Posts Tagged ‘U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..’
Possibly Certifiable Insanity (Stockpiling Mental Health Research Grants, “Discretionary,”nationwide).
In response to wondering how to communicate to one state’s legislator that any new Fatherhood Initiative, either precisely worded or inspiringly vague, though powerfully phrased, is indeed superfluous, I simply researched (again, in this state) two known existing fatherhood programs (at least under one Federal Department) — the one with “fatherhood” in its name, “CFDA 93.086, Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood” and the ones which has the intended effect of a “required outcome” to the legal process, namely “Access Visitation” grants, CFDA 93.597, commonly known as putting more time in the hands of the noncustodial parent (a.k.a. father), through moving the decision-making process outside the courtroom, until it has been screened by mediators, custody evaluators, and parenting planners. (See my Cooks in the Court Kitchen Post). Yes, these grants were making it to Kansas as well as to the rest of the U.S. (including V.I., P.R. & Guam).
Note: in the database “usaspending.gov” and under “Grant search by program” it is impossible to search readily by 93.086, as it’s not on the list of hyperlinks. I tend to feel this was not accidental.
CFDA Number = 93086
State = KANSAS
Fiscal Year = 2008
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 | |||||
CFDA Number = 93597
State = KANSAS
Fiscal Year = 2008
Recipient: KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 66612
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 0801KSSAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 01-30-2008 | $100,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $100,000.00 | |||||
I noticed how MANY types of things are administered directly through the KS ST Office of the Governor, which to me seems a little over-centralized and top-heavy.
While looking, I marveled that both Abstinence Education and Community Based Abstinence-Education grants with Medical research on Male Contraception (guess which funding won out??) (Actually both types got the grants,
so I suppose the winners are, however, those grants benefitted — or will — and the losers are the taxpayers — if they didn’t. For example,
based on several factors, I’d say the Abstinence Education is a bust. Not that I’m anti-Abstinence, hey, but how many decades is this going to be tried? Since there is a Community-Based stipulation, the kind this decorative adjective, is government-based. In fact, come to think of it, what has happened to just generalized DISCRETION in education, period? The concept that “education” won’t happen without a program (particularly a government run one) is just a little “out there” to start with.
I also believe that if there were better things to do in class, or young people had a vision for surviving past 20 (in some communities), or succeeding in life, there just might be a little less screwing around before financial independence. Also what might be helpful if there was a general tendency to point them in the direction of financial independence, throughout the public schools. We are, however, generally speaking (it seems) teaching the vast majority to hope to hold a job, rather than hope to own or run a business. After all, can’t EVERYONE run a business (?) so someone has to be the employees, right?
What better way to ensure a constant supply of willing employees (and a surplus of them, too) by the caste/income/race-sorting system we call public school education?
The local child support agency (the one that “bailed” in my case, coming to the rescue of the father who’d rather take the kids than get a job) is frequently airing its successes and programs on the local cable TV. What they don’t tell us, in the programs aimed at young teens, is how they treat middle-aged parents in the family law venue. OR WHY . . . . . Too bad, that. . . .
Anyhow, in Kansas, a VERY small segment of what appears to be a wonderful research center, really:
| Fiscal Year | OPDIV | Grantee Name | Award Title | Sum of Actions |
| 2003 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 138,291 |
| 2002 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 155,041 |
| 2001 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 182,417 |
| 2000 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 177,105 |
| 1999 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $160,365 |
(for the sake of margins, the same grant award, but , different fields displaying).
| 2003 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 138,291 |
| 2002 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 155,041 |
| 2001 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 182,417 |
| 2000 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 177,105 |
| 1999 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 160,365 |
(Where is the original, the “NEW” of this particular one, after which there was competing, then non-competing continuation?)
WHAT, you say, might this be? It’s CFDA CODE 93242, Mental Health Research . . . . and just the tip of the iceberg on our lust to KNOW (and to predict, and to manage, and to manipulate, and to label, and to — well, it’s all really for the national HEALTH):
We DO want to know why our neighbors (or others, or certain populations, or peoples, or income levels, or etc.) are mentally ill, and to verify (nay, certify) that they are, right? To help them. Become more sane. Like us (case in point, studying all this may not be a sign of sanity…..).
