearing.

Even now, studies that analyze maternal homicide are relatively rare.

One of the most comprehensive studies came from Maryland, where researchers used an array of

case-spotting methods, expecting to find more medical deaths than the state knew about. Instead

they discovered that homicide was the leading cause of death, a finding published in 2001 in the

Journal of the American Medical Association.

In 2002, Massachusetts weighed in with a study that also showed homicide as the top cause of

maternal death, followed by cancer. Two of three homicides involved domestic violence. “This is

clearly a major health problem for women,” said Angela Nannini, who led the study.

2000, Chicago, Women’s Health Risk (collaborative)

2002, West Coast U.S.

Women’s Nonprofit Justice Center

HOW TO INVESTIGATE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDE – A GUIDE FOR INVESTIGATING THE PATH LEADING UP TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HOMICIDES- FOR FRIENDS, ACTIVISTS, JOURNALISTS, AND ALL WHO CARE, Women’s Justice Center, Santa Rosa, CA: 2002.

2003, Reuters Health Report

Post-mortem when they didn’t die:

I have some commentary, so am expanding this one:

Many Women at Risk of Being Murdered Don’t Know It

By Alison McCook

Friday, November 28, 2003

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) – Nearly one half of women who are about to experience an attempt on their lives at the hands of a boyfriend or husband may not realize they are in danger, new research reports.

A look back at warning signs for 30 women who survived an attempted homicide by an intimate partner revealed that 14 did not know their lives were at risk, and said they were “completely surprised” by the attack. {{ABOUT 1 out of 2}}

Most attacks occurred around the time that women tried to end the relationship. And while nearly all women had experienced previous episodes of abuse and violence from their partners, not all instances had been severe.

These findings suggest that, in some cases, the warning signs that a woman’s life is in danger may be hard to read, lead author Dr. Christina Nicolaidis of the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland said.

Nicolaidis and her colleagues interviewed 30 women between the ages of 17 and 54 who had survived an attempted homicide by their current or former boyfriends or husbands. {{NO ONE should have to undergo this!}}

All but two of the women had experienced episodes of violence or controlling behavior, such as stalking or preventing them from going anywhere alone, from the man who tried to kill them.

{{I have been reporting such behavior to professionals in my case both on AND off the record. I have signed statements of witnesses in the file. There was a prior DV restraining order, and I have sustained serious injury already. There were weapons. There has been CONSISTENT stalking, which frightens me – almost as much as the nonresponse to it by others in authority also frightens me. My last “feint” at getting an anti-stalking order was this past spring (I think). The last incident was last month. There is a reason WHY this is being systematically ignored in courts — specifically but not only family courts. But I have also been reporting this to police officers responding to an event since the year 2005 at a minimum. It is COMMON SENSE that stalking resembles the type of stalking actually done of a hunter by its prey. When it comes to people, it has a dual purpose: it may be to kill, or it may be to send a clear message sent to terrorize which (basically) it does. I have a blog here on what this did to my life, almost half a post as I recall. The absolute NON response of too many authorities to this issue tells BOTH the stalker AND the prey that the situation is uncontrolled, and (she) is on her own. I have also been stalked — and I would back this one up in court if challenged — THROUGH other people, and several of them. In order to accommodate this, I have ceased significant contact with these people, explaining why. AFTER all this, my daughters disappeared on an overnight visitation, and they were NOT informed of all the allegations in print and in person by their parent about the situation. This was not done out of love for the girls, I am sure, but as a hostage taking in this unwrapping situation.}} {{Excuse me…..}}

And while 22 of the homicide attempts occurred when women were trying to end their relationships, most women said they were breaking up for reasons other than violence.

Classic risk factors for an attempted homicide by an intimate partner include escalating episodes or severity of violence, threats with or use of weapons, alcohol or drug use, and violence toward children, Nicolaidis noted. While every woman included in the report experienced at least one of these standard signs, they were clearly not all “classic” cases, she added.

“The problem is that we often expect women to come to us describing a life filled with many or all of these risk factors, when in fact there may only be a few (risk factors) buried beneath the surface,” Nicolaidis said.

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Lorrie Elliott of the University of Chicago Medical Center writes that these findings demonstrate that counselors need to recognize that “any level” of physical violence or controlling behavior from a partner can signal a woman’s life is at risk.

{{True, BUT – — BUT – – – it’s judges, and law enforcement that I’ve found need to recognize this, as I did since I left the guy until now.}}

“Curricula on domestic violence should be revised to reflect these findings,” she notes.

{{WHOSE curricula? Because family law pretty much is being “revised” as a profession to dilute this awareness, from my experience.}}

2004, DV Death Review Team, CANADA
ANNUAL REPORT TO THE CHIEF CORONER: CASE REVIEW OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DEATHS, 2002, Al J. C. O’Marra, BA, MA, LLB, LLM, Domestic Violence Death Review Committee, Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Government of Ontario, CA. Copyright © 2004 Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

2006, VPC, East Coast USA

Washington, D.C. nonprofit

Homicide Data Analysis

VPC Theme: Gun control (I believe), and Alaska is the Worst

ALASKA RANKS #1 IN RATE OF WOMEN MURDERED BY MEN ACCORDING TO VPC STUDY RELEASED EACH YEAR FOR DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH IN OCTOBER, Violence Policy Center, Washington, DC: September 20, 2006. When Men Murder Women: An Analysis of 2004 Homicide Data – Females Murdered by Males in Single Vilctim / Single Offender Incidents.

2007 Boston Globe,

“Special Report”

Theme: Why they kill; Promotion: Upcoming book

CONTROL ISSUES DRIVE MEN TO KILL SPOUSES – SPECIAL REPORT, Laura Crimaldi, Boston Herald, Boston, MA: September 3, 2007. Copyright© 2007 Boston Herald Inc. Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners.

Batterers who use lethal force against their partners are engaged in a losing game of control that pushes them to kill because otherwise they have no chance of getting their partner to submit, according to a veteran psychologist.

{{As “Let’s Get Honest,” I chime in with my opinion:

Except in LITERAL self-defense (not, defense of the ego, or self-concept), as in cops responding to domestic disputes, or a person physically assaulted in certain situations, and even then Killing is a choice, just as abuse is, or any other — especially repeated — criminal behavior. The mark of a person is what he or she will or will NOT allow him or herself to be “pushed” to do. PERIOD. This is pyschology talk, and while it’s true, it still falls short, making linguistic excuses.}}

{{{JUST a note: For at least — at LEAST — SOME major monotheistic religions (all 3, I believe), this is conceived of a divinely-ordained, and a requirement of women. ONE of these religions means “Submission” (I’m told). ANOTHER, this mandate is taken out of context (of itss text), but in my case, was continually “an excuse for the abuse.” ANY policies dealing with such men will have to deal with the issue that to them, failing to control “their women” is sometimes genuinely conceived of as having failed their God. Hence, the killing, to “win.” I have been personally (before separation) warned never to oppose this man or he woudl “escalated” til he wins. From what I can see, that hasn’t changed yet, that dynamic, and there is a track record to display evidence.

When here comes a venue, family law, that tells us to “reconcile” parenting, or almost anything else of importance, with a person holding such a viewpoint, it is basically consigning the relationship, the children, and the target parent, which will be the woman under this religious view, to defending her own life, as the courts aren’t going to. It’s an intolerable situation, and transmits these ideas down, another generation.}}

David Adams, co-founder and co-director of Cambridge-based Emerge, a batterer’s program, is the author of “Why Do They Kill? Men Who Murder Their Intimate Partners,” to be published this month by Vanderbilt University Press.

((FYI: NOTE: The other Co-founder and co-director, I believe, was Lundy Bancroft, who I often cite, have posted on, and have a link to. }}

In the book, Adams identifies five types of lethal batterers: the jealous partner, the suicidal partner, the career criminal, the substance abuser and the materially motivated partner.

Adams interviewed 31 men who killed their female partners as well as women who were nearly killed by their batterers. {{From the Horse’s mouths. If reported well, I’d listen!}}

He said the men who resorted to fatal force were “possessive,” “more controlling” and tended to come from households where they witnessed abusive fathers beat their mothers. At some point in their lives, the men decided to mold their behavior after their father’s behavior, he said.

“For many of the killers that I interviewed, some of them said that they had in effect lost – that they had lost a relationship, lost the partner that they only fought to control and the only thing left was to kill,” Adams said. “It was the ultimate act of control, but also an ultimate act of defeat.

June, 2009, Public Health Perspective;

The effect of TV News items on IPV deaths

Conclusion: Given the results observed in the case ofIPV-related news, t

here is an evident need to develop a journalisticstyle guide in order to determine what type of information isrecommended due to the potential positive or negative effects.

Keywords: battered women, copycat, femicide, mass media.

I’ll be back tomorrow. BUT — do we think there is a need to study the topic some more? Or to take a woman seriously when

she expresses this concern?

I am so far beyond “reporting” or being aware of these things, PAST the point where I realize who is not interested, and now

working on the WHY are they not interested in the places that have the MOST authority to do something about it.

In the meanwhile, self-defense and safety awareness skills count. A lot.

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

August 5, 2009 at 5:18 PM

Posted in After She Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, History of Family Court, in Studies, Lethality Indicators - in News, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Vocabulary Lessons

Tagged with custody, Declaration of Independence/Bill of Rights, domestic violence, family annihilation, family law, Intimate partner violence, Self-Defense from DV, Studying Humans

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

leave a comment »

(and, “HOW MUCH TIME AND HOW MANY EXPERTS WILL IT TAKE TO FIGURE THIS OUT?”)

This post is in response to, gradually, retroactively, discovering what was published, conferenced, said, explicated, implicated, rationalized, demonstrated, and nationalized during the past ten (or so) years since I filed a domestic violence restraining order, and found out that this person was NOT an isolated, deeply disturbed, person, but was in fact living out a systematic creed, which thrived better in certain types of schizoid linguistic neighborhoods than others — such as, faith institutions and family court.

It is not one of my better posts, except for a few graphics. HOWEVER, I do feel it’s truthful.

What one wants, in the field of Domestic Violence, is STOPPING it. Not theory, but results.

However, unlike in, say music, where there is a range of audiences, many of them who pay, in THIS field, there is a fountain of funding for theorists. Not content to actually work on getting laws enforced, and saving lives, there is constant, constant tinkering, reframing, training, talking and (you get the picture). Well, if you don’t, here’s one:

This pie chart shows Federal Spending by Federal Department:

FEDERAL SPENDING FY 2009 YTD

(legend at the link). PURPLE is Health and Human Services. RUST– is Education

RUST is what we were supposed to learn from “Zero to 5” and from “K-12” (and beyond) but didn’t about behavior ethics and character, as well as the usual academic whatnot (reading, writing, counting, obeying rules, doing homework, working hard, and not joining gangs or impregnating/getting impregnated before one is, say at least 16 or 17 years old….)

PURPLE — that’s primarily catchup, at this point -_ healthy families, responsible fatherhood, early heard start, child development, and many many more things (Including some fantastic funding for more scientific research, medical, and so forth).

Despite the majority of federal spending going there, we are behind in education, and people are still killing spouses and/or children after divorce, or over the issue of child support, even. Children are kidnapped over these issues, traumatizing them and burdening society further.

Grants, once established, are like the energizer battery, and just keep on going, going, going for the most part. WHO is reporting WHAT as to the results?

Are results measured by people who go through the programs (a headcount) or by the headlines? As finances are a major predictor and risk factor in otherwise stressed relationships, perhaps we ought to find out what’s happening to these finances.

SO, I put it this way,. . . .

If a “lightbulb” going off signifies “Aha!” — understanding, my question is, . . .

http://www.waynewhitecoop.com

How many social science, legal, and

court-associated experts does it take

to UNscrew a lightbulb?

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/light-bulb-ban.jpg

and

My experience, and others’, and the headlines, show that frequent contact with a batterer, including frequent visitation

(however supervised, however accessed, however negotiated) can be hazardous to your physical and mental health.

I never got supervised. As a consequence, I consistently was traumatized, stalked, harrassed, and lost work — and eventually children around this. Because I knew this to be a NOT safe situation, I had to choose between seeing my children, ever (even when court had ordered it), and working steadily, EVER, basically. The exchange was not a 15 minute exchange with court orders poorly written as mine, and going to court to fix this had never resulted in anything (in my case) but significant loss.

It was a traumatic and awful experience every time except for THE first time, when I finally got domestic violence restraining order with kickout and had a little space to begin repairing and rebuilding every area of life this battering thing had knocked out of kilter, including work, relationships, and physically, aspects of the house (not to mention my health).

Now, to find out later, how MANY experts had been practicing how MANY ideas in which areas of the United States (and the funding they got to do this), and how LITTLE actual input from litigants seems to have been sought — a typical list of what are called “stakeholders” doesn’t include the people affected MOST directly: Moms, Dads, and Children. No, the stakeholders, in some people’s view, are the professionals — well it’s saddening they need SO much training to figure out what I (and others) could have easily told them — and what’s already on the rules of court, samples of which I link to below.

BUT, now,

Here comes yet another federal grant to explicate, reframe, and contextualize what the rest of us know needs to be simply STOPPED:

Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations

BWJP has been invited to apply for a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women for (1) a demonstration project to develop (2) a framework to guide custody and visitation decisions in cases involving domestic violence. Research on custody and visitation determinations provide(3)troubling evidence that procedures currently in use in family courts often fail to(4) identify, contextualize and account for the occurrence of domestic violence in these cases, and if identified, (5) its presence seems not to consistently affect the court’s recommendations regarding custody or visitation arrangements.

(My numbers, and color coding, added for commentary, below)….

Let me translate:

(1)

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

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

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

(2)

“A framework to guide custody and visitation decisions.”

? ? ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody,

or a person of a right to visitation, shall be

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

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

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

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

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

with a custody switch.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3)

“procedures currently in use in family court”

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

(4)

“identify, contextualize and account for”

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

(5)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

foundations
publications
organizations
websites
key authors
key concepts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But they do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IT DATES BACK TO THE YEAR 2006

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Men who batter: some pertinent characteristics.

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

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

Supervised visitation in cases of domestic violence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Batterers‘reports of recidivism after counseling

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 24, 2009 at 6:36 PM

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

leave a comment »

U.S. Health and Human Services — Administration of Children and Families

Office of Family Assistance

Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For the unwary:

(Administration of Children and Families)

(Operating Division)

(Health and Human Services)

(Office of Child Support Enforcement)

(California Healthy Marriages Coalition, Inc.)

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

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

They are going to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>>>>>>>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAPPY BROWSING:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant

Name of Grantee: The Dibble Fund for Marriage Education

Federal Project Officer:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Character Counts In Maine

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

Target Population:

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

REGION 2 — 3 grants, slightly more interesting:

In the Bronx

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

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

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

Region 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT MARRIAGE

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

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

Or, religion.

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

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

Put that together with work, and figure it out.

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

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

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

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

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

Put that in your pipe and smoke it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 19, 2009 at 3:24 PM

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

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

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

with one comment

FYI: In re budget crisis……

For your viewing pleasure and information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, this time, I searched:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SO . . . ..

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

THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED

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

IT IS A GULLIBILITY REDUCER**

EDUCATE THYSELF!

http://taggs.hhs.gov

**

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

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

AUTHORS: Glenn Sacks, Mike McCormick:

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

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

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

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

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

2.Due Process Violations

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

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

1994.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

tionary decisions and rubber stamps the report.

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

dence to the contrary

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

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

Here’s the “TAGGS” site.

Tracking Accountability in Government Grants System

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

Welcome!

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

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

What’s New

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHERE ARE THE LINKS TO THOSE ALLEGATIONS?

This is from:

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

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

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

@@@

Results 1 to 81 of 81 matches.

@@@

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Did I mention Head Start yet?

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

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

Want some answers?

Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?

Let’s do it.

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

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

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

And then you can surprise them with your inside knowledge:

No: “Leucadia.”

“Leucadia? You’re kidding!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

July 6, 2009 at 1:01 PM

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

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

Experts Examine WHY Breastfeeding is best: We MUST Know!

leave a comment »

Sniffing Language

Cobblers notice shoes, hairdressers notice the other end of a person. I’m a domestic violence survivor, writer, reader, and I notice (sniff, I observe, I sense dynamic alterations in) LANGUAGE — the linguistic environment surrounding present and potential policies that might affect the personal survival, health welfare, and safety of my kids, me, or others I know and love, to be quite blunt about this.