I could not (today) find the “abstract” for these, but below are some samples of abstracts (with the word “stereotype” in them):
Mental Health, Discretionary must be a large segment:
AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS POST, I WILL LIST CERTAIN TYES OF RECIPIENTS: (ALL is too many):
(I thought you might enjoy that. . . . ) I’m not quite sure how shifting standards comes under Mental Health (which this grant is listed under), but hey, it takes all types. I’d love to see the final report. . . . .
Searching Federal HHS grants on just the word “stereotypes” brings up a mix of social and medical sciences, and some overlap.
ONE thing’s clear, it’s being studied. I wonder if this will reduce the amount of “stereotyping” going on, just as studying domestic
violence has reduced the amount of domestic violence, and promoting responsible fatherhood has produced an abundance of responsible fathers nationwide, diminished the number of, well, ones like Doug Ouellette and such. (Responsible in business, dangerous in marriage…. or at least being asked to separate from it…)
For example:
| R01MH071749
Arizona |
STEREOTYPE THREAT AS A STRESS INDUCED COGNITIVE DEFICIT | NIH | NIMH | $ 588,957 |
| Title | Stereotype Threat as a Stress Induced Cognitive Deficit |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01MH071749 |
| Project Start/End | 01-AUG-2004 / 31-MAY-2008 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Prior work on stereotype threat (see Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002, for a review) suggests that the stress of being targeted by negative stereotypes can cause stigmatized individuals to perform more poorly on complex cognitive tasks when anything is done to remind them of their membership in a negatively stereotyped group.
Although research has established the generalizability of these stereotype threat effects, a precise and integrated model of the processes by which negative stereotypes interfere with performance is still needed. This application draws on existing literatures examining how stress impacts cognitive processing and outlines a theoretical model that integrates cognitive, physiological, and affective processes that mediate stereotype threat effects on test performance by reducing an individual’s working memory capacity. This model proposes that negative stereotypes reduce performance in testing situations because they present the individual with inconsistent views about the self that induce, a) cognitive processing in an attempt to reconcile the inconsistency, b) a physiological stress response involving increased stress hormones and sympathetic activation, and c) attempts to suppress felt anxiety.
Each of these processes is hypothesized to have a negative effect on an individual’s working memory capacity, a cognitive process integral to any complex mental task. The results of three preliminary experiments are reported to provide evidence that working memory capacity is a key mediator of stereotype threat effects on performance. The 11 experiments that are proposed will expand upon these findings to identify the processes by which stereotype threat interferes with working memory capacity and performance. {{RATHER THAN, say, DOING something to alleviate the stereotyping in the situation..? }}
A significant impact of the present research is that in gaining a better understanding of the stress-related processes that are affected by stereotype threat, it becomes more feasible to develop strategies that will enable individuals to cope successfully with social stigma. |
| Thesaurus | academic achievement, cognition disorder, prejudice, psychological stressor, psychophysiology, social perception, stress, university student anxiety, coping, culture, gender difference, hormone biosynthesis, neural information processing, racial /ethnic difference, self concept, short term memory, social psychology, sympathetic nervous system behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, human subject, interview, psychological test |
| PI Name/Title | SCHMADER, TONI M. |
| PI eMail | |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PO BOX 3308 TUCSON, AZ 857223308 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2007 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | SPIP |
| F31HD058492
North Carolina |
RACE STEREOTYPES AND SELF PERCEPTIONS IN AFRICAN AMERICAN YOUTH | NIH | NICHD | $ 33,879 |
| Title | Race stereotypes and self perceptions in African American youth |
|---|---|
| Award Number | F31HD058492 |