I can detail about when and where this started to happen too. I noticed it, a shift in mental processing of things, a heightened sensitivity to the environment. This was odd — the less time I could dedicate to planning a rehearsal, or choosing a method or approach to a certain topic — because my life was totally dedicated to the safety and survival issues at hand, and seeking ways to ensure them, change the dynamics, and safely set a distance from a man that I simply couldn’t get the courts to give me a restraining order on, or enforce an existing court order of ANY sort, upon. Nor could I get any social group to communally put some pressure on the guy to get real, get a job, or get lost. Or, as I say here, “get honest” about any number of manners. So, I didn’t do the usual things I formerly was taught lead to good rehearsals leading to good singing. I had to get the general idea (as in, repertoire), get in there, go on instinct, respond to the singing I heard in the situation, and just lead.

The odd (and disturbing — at least to certain theories about how things work) about this was, they started singing better. Rehearsals were more dynamic, and skills and sound improved. In more than one group. Go figure! Hmm. . . . .

I came to understand that the habit of being dynamically sensitive to my environment, and little details in it, had carried over into the rehearsal situation. And in the arts, this is GOOD, because they come from the spirit and soul within. I had no time to be cerebral, cognitive and detached, I had to be present, open, and responsive. And that was EXACTLY what the job required!

The exact opposite of this approach to life and relationships can be seen in the detached, categorizing, labeling, and pronouncing language of some of the social sciences. I do not think the entire field should be tossed, but I think that there are serious loopholes when doctrine is made in a laboratory, without understanding that people (adults, children, and others) really DO behave differently under observation, for the most part, than when not. If the family law system acknowledged this, I think custody evaluators would probably be done away with. You can’t really evaluate someone who is doing a performance for you, come on! And if anyone is GREAT a “performance” it’s a family, or an individual, caught up in the cycle of abuse, incest, or domestic violence. Or, alcoholism, for that matter. The whole DEAL is about keeping up the pretense, not talking about it.

A woman’s or a child’s safety could be literally dependent upon how good a front she puts up for public, once the abuser knows he’s being looked at more carefully. I know about this.

For more on this hypersensitivity, see the book “Animals in Translation” by Temple Grandin, an autistic (or autims survivor?) animal behavioralist. I understood, after reading this, how my mind had begun to behave more like a deer in the headlights, after a few years post-restraining order, mid-family court, weekly-exchange of kids-wise. I had lost the sense of predictability in our daily schedule, and I had lost this because EVERY weekend, and leading up to it or recovering from it, I had to deal with a potential incident with the father of our children regarding picking up or, if I was able to, retrieving our children from exchanges. This was one of the most insane custody orders post restraining order I have EVER heard of, but it was all we had to deal with. This also relates directly to why I no longer work in a certain field, in which jobs happened on weekends. The two became so associated in my brain that engaging in in the one, to this day, reminds me of that trauma. This can be great on certain arts, and hell on the rest of life.

PREY animals notice more and interpret less. This is why sometimes horses wear blinders, when pulling a taxi in traffic, for example. Humans are designed to interpret more, and once they have got a label, enabling mental filing, notice less. However, a teacher (or conductor) must both keep the goal in mind AND notice, and reconcile the balance. They learn how to do this (for survival).

Theorists, on the other hand, may continue to get a government funding grant, whether or not their theories are true, work, or help or hurt people. There is a considerable distance between funding and performance. I notice, therefore, cognitive detachment in linguistic descriptions in some of these topics.

Sometimes this “noticing language” habit is entertaining and fun. Sometimes, it’s disturbing and annoying. HOWEVER, I think that society might do well, in general, to listen to some of the people on its outskirts. We are the canaries in the coal mine, and certain things we have to say might contradict (in fact generally WILL contradict) the experts.

Of course, the experts are the ones who have the platform, even when their opinions contradict each other — they seem to carry more weight than anyone whose degrees are not as high or deep (Ph.D.) as others. Remind me, next decade, to go get that Ph.D., maybe it will help…..

That’s one way of explaining that I happen to notice language. And there is a style of talking about basic human behavior (of which stalking happens to relate to hunting, which is sometimes followed by a kill, which is why I don’t like being the one followed, or told by people I report this to, you’re exaggerating. No, I’m not…. I trust the instinct in this one.) I’m almost getting to the point that I don’t trust language that doesn’t take into account some basic human instincts and realities –ONE of which is, soon after birth or after giving birth, making the nipple connection, and nursing — or allowing it to take place.

. . .

OK NOW….

Is there really a war on fatherhood? Or is it on motherhood? Where’s Mom?

Consider this word:

Breastfeeding,

When, where, how and why did it become so odd a human behavior that it required research papers to be published, to examine — or safeguard — it?

What is now called breastfeeding used to be (culturally, and universally) commonplace.

Trailer words associated with the fact that both a breast and getting fed happened to be involved, included:

Nursing, Cherishing, Protecting, Imparting,

Loving, Knowing,

Gentleness, Compassion, Confidence one is loved and wanted,

just being there and looking at each other, or nudging each other in a relaxed, nondemanding fashion,

were formerly normal, healthy human behaviors, and not only right after sex.

(If you’re unclear, see “google images” for some visuals)

I CALL THOSE GOOD THINGS.

Now the relationships between some of these must be studied, so as to better predict [and manage] outcomes

I predict that studying what used to be normal, healthy human behaviors (but have been dismantled by various institutions, and industries in “developed’ countries) will soon become the normal human behavior. It certainly appears to be a healthy way to make a steady income, healthier than most. these days, including producing food, if you’re a small farmer, or milking cows.

Asking, well, was it GOOD or NOT good? If it was good, WHY was it good? How can we duplicate it, or better yet, multiply it, without dismantling, if possible, some of the institutions that formerly dismantled, or put some pretty weird warps, in the human family situation.

Who funds these studies and poses these questions? Typically, a government, or a private foundation funding either the government, or some nonprofit, that has an agenda, or some combination of all of the above, as we find in the Fatherhood Movement’s cooperation between many entitities, casting its wide and technically superb (inter)net (presence) over the human, well, language, eliminating the usage of the word “mother” in order to restructure society into a different image. I am going to post another time about a former (not very reputable) campaign from the heart of Fatherland America, which trumpeted the virtues of “motherhood, virtue, patience, temperance” and so forth. And what they did to whoever they thought wasn’t promoting these.

WHY is Breast Best? Well for one thing, anything so many men are fixated on can’t be all that bad.

Just kidding — WHY is breastfeeding best? Why not ask a Mom? (Where did Mom go, anyhow??)

Nursing is normal. Did I know much about it before I began? Honestly, no. I just, well, there was this brand new kid on my tummy, and it seemed the right thing to do.

Seems to me that slavery was one thing that used to break up families, intentionally so. Hmm. SOME folks got educated, but others weren’t supposed to be. They were to be educated to the limit of their job prognosis. Hmmm.

I also predict that with the womb to tomb categorization of humanity, from the moment they are born, caught, extracted, or brought forth (depending on how literary you are feeling) and begin to wiggle, the measuring WILL not stop, we will forget what a normal human, bonding relationship WAS. We won’t have living examples of it to learn from.

Now that ATTITUDE worries me. I have been worried about this for many months, as I began to examine where my justice went, especially this last year. Where my children went had already been determined, and I had also correctly looked up that the correct label for the manner in which they went comes under the category “child-stealing.” The next question was, why was there no concensus on what the law already conceded, and what could I do to get them back? I looked around with wonder and amazement to see that with flip of the coin, what in one situation was a felony, in an entirely different one (see title of this blog) was interpreted as initiative to be rewarded with custody. SURELY a father who would love his children enough to steal them, and harass their mother with court case after court case must have been motivated by love and concern. And SURELy a mother who actually resisted this, and attempted to retain an emotional connection (let alone visual contact) with BOTH her children AND her livelihood (profession) through choosing an alternate educational arrangement must have an unnatural attachment thing going on. Now, I didn’t have one set of kids I DID nurse and one set I DIDn’t for comparison, but I do know that, even absent from them, there’s an attachment there, and it’s weird every day to have it suddenly aborted. Yes, I did use that word.

In my last post I looked at “Where’s Mom?” in a website representing our national direction, and suggested that the ship of state may have lost its moorings, possibly by ignoring the obvious: So far, technologically, you DO need a Mom to actually get a family, even if it’s dis-assembled shortly after birth.

Where’s Mom? is a very relevant question, I thought.

So, here’s an article that came across my (virtual) desk, my Inbox, on some astonishingly new and revolutionary perspectives on WHY breastfeeding is best, at least up until a judge decides she’s doing it for the wrong reasons, to get even with an ex. . . . . and sets a limit on how long this parental alienation can be permitted. The things judges must know these days . . . .

We noncustodial Moms (yes, we converse with each other about how and why that happened, and we research and blog, and vote and call our Congresspeople, and write, and support each other, because the court system sure ain’t…..) were happy to find one that counteracted some of this “father-absence” hypocrisy. YEAH, a lot of fathers are absent. Now let’s talk about WHY! and stop scapegoating an entire gender!

This article supports the premises that for an infant to have a bonding time with Mom growing up (which may or may not contradict our present government’s wish to push things in a different direction, send Mom to work and give us those babies; we have Ph.D.candidate Human Behavioralists needing a grant-funded slot at the local Head Start outfit, think about their job futures, OK? If they do not publish, they might perish! It’s your civic duty to produce low-income babies (or neglect staying home if you’re not low-income) for them to study.)

It IS interesting too, it talks about more than the nipples and what spurts out of them, it talks even about more than the cuddling. It looks at subsequent behaviors. So do I, at the bottom. I picked a few well-known names.

(Did I mention it’s written by women, also?)

Abstract

Research paper no. 43

Breastfeeding and infants’ time use (title is link)

Jennifer Baxter and Julie Smith

Australian Institute of Family Studies, June 2009, 48 pp. ISBN 978-1-921414-09-1. ISSN 1446-9863 (Print); ISSN 1446-9871 (Online)

Being breastfed during infancy is known to improve developmental outcomes, but the pathways by which this occurs remain unclear.

Research Paper no. 43: “Breastfeeding and infants’ time use.”

(More commentary on what governments are studying these days…..)

While I’m glad this study DOES support the concept that breastfeeding is good, as when judges in Canada and Australia have to decide on whether or not to agree with the obvious, or respond to the gentle tug on THEIR consciences from the “But Dads are Nurturers TOO!” demands, Moms (Noncustodial ones, through family court matters) were happy to read this, I still have to ask, WHY do we have to even ask? I mean, in what kind of world are studies needed of this?

Here’s what kind of world:

IN a world of ever-shifting psychological and spiritual plate tectonics, it’s only human to want to be oh so sure about the obvious. WHY do we need to be oh-so-sure? (Using the word “we” loosely, I am not in that mix)

WHY is how to develop and serve “humans” and “families” really necessary?? What are they, food?

Why not leave them alone to figure it out? Why not treat them as animate beings with spirit, soul, body, desires, individuality, and what’s more, hopes, goals, and a variety of pathways in which to wend their way through life, like their hunter-gatherer ancestors?

That is, FYI, what they are — not slabs of flesh, inanimate, passive, waiting to be directed, injected, detected, and projected upon the motion picture screen of some faraway government policy! Unless they (translation: WE — ALL — begin to see each other in this manner, the only logical consequence is more and more literally inanimate, and in fact lifeless (or is it comatose?) slabs of flesh, and there may not be enough slots to store us in. Please, PLEASE, remember Auschwitz, and the ATTITUDES that preceded this, and stop the stereotyping and detached, detached, well thank God it ain’t ME, emotional noninvolvement with other human beings, when it comes to running nations and large enterprises.

People have been born for many, many centuries and millennia. Nations (if not religions, unfortunately) and empires have come and gone.

(And these two are related).

With each new empire, history, and culture, is often re-written, by the winners.

They can crumble over germs or steel, over oppressing people so bad they simply well up and oust a regime, assassinate a dictator, and/or each other. Or assassinations, oustings and regime changes can happen for other reasons. In this world there are now, and have historically been famines, floods, fires, and wars; there is cruelty and prejudice, there is waste and greed. These are qualities that, as far as I can see, have been around a long time, and are not going anywhere soon. And I ABSOLUTELy don’t believe they are going away by government fiat, design or study.

Given that generic assessment of history, I have to ask, then what exactly are were DOING in this profession of Human Behavioral Sciences? What were its origins, what are its purposes and why are “we” doing these things?

I’m a researcher, in fact both my parents were too, one a scientist, the other a librarian. I’m a SEARCHER, I’m curious about causes.

One thing in my searchings I have come to conclude: some of the worst damages to human rights, and people, has been in the name of theories (or doctrines) similar to the ones I’m reading about now, in our country. I think it’s an ATTITUDE thing, to study human populace as if they were rats, or mice, or microbes. I’m not anti-medicine, nad I do appreciate knowing things about molecules, hormones, and, say, that what just happened to me when that stalker called, again, may relate to adrenaline or cortisol, and has some sense behind the chemistry of it.

However, I think in the social sciences, it’s gone off the deep end into crowd control. I think it is a clear indication of caste-maintenance, which ain’t supposed to be in the USA, but is.

Who’s developing this master race and utopia?

Didn’t we learn anything from Hitler, or any other genocides? Didn’t we get embarrased enough by the study of “phrenology” (measuring skull sizes, to assess intelligence) which to me has an uncomfortable sense of sociology.

Anyhow, this study may be supportive of more maternal time. Governments have already determined it’s Breast is Best, but what to do when a couple can’t keep it together til the kid is weaned? Then there have to be policies, judges have to decide, and these judges need experts. W ell, experts are just handy to have around.

Are there any MOMs around who have actually seen children grow up that they nursed (and haven’t been incarcerated for this on the basis of unnatural attachment theory)?

Isn’t smarter, healthier, loved and having been held by Mom at least several times a day enough to know? Apparently not. I tend to wonder if this isn’t because another artificial nipple, breast, nurture and cuddling experience is in the mix, and will need justification. OR, it’s been challenged, and then a study is needed to maintaing a semblance of nature in nurture of infants.

Given what I’ve been reading about our Present Administration’s Parenting Advice (yes, that spells “PAPA”), motherhood is no longer acceptable. It has a conflict with Early Head Start and propping up a seriously design-flawed educational system that neither nurtures nor educates adequately, and was based on producing factory workers who don’t take orders or think too much. Crucial to this is boxing them up, and mediating all experience through the teachers and textbooks (which are highly censored).

I just watched the video of Michael Jackson recently, being interviewed about his father’s severe abuse of all 5 Jacksons, including having them perform with him sitting in his hand with a belt, and ironing cord, using Michael, the youngest, as a role model to chastise the other children, mocking his facial features (you didn’t get it from MY side) and a fairly normal adolescent thing called pimples, about how he didn’t want to grow up (and the uncanny transformation of his own face into something that looks like his hero, Peter Pan), about how his dermatologist nurse (and another surrogate Mom) gave him 3 children, which were snatched at birth (never got to nurse a drop), although by agreement, and now they are going to live with — either Grandpa (that same one that would’ve/should’ve been arrested in our day and time) or Mom (who volunteered her womb and viewed human beings as presents, not people).

The most common sense reason for nursing I can think of is that it APPEARS to be part of the design plan for human beings, and a host of other animals also. Take it away, and they’re sucking down something else for a lifetime perhaps, substitute attachments. I don’t know. It just kinda makes sense. Give the Mom and baby a chance to sit together and make a physical connection. It works together, it helps her womb return to normal size right faster, it’s overall a good arrangement unless she’s been on something harmful which would get into the child. LIfe is rough. Give’em a break!

In the US, we have HHS.

IN Australia, it’s “AIFS”

Australian Institute of Family Studies.