| Project Start/End | 30-SEP-2008 / |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The purpose of the proposed study is (1) to examine the developmental progression of academic race stereotype endorsement in African American youth; (2) to explore, over time, the impact that academic race stereotype endorsement has on the academic self-concept and self-esteem of Black adolescents; (3) to examine whether racial centrality (i.e., the extent to which being Black is central to an individual’s definition of self) moderates the relationship between stereotype endorsement and self-perceptions; (4) to explore the influence of parental racial socialization messages on academic race stereotype endorsement; and (5) to determine the relationships among stereotype endorsement, racial centrality, racial socialization, and decisions about higher education. 135 African American eleventh graders in a rural school district will participate in the project. These students participated in the first wave of the Adolescent Identity Project when they were in middle school. Written parental and student consent will be required for study participation. Consent letters will be distributed to students in their English classes. Once consent has been received, students will be administered self-report questionnaires in small groups (5-10 students) at their schools. Trained research assistants will instruct students on how to complete each measure and will be available to answer questions. Once questionnaires are completed, the research assistant will thank the students and give them a $5 restaurant gift certificate. In addition, during the students’ 12th grade year, they will be mailed a follow-up packet. Students will be questioned about their college plans (whether or not they are planning to attend college and whether it is a Historically Black College or University), SAT scores (if applicable), end of grade scores, and stereotype endorsement. The proposed study will significantly contribute to the body of knowledge on African American adolescents’ achievement-related beliefs and how they develop and change overtime. Understanding achievement-related beliefs will provide a pathway for explaining the factors that contribute to and promote achievement motivation and academic success for African American adolescents. Public Health Relevance: This Public Health Relevance is not available. |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | OKEKE, NDIDI A. |
| PI eMail | okeke@email.unc.edu |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL Office of Sponsored Research CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2008 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
This looks interesting, and like it ought to justify several more fatherhood grants:
| R01DA024029 | PATERNAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT AND SUBSTANCE USE IN CHILDREN & ADOLESCENTS | NIH | NIDA | $ 1,592,006 |
And, WOW, it’s a new one: so new, not even any thesaurus terms for the abstract yet. Started 2008,
Principal Investigator, an Assistant Professor at Columbia, Institution< NY State Psychiatric Institute, and
the Recipient (by the way, these are hyperlinks; you can click away, as can I…. Start with the grant numbers here) is a scary-sounding:
“Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.”
| Total of all awards: | $ 858,685,338 |
(YES, you read that right: $858,685,338 from 1997-2009)
OR, from another data resources:
(i am beginning to wonder whether this is partly WHY the US is the world’s largest “jailor” — population research?).
This one here seems very relevant, but only about $350K:
| R21HL088620 | MEASURING CULTURAL COMPETENCE AND RACIAL BIAS AMONG PHYSICIANS | NIH | NHLBI | $ 346,500 |
I mean, I’m sure this would affect quality of health care. I know I had a sexist oby/gyn for the 2nd child (but I stood up to him, and there was a younger on on duty also, who accepted that not every woman who gives birth should be automatically anesthetized and cut….)
(Then again, the place this grant goes to, I happen to know, got about $127 Million in grants in single year…..)
Here’s one that interests me, as a musician, obviously. I’m surprised to find $3mil on this, as typically music is the first thing cut from the public school curriculum in tough times (i.e., periodically…..)
| R01NS050436 | INTEGRATIVE STUDY OF VOCAL DEVELOPMENT | NIH | NINDS | $ 3,219,146 |
well, NO, that’s apparently about the male zebra finch. . . . Go figure…..
But $858 million?? over about 12 years? That’s like, HEY — what’s going ON with that foundation??
It’s not just the “mental hygiene” concept, but the “Mental Hygiene, INC.” Sounds sci-fi.