And has these clearinghouses:

Research and clearinghouses

Like over here, they publish, they serve, they have resources, and they have events. That’s nice…

The natural human response, anyone with some spirit at least, is to resist being managed, and only put up with so much as is necessary to get by. People are MOST human and I say most happy, really, pursuing things — that they CHOSE to pursue. Ask an adolescent male. Ask a stalker. Ask a Mom or Dad going to night school. There’s something about the pursuit of it, not the having it served up in a soup line. There’s something about making one’s own personal goals, that brings out the best in a person, or when it’s in a community, that community. When it gets too large, we lose the human element.

There’s not much more intimate, at the start of life, than what’s now called “breastfeeding.” And there’s not much more tenderizing to a Mom, when it’s in a supportive environment especially, and producing a feeling of well-being, etc., than nursing. I do not mean to idolize this, but I do mean to call attention to this.

I think this term must have come up when other ways of feeding began to compete with it. It’s not just about FEEDING. It used to be called NURSING. Now, Nursing has become a profession (and a great one, I acknowledge), and I hear there’s a shortage of it too. Perhaps if we could give people better EMOTIONAL and PHYSICAL support near the beginning of their lives, they wouldn’t need so much – or go about getting so much in other, unhealthy ways — later on in life. Many diseases and compromised immune systems have origins, it’s coming out, not only in antibodies not received as a kid, but sometimes emotional abuse and trauma — the exact OPPOSITE of nurturing.

Abstract

Research paper no. 43

Breastfeeding and infants’ time use

Jennifer Baxter and Julie Smith

Australian Institute of Family Studies, June 2009, 48 pp. ISBN 978-1-921414-09-1. ISSN 1446-9863 (Print); ISSN 1446-9871 (Online)

Being breastfed during infancy is known to improve developmental outcomes, but the pathways by which this occurs remain unclear.

Well, God forbid the us not knowing by what pathways developmental outcomes can be improved? We are, after all, in the business of improving development.

One possible yet unexplored mechanism is that breastfed infants may spend their time differently to infants who are not breastfed.

Please — PLEASE tell me, some institute is not about to intervene with that Mom’s growing relationship with an infant, and either put a video in the home for later analysis, send a social worker with a note pad to take notes, or ask the MOm, self-reporting, to distract her attention from that little being, to documenther time use. Give them a break! They’ll be in school before age 5 (at least in the US) all right already.

This paper analyses infants’ time use according to breastfeeding status in order to help inform the debate about how breastfeeding leads to improved child outcomes.

“improved child outcomes”

OK, well that sounds desirable. I’m just not used to the terminology yet. It sounds odd on my tongue. It sounds like a process that might belong more in an auto assembly line.

Now me, I’m more practically minded. If it works, keep doing it, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. That’s what my ex used to tell me when our children were sleeping, and I’d go to adjust something, make them more c omfortable, more covered, more something. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

If it works — keep doing it. If it doesn’t work — as, for example, pushing fatherhood on an entire nation as a response to violence against women and/or feminism, appears to be gettingi more women and children, and men, killed — THEN I’d think this should be closely examined. But why breastfeeding works ???

The analysis uses infants’ time use data from the first wave (2004) of Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC), derived from diaries completed by the parents of almost 3,000 Australian infants aged 3-14 months. It explores how much time infants spend in activities such as being held or cuddled, read or talked to, or crying, using data on whether or not infants were still breastfeeding, and taking into account other child and family characteristics. It also compares time spent in different social contexts. Finally, the paper uses the time use data to analyse which infants were still breastfeeding, and what factors are associated with differences in time spent breastfeeding.

The results show that breastfed infants spend more time being held or cuddled and being read or talked to, and less time sleeping, or eating, drinking or being fed other foods. {{Well, in America, Obesity is a major issue}}

They also cried slightly more, and watched television slightly less {{I’d say that’s positive}} than infants who were not being breastfed. Those who breastfed spent more time with their parents, and in particular, almost one additional hour a day alone with their mother compared to non-breastfeeding infants. {{This beats being ignored in a daycare situation. This gives baby and Mom some down time, which she could use also!}}

These findings have important implications for how children grow, and show the value of time use data in exploring pathways to development for infants and young children. The possibility that cognitive advantages for breastfed children may arise from their distinct patterns of time use and social contexts during the breastfeeding phase is an important area for future research using survey data such as from LSAC.

Summary

Being breastfed during infancy contributes to positive developmental outcomes, as well as to good nutrition and health. Expert guidelines for optimal infant feeding recommend that infants be exclusively breastfed for the first six months of life (National Health and Medical Research Council, 2003) and, along with appropriate complementary foods, continue to be breastfed for up to two years and beyond (World Health Assembly, 2001).

{{I did this for one child. I couldn’t for the other, but there were intervening factors (like Dad hitting me, and I know this affected the hormonal balance) intervening. Neither child has ever had an issue with intelligence or obesity, and they were healthy growing up. They weren’t clingy and they weren’t overly aggressive either, until years later, and this was when they became property fought over, and in the light of this, they were institutionalized again — at least their education was. I know that in our case, this was not aimed to help their education, but to break their bond with me. I cannot speak for every case.}}

While being breastfed during infancy is known to improve developmental outcomes, the pathways by which this occurs remain unclear. Components of breast milk are known to be important to brain development, but an important question remains as to whether the observed developmental advantages of children being breastfed also represent unobserved differences in the early life experiences of infants who were breastfed compared to those who were not. For example, there may be aspects of the breastfeeding mother’s behaviour or her interaction with the infant that differ from the non-breastfeeding mother. {{I KNEW THAT!}} One possible yet unexplored mechanism is that breastfed infants may spend their time differently to infants who are not breastfed. Time use research provides a potentially useful tool for further investigation of this issue.

A possible link between time use and children’s outcomes has a basis in the literature on infant development – for example, attachment theory – which indicates that positive interactions with caregivers have implications for secure attachment and socio-emotional development.

CAREGIVERS are mother-substitutes. They are not in the original plan. If you believe in plans. The word is longer. The short word is “MOM.” or “MOTHER” (pick your language).

I know, from the family law experience, that my behaving as a protective or educated mother was not wanted by certain other parties. My children themselves did not have a problem with this until we went into court, which even the mediator documented. It was a manufactured problem. The mantra, the ostinato, the continual claim was that by refusing to worship the government education factory (based on its performance), I was a heretic, and eccentric, and those kids were going to grow up weird and isolated. It was viewed with suspicion, and it was STOPPED. I have often thought that is children were simply allowed to be in their families (and the families were not violent) for as long as the individual kid was ready, before going to schools, schools would be far better. They do not need to be clingy and run in packs and herds, hurting each other or (when older) their teachers, and vice versa. They might have a sense of identity and belonging, and being loved. Unfortunately, this is NOT part of the economic development plan for “developed” countries.

Children’s development opportunities may therefore be affected by who they are with across the day, and where they are. Further, associations between somewhat older children’s time use and their development have been explored, with some relationships apparent, which lead us to question whether such relationships may also be apparent for infants. In addition to exploring the association between breastfeeding and time use, this paper also provides a broader examination of infants’ time use, to help understand the possible development opportunities for these infants.

And so forth. You can read it. I would just like to end with, after breastfeeding has been properly explicated, I suspect the conclusion would be the same:

DO IT.

Just like after the interrelationship between domestic violence and custody in family law settings has been properly explicated, I suspect that the CORRECT conclusion would be, as to domestic violence.

STOP IT

and as to when this is mixed with custody

DON’T!

THERE IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AGAINST CUSTODY GOING TO A BATTERER. BATTERING A WOMAN IS A POOR ROLE MODEL. BATTERERS DO NOT MAKE GOOD PARENTS UNTIL AND UNLESS THEY HAVE ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE AND CHANGED IT AND KEPT IT CHANGED. ONE HIGH MOTIVATION FOR CHANGING IS TO GIVE THEM A DOSE OF THEIR OWN MEDICINE, WITH EXPLANATION. THE ALTERNATIVE BEING, TO KEEP PROVIDING HIM OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE OF THE SAME. THIS INCLUDES STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE RESTRAINING ORDER (ONE VIOLATION = IMMEDIATE ARREST). PART OF ABUSE, IN CASE YOU HAVEN’T BEEN THERE YET (LET’S HOPE) IS SETS OF MEANINGLESS, TRIVIALLY JUSTIFIED, AND EVERCHANGING RULES APPLIED TO THE TARGET PERSON, NOT THE PERPETRATOR.

(I’D BETTER STOP, THIS RESEMBLES MANY SCHOOL SITUATIONS).

I expect that after I’m a long gone (which I hope will be a long time away) that family law system will still be around, and attempting to dilute and explicate the truth, that it just don’t make sense to say a person can beat another person (or have sex with a minor child) and be a good enough role model for custody, let alone visitation, let alone supervised visitation. These things — giving custody, visitation or supervised visitation, to a person who has not addressed this problem, called criminal behavior within the family — are going to naturally confuse a child about what’s right and what’s wrong, not exactly something I’d like the next generation to be confused on.

I’d like to end with what I’d consider a common sense and practical outlook towards human development, both in the womb and immediately after birth: this is a healthy attitude towards onesself, I believe. It just makes sense:

While all these things are wonderful to understand, and be aware of:

List of tables

Can I summarize this?

Psalm 139

12Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

13 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15 My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16 Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

17 How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

18 If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

Those are the words of a man who understands he is in relationship with Someone who loved him, wanted him, knows him, and that he knew was constantly thinking of him, that would never leave him alone. What better model for this than, at the beginning of life, being held, loved, and nursed by a mother? That act of nurturing and loving is at times attributed to God who, although He is portrayed as a Father, has also these characteristics:

Isaiah 14: 1 Listen, O isles, unto me; and hearken, ye people, from far; The LORD hath called me from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he made mention of my name.

These are the words of someone who had a sense of purpose in this life.

2 And he hath made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand hath he hid me, and made me a polished shaft; in his quiver hath he hid me;. . . .

Isaiah 49

14-15 But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath forgotten me. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.

Nursing and compassion go together. It’s not just about the baby! It’s about the relationship. Not forgetting . . . Not having compassion for a child one has nursed MAY happen, but it’s not the norm.

Here’s another verse about “cherishing” like a nursing mother, Paul (who takes a lot of heat for his supposed views of women):

I Thess 1: Nor of men sought we glory, neither of you, nor yet of others, when we might have been burdensome, as the apostles of Christ. 7 But we were gentle among you, even as a nurse cherisheth her children: 8 So being affectionately desirous of you, we were willing to have imparted unto you, not the gospel of God only, but also our own souls, because ye were dear unto us.

These are from before the days of Enfamil, and babies were nursed by another human being. For the most part. It wasn’t always Mom, but it was a woman. Why? because there weren’t factories, cubicles, etc., to the extent we now have them. And it was common knowledge that this was a cherishing, tender activity, and associated with it, the desire to give to that child, because the child was precious.

I understand this. I nursed my children. I don’t see them, I still would like to give, and have been prevented from doing so. Even though they’re almost grown, they were not full-grown when the sudden breakoff of that relatinoship (by a felony act called “child-stealing,”) was a radical disruption to what I was doing with my life which was called imparting good things to my kids. I do not think that I was inbred — in fact I was a practicing music professional in my communities, and as networked and integrated into other people’s and community institutions as most people are (if not more so, being self-employed). I most certainly had an independent soul, personality, and preferences — something I had to fight for during marriage (where this wasn’t welcome), and rebuild after it. I had close and long-term personal friendships, also.

But the primary one was with my children, because they were not yet grown up. They were not in college. And some crucial life struggles and issues were still in process. So, that’s what my life was centered around. This was part role model part provision, part demonstrating, by providing, that they were worth sacrificing for, but that a mother was not to be “used.”

A major part of this struggle (in our case) had been to assert a simple right to leave abuse, and as such, that this did not entail suddenly entering a childlike incompetence (in fact it was the opposite) and inability to make decisions, or face a challenge. . . . . An assumption was made that my daughters were a BURDEN that needed to be relieved, and dumped in a school, so I could get about my REAL life, which was not (as I had been at the time), a profession, but actually making sure I found a 9-3 job, (or a 9-5 job with daycare) and left the real education to the real experts. . . . Well, that was nonsense. The insult was that, I should view children as a burden to be dropped off. I found the attitude odd. And it was coming from people who did not themselves have kids. I have since come to the conclusion (or opinion, really), that these people, like I was at one time, were relationship-starved, despite all the art, all the literature, all the work, and all the adult friends they maintained. I think they were bored and lacked purpose in life. And I had the misfortune to come near their radar screen with children in hand. The assumption was that I could not POSSIBLY walk and chew gum, or work and have kids, and what was worse, HOMESCHOOL them too? This was based on an incredible ignorance of almost all the above topics.

And I was forced back onto the welfare state, needlessly, and told to be thankful. I’ll tell you how I feel about this. I HATE it because I know how it happened, needlessly. It’s abusive, it’s insane, and it communicates a pervasive distrust of me as a person, and bottom line assumption is of incompetence. Oddly enough, the factors driving me to this point also made the same assumptions.

I HATE having choice being so taken away from me, but whether to take a handout, or not, resulting in an unnatural relationship. I HATE the insanity that a government would come in and because of Food Stamps be forbidden to buy vitamins, toilet paper, or cat food, lest I might really be buying cigarettes or booze. I can go and buy candy and sweets or potato chips, til I get diabetic with the same money, so why not a little choice? the real reason is the need to have something to measure. At the same time, they do not take kindly to being measured themselves, lest they come up a little short.

Back to this topic:

Noncustodial mothers, and I know many, do not understand why there is such a national drive to disgrace us and scapegoat us individually, and collectively. Individually, we have some pretty good ideas why this happens, but nationally, I’m here to tell you, this thing ‘mother’ is important, along with “father.” Any version of “fatherhood” that cannot pronounce the word “mother” alongside it is a bastardized version of the real thing, a caricature. Good grief. We are cruel enough already, why add to this?

The word “nurse” in the last reference doesn’t mean the one in a white uniform with a crisp cap (and hypodermic in hand), but the mother (“her own children.”) It’s a noun used only once in the Greek NT, “trophos” (transliterated), but the verb it comes from “trepho”, means is “

A primary verb (properly, threpho; but perhaps strengthened from the base of trope through the idea of convolution); properly, to stiffen, i.e. Fatten (by implication, to cherish (with food, etc.), pamper, rear) — bring up, feed, nourish.

Here’s one more:

Matthew 23:37 (ERV)
O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killeth the prophets, and stoneth them that are sent unto her! how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!

The image of Jesus as a mother hen is not, I admit, the most common one, but the gathering and healing/helping, soothing, stopping the fighting activity (see context) obviously was not..

These verses referring to this common activity: nursing, cherishing, being gentle, imparting, caring, not forgetting, wanting a person (to have a child be WANTED is a big deal!), gathering the kids together and settling the squabbles, before they kill each other ! is not in the competitive context and as opposed to females we find it today “Dads are Nurturers Too!” but was simply part of a natural part of being a complete human being.

These are from the psalms of David, who was a major figure in the Bible, Old Testament and new, whose exploit with giant-slaying (“David and Goliath”) as well as with women (“David and Bathsheba”) as well as his progeny (Jesus Christ is sometimes known as the “Son of David” although there were many generations between the two recorded) and he was able to overcome having to flee, and live in caves and dens, but then fulfil his destiny to become a king. Isaiah (the second quote) was also a key player, and Paul — who takes a lot of grief in some circles, in case you didn’t know — over the supposed, “woman shut up in church!” thing –and is heavily relied on for this same reason by a lot of churches that never see MY face any more — in practice, well, I just don’t seem him acting terribly dismissive of women in the book.

Another major figure in the Bible is Moses. His story is, during a time of oppression and state-mandated male infanticide to get rid of the potentially upstart slave population’s potential men (and rebels), the midwives were instructed to kill the males. They didn’t. Moses was hid by his parents, and as it goes, they sent him down the river where Pharoah’s daughter (wanting a son!) picked him up, and raised him as her own. Well, I guess she had a figure and a schedule to maintain, and a wet nurse was hired, which ended up being Moses’ true mother. That worked out neatly, and I will bet that sometime during those months or years in which she got to nurse her own son, she also talked to him, and let him know who he was, and his heritage. 40, 80 years later, he is a national hero, confronting his own (surrogate) father and leading millions out of slavery.

These major players in Bible history: in approximate order: God, Moses, Isaiah, David, Jesus, and Paul (most of whom have been portrayed in statue and paintings by artists also — in fact, I think Michelangelo did at least David, God, and Moses) — all freely referred to the characteristics of nursing, cherishing, caring and in short, the supportive bonding relationship as a human need.

I would quote from a different sacred script, but this happens to be the one I know best. Please feel free to comment, if you wish, and if you’ve got some additional (relevant) quotes, I”ll incorporate them into the post.

Nursing was taken for granted as part of human life, and verbs and adjectives were associated with both nursing, and the word mother.

How did these people do such great, history-changing things without expert analysis of WHY breast was best?

Can we say nursing is a good deal for both mother, child, and the rest of us? Yes, it’s not always possible or advisable, but i DO wonder what we’re in such a rush to get rid of it for (pre-, pre-, pre-school in the US) and then, from afar, examine, pronounce and compare it with something else (is there something else superior?) as if it were a foreign thing?

Let’s compare the language used to describe some of this one more time:

Psalm 13913 For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother’s womb.

14 I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

A soul that knows he has a place in this world and was KNOWN. Assurance, reverence, awe, and praise. This psalmist went on, being the youngest and often treated dismissively by brothers, and father, to defend and protect his sheep (he could nurture), to slay his giant, to also do music (the psalms), to survive being a fugitive from jealousy, and to go on to be king. When a prophet came to anoint the future king, the littlest one was ignored, not being thought worth a mention. Older, bigger, better smarter? ones were paraded in front of the prophet, but finally (as it goes) this one was brought out, and anointed officially, prophesied over, and then (apparently) the troubles and jealousy began. Oh well. Who would have predicted that? The best of predictions and analyses go wrong sometimes.

Was he himself breastfed? Did he have parenting time? Was he, as a shepherd, familiar with the life process of conception, child(lamb)birth, protection of young, leading, feeding, and staving off dangers from the flock?

Another thing, incidentally, he was famous for was humility — when caught in some serious wrongdoing (adultery, and deceitfully getting another man killed so he could have the wife) and confronted, he admitted it. This is called repentance, and was commended.

It’s all in the attitude.

Now, for contrast, a phrase from Study #43 on why, seeking to better perfect human growth patterns and predict, and, and, and . . . .

.These data are then used to investigate the central issue explored in this paper: are the days of breastfed and non-breastfed infants spent differently, to the extent that differences in how breastfed infants spend their time could explain their more positive developmental outcomes?

The analysis shows that infants who were still breastfed spent significantly longer in the day being held or cuddled (32 minutes more) and being read, talked or sung to (27 minutes more), after taking into account other child and parental characteristics. There was a small positive effect of breastfeeding on spending time crying or upset. Breastfed infants were more likely to have been reported to have spent some time crawling, climbing or swinging arms/legs, and some time colouring, drawing and looking at books or puzzles. Breastfed children, on the other hand, spent significantly less time sleeping (40 minutes less), other eating, drinking or being fed (54 minutes less) and watching television (9 minutes less).

Breastfed infants spent longer with their mother (57 minutes more) than infants who were not breastfed, including more time alone with their mother (45 minutes more). Breastfed children also spent somewhat more time with their father (15 minutes more), although this was related to time that the mother and father were together, as breastfeeding was not associated with a difference in the amount of time the child spent with the father alone.

(It’s a RELATIONSHIP THING, I told you!) I wish our countries (respectively) would get OUT of the business of designing (measuring, comparing producing, evaluating and predicting, etc.) families. I really do. OR, alternately, worshipping them as a national ideal. I think this can backfire, too.

As a word of explanation, I am not writing to discredit the authors, or the study. Their credits are below. My point was in the larger context of, my own wonder and awe not at, well, being fearfully and wonderfully made, but at the whole industry of studying human behavior with a view to predicting, developing, understanding, justifying, and possibly controlling it. This is actually a positive contribution to the understanding that MOTHERING is important. Not SMOTHERING.

In my readings about the history of some of the larger social institutions dedicated to studying children and families, it came up that one cause of this was the tremendous amount of orphans caused by war, specifically World Wars I and II. It was both a problem and a ready source of oobservation of what happens to kids without families.

Along these lines, and based on my experiences (and associations, readings, etc.) I am personally very disturbed by the nationalized, so-called “public education” system. Over the long haul — and my life is five decades long, plus some — I was an academic success in a public school, but some of the values problems, and the absence in this context, of solid human connections with more than a few teachers, of discussions about the meaning and purposes of life was absent Though smart, smart was not appreciated in our high school, in fact it was social detriment. Though smart as a kid, I was also picked on as a kid, and my main memory of elementary school was this. I’m not complaining, I’m thinking here. It never occurred to me to tell my mother (or father) about the bullying, which went on a long time; I was very young, and the entire schoolyard was involved at playtimes. I still remember. I had everything handed to me, excelled here and there, and came to life around high school because of music, and I know this was because of the communal experience of doing something worthwhile other than sitting in a classroom, bored, and waiting for the bell.

As to bonding with one’s children, there is a bond. I can’t help thinking about Michael Jackson’s 3 children, basically kids for hire, given up AT BIRTH (I don’t think any one of them got a single sip from their mothe’s breast, and the 3rd, he related, he took away right away, placenta and all, as soon as the cord was snipped. The stunned reporter, well, was stunned. Putting this together with Michael’s stories of his threatening domineering father (they practiced with him sitting by with a belt) and when relating it, Michael put his hand over his mouth. His features were mocked, blaming it on the Mom. Fantastic wealth, fame, and musical success, yet this person, I looked at him on TV, had tried to turn himself into Peter Pan, he did not want to grow up. What did he have for his mother — a woman who was as chastised as the Dad? His own children didn’t know mother, at all, and ALL of them are going to go now either to abusive grandparents (let’s hope that’s changed), or a mother who gave them up at birth and viewed them (the first 2) as a “present” for Michael. They might be fought over, they probably won’t be hurting for food (one never knows) but what would be their place in the world? And what identity?

I am also looking at all the GRIEF in my own home, and life — first the bastardized version of “fatherhood” and “headship” that I lived with in marriage, which entailed also being domineered and, when necessary to make a point, assaulted, in the name of this ideal– and then, after I left that, the closest handy male who himself ALSO had not become a father, or raised a family, tried to catch up on lost time, with the assistance of his wife, and united with husband to remove the children from my care on the basis that i CERTAINLY couldn’t run a life without a man’s direction. The real basis, I believe was their need as people, despite all success, to have a meaningful relationship with young people they were related to. It just so happened they were short two, and mine were on the radar, and basically, that was that.

I don’t mean to give a hard time to people who can’t or don’t keep children with them longer. It can work out.

I do believe, though, that when it comes to national policy, it would be suicide to practice the disappearing Mom act. It’s the beginning of life, and it sets a standard. Leave those children alone! And let them bond with their Moms. Support that standard, and many other things will do better — it might make for better mothers, too, if we allow them space and time to do it. NOW, I have got to say, I think that the educational system exists in relationship to the job system. They are intertwined.

And i think sooner or later when we look at educational failures, and human behavioral failures (which domestic violence, and associated things ARE), we have too look at conceptual failures to acknowledge some basic human truths. And one of those is that MOST of us don’t like being treated like cogs in a machine, or parts in an assembly line. MOST of us would like some decent relationship with a sane human being that knows us, appreciates us, thinks POSITIVELY of us (which many school programs, alas, do not), and does not have an ulterior motive – job stability, money, sex, power, fame, prestige — etc. in there competing with why we are being raised as we are.

Human beings need a raison d’etre, a purpose in life, too. A friend of mine likes to say, all we need is:

Someone to love
Work to do.

One way to be able to love someone else is to have some self-respect (skills mastery, accomplishment, service, function in a community) oneself. A sense that one is unique, not just a point on a bell-curve. Let’s have a little motherhood in here, it’s a great start to other endeavors. That nursing baby NEEDS Mom, and to be held. That Mother/baby situation NEEDS Dad to protect it, and enable this situation. If, however, Dad has become inappropriate because of violence, or absent by choice, or incarceration, then they need a little space to grow up. Neither of them needs to be around violence or poverty and no child certainly should be treated as a piece of property — which is EXACTLY how too many institutions are indeed treating them, no matter what the sign on the doors.

How complex is that? In this regard, I think many institutions have got it wrong in trying to give people what they might rather earn or learn themselves.

Sorry to be so long-winded today.

Here are the women who did the study; it’d be great to read the entire thing (link up top):

About the authors

Jennifer Baxter is a Research Fellow at the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), where she works largely on employment issues as they relate to families with children. Since starting at AIFS, Jennifer has made a significant contribution to a number of important reports, including the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) Social Policy Research Paper No. 30, Mothers and Fathers with Young Children: Paid Employment, Caring and Wellbeing (Baxter, Gray, Alexander, Strazdins, & Bittman, 2007) and AIFS’ submission to the Productivity Commission Parental Leave Inquiry (2008). She has also contributed several Family Matters articles and had work published in other journals. Her research interests include maternal employment following childbearing, child care use, job characteristics and work-family spillover, breastfeeding, children’s time use and parental time with children. She has made extensive use of data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) to explore these areas of research.

Jennifer was awarded a PhD in the Demography and Sociology Program of the ANU in 2005. Her work experience includes more than fifteen years in the public sector, having worked in a number of statistical and research positions in government departments.

Julie Smith is a Research Fellow at the Australian Centre for Economic Research on Health at the Australian National University (ANU). She has published over 20 articles on public finance and health policy issues in peer-reviewed journals across several disciplines. She has authored two books on taxation (Taxing Popularity and Gambling Taxation in Australia), and received an Australian Research Council Postdoctoral (APD) Fellowship and Discovery Project funding for her research on the economics of mothers’ milk. She conducted a significant national survey of new mothers’ time use in 2006-07. Her research interests include: economic aspects of breastfeeding; the time use of new mothers <www.acerh.edu.au/programs/Time_Use_Survey.php>; non-market economic production and the care economy; taxation, tax expenditures and public finance policy; economics of the non-profit sector; tobacco control; and health financing. Julie was previously a senior economist in the Australian and New Zealand treasuries, and a Visiting Fellow in the Economics Program at the ANU Research School of Social Sciences. She was awarded a PhD in Economics (ANU) in 2003.

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

July 1, 2009 at 1:16 PM

Posted in Designer Families, Where's Mom?

Tagged with Australia, Breastfeeding, Education, Motherhood, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, Studying Humans, To Nurse or Not?

93.010: Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	$128,610,003
98.001: USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas	$11,058,644
93.279: Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs	$9,561,182
93.995: Adolescent Family Life_Demonstration Projects	$8,064,374
93.273: Alcohol Research Programs	$6,222,97

FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL (FHI)	$3,593,286
SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE	$2,551,682
PROGRAM FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN HEALTH	$2,233,162
HERITAGE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC	$2,000,000
BROWN UNIVERSITY	$1,672,760
POPULATION COUNCIL INC	$1,613,000
PATH	$1,500,000
NEUROBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH INC	$1,466,239
NEW HOPE CENTER INC	$1,399,907
CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC.	$1,399,300

2009	Columbus Hospital	NJ	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	2	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	BERNADETTE VISSANI	$- 739,820
2009	METRO ATLANTA YOUTH FOR CHRIST, INC	GA	COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	3	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	CINDY MILLER	$ 300,186
2009	Saint Michael`s Medical Center, Inc	NJ	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	BERNADETTE VISSANI	$ 677,551
2008	A WOMAN`S PLACE MINISTRIES, INC.	FL	ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL LAYTON	$ 600,000
2008	A WOMENS CONCERN, INC.	MA	HEALTHY FUTURES ABSTINENCE EDUCATION INITIATIVE	3	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	ELIZABETH SNYDER	$ 600,000
2008	ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP	IL	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	SCOTT PHELPS	$ 512,500
2008	ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONSULTANTS,INC.	KS	COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	LOIS THEIS	$ 600,000
2008	ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION	OH	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	3	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	CATHERINE E WOOD	$ 600,000
2008	AIDS RESOURCE CENTER OF WISCONSIN, INC	WI	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	SCOTT STOKES	$ 600,000
2008	ALPHA CENTER	SD	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	KIMBERLY MARTINEZ	$ 600,000
2008	ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES	TX	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	SHARI L CARROLL	$ 454,922
2008	ARIZONA MEXICO BORDER HEALTH FOUNDATION	AZ	COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	ALBERT MORENO	$ 550,000
2008	AWARE, INC.	WA	WASHINGTON STATE: COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE UNTIL MARRIAGE PROJECT	1	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	JAMES N GRENFELL	$ 499,849
2008	About Our Kids, Inc.	MO	STRATEGIES FOR ABSTINENCE AND VIRTUE EDUCATION (SAVE)	2	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	ALICIA HUMES	$ 600,000
2008	Abstinence the Better Choice, Inc.	OH	ABSTINENCE THE BETTER CHOICE	3	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	CHERYL BIDDLE	$ 600,000
2008	Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Inc.	AZ	POWER FITNESS ABSTINENCE PROGRAM- TEACHING YOUTH AGES 12 THROUGH 18 THE SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGI	3	Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE)	DISCRETIONARY	EVA GODDARD	$ 600,000

FY	Award Number	Budget Year of Support	Agency	Award Code	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2008	90FE0037	3	ACF	0	09-14-2008	$550,000.00
Award Subtotal:						$550,000.00

Posts Tagged ‘Studying Humans’

THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONFERENCE OF THE DECADE!

From Ideology to Inclusion 2009:

Mail or fax in your order today!

But, who are the real stakeholders?

Why not instead just raise funds for subscriptions for women leaving abuse to some of the publications talking about us, and our children, and our batterers, and our stalkers, and our children’s abductors, and our options, and how to intervene.

Benefits (from OUR point of view, at least):

Detriments (possibly from publishers, conferrers, model code designers, and a WHOLE lot more):

I think those would be the primary differences. The question is, HOW would America Survive without the economy of pathology? And the paradigm of the us/them; subject/object expertise heirarchy?

What year do you think this was written?

National Institute of Justice Project to Develop Model Anti-Stalking Code for States

Limitations of Report from Domestic Violence Perspective

Analysis of utility of model code proposed by NIJ for battered women

Benefits of Model Code

Flaws of Model Code

Effectiveness of anti-stalking codes in general for battered women

WHEN WAS THE EXCERPT WRITTEN?

Domestic Violence & Stalking: A Comment on the Model Anti-Stalking Code Proposed by the National Institute of Justice

Publication Date: December 1994

SHARE THIS POST on...

Set this Press Release to the “SPIN” Cycle:

Yes, alas, ’tis true. . ..

Notice anything missing from the logo there?

Top 10 Recipients

And show someone else. OK?

Anyhow, here they are: the helpers, last year (2008):

SHARE THIS POST on...

“In God We Trust. Every one else pays cash, upfront.”

Well, let’s get to today’s point, which struck a nerve with me, although it was incidental to looking up something else):

The “LETHALITY RISK” or “HOMICIDE /FATALITY REVIEW” is not exactly new:

Warning: list of links/titles may trigger PTSD in survivors.

1985, by a Ph.D./RN, Jacquelyn Campbell

1990, by an attorney, Barbara Hart

1999, Campbell et al.

Stalking & Femicide

2000, CDC Epidemiologist

2003, Reuters Health Report

2004, DV Death Review Team, CANADA

2006, VPC, East Coast USA

Washington, D.C. nonprofit

2007 Boston Globe,

“Special Report”

June, 2009, Public Health Perspective;

SHARE THIS POST on...

How many social science, legal, and

court-associated experts does it take

to UNscrew a lightbulb?

(1)

(2)

? ? ?

(4)

(5)

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

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

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

SHARE THIS POST on...

Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants

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

They are going to:

BIRTH

NURTURE, and

SUPPORT the development of a . . .

HAPPY BROWSING:

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

Office of Family Assistance Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant

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

SHARE THIS POST on...

FYI: In re budget crisis……

For your viewing pleasure and information.

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

SO . . . ..

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

THIS PAGE IS YOUR FRIEND — PLEASE GET ACQUAINTED

**

Here’s the “TAGGS” site.

Welcome!

What’s New

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

Want some answers?

Want to have some fun analyzing the analysts?

Office of Family Assistance
Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grant