(Added 08-11-09: I did look up some more on who ARE they?; it’s on the web, and free for anyone else who is willing to put in the time to look. And a bit of an eye-opener, too. They have done some good work, helping people after 9/11. But it’s major business, and was set up in 1952 to facilitate research projects. )
| Title | Paternal Criminal Justice Involvement and Substance Use in Children & Adolescents |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01DA024029 |
| Project Start/End | 01-AUG-2008 / 31-MAY-2013 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Of the 6.5 million adults who were under some form of correctional supervision in 2000, 3.6 million were parents,[{AND MOSTLY MEN}} thereby affecting 7.1 million minor children. Nationally, approximately 85% of all prisoners are male. Contrary to stereotypes, many of the fathers have significant connections to their children: prior to arrest 44% of incarcerated fathers lived with their children and 65% of the others continued at least monthly contact while in prison. Note however, that among incarcerated fathers >60% reported using drugs in the month before their offense; 25% reported a history of alcohol dependence; 14% reported mental illness and 70% did not have a high school diploma.\
Yet, despite evidence that parental involvement with the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is related to children’s elevated risk for substance use, psychopathology, and future incarceration, no rigorous studies of a representative sample of such children have been conducted. {{I thought it was FATHERLESSNESS, not FATHER-INCARCERATION that was the main issue, from what we have been hearing nationally, through the courts, HHS, government, and initiatives….}}
A better understanding of the specific impact of paternal incarceration, from a developmental perspective, could be expected to provide insight into ways of tempering or averting many psychosocial adverse outcomes in the youth. (ANOTHER Idea (mine) might be to find ways to keep the fathers if possible from the behaviors that got them incarcerated to start with. .. . . And then that’d be one less generation to be so impacted. What do you think?)
The main objective of this investigation is to understand the impact, over time, of paternal involvement with the CJS on their children’s substance use, psychopathology, and development of risk behaviors leading to involvement with the Juvenile Justice/CJS. This proposal aims to overcome methodological limitations of previous investigations and will provide generalizable findings relevant to developing public policy for improving the lives of affected children, including reducing their risk for substance use and incarceration. Our framework acknowledges that paternal involvement with the CJS occurs in a complex environment, where risk factors cluster, leading to a number of both direct and indirect sequelae. We will recruit a sample of children (ages 10-14) following the arrest of their fathers. The sample will be representative of CJS fathers from a disadvantaged community (the South Bronx, NYC), who have close contact with their child(ren). They will be recruited through collaboration with a publicly assigned legal defense team, the Bronx Defenders. An age- gender matched comparison group of children whose fathers had never been incarcerated will be recruited in the same residential area. The study includes collaboration with agencies whose involvement make this inherently difficult study possible: including the NYC DOE, NYC DOH-MH, NYC ACS, as well as collaborators and advocacy groups, some participating on the Study’s Advisory Board. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: From a public health perspective, policy driven decisions regarding youth, especially those at elevated risk for untoward outcomes, must be based on sound scientific data. The goal of the proposed investigation is to advance our knowledge and understanding of the consequences of paternal involvement with the Criminal Justice System on the substance use/abuse/dependence and other psychopathology of their children. Knowledge about the determinants, over time, for negative youth outcomes, as well as protective factors, is critical to advancing targeted interventions in an effort to break the cycle of Criminal Justice involvement of the next generation. Public Health Relevance: This Public Health Relevance is not available. {{I have a “dumb” idea. Take some of the monies spent studying male zebra finches, and the ones on lethality risks for domestic violence femicides, which are being ignored in public policy (courts) anyhow, and put them towards things that would help break the cycle of (1) ILLITERACY and with it (2) POVERTY. Then I suspect — barring continuing racial profiling by arresting officeres, and a few other possible institutional factors (why not study the INSTITUTIONS as much as the people IN them, eh?) there might be lower incarceration rates. And Research Foundation Inc. could go find something else to research…)) {{PUT IT INTO: Expressive arts, creative arts, dance, and so forth. Put it into college scholarships. Put it into supporting the EXIT from the public school systems that undereducate and badly socialize. . . . Let’s Get Honest!!}} |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | HOVEN, CHRISTINA W. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | ch42@columbia.edu |
| Institution | NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE NEW YORK, NY 10032 |
| Department | |
| Fiscal Year | 2008 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE |
| IRG | RPIA |
While money will ALWAYS flow to study incarcerated African American males (or females), how about some to help in DOING the studies, not BEING studied? “Nationally, African Americans, Latin Americans, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans are underrepresented in the sciences and social sciences. ”
Maybe this project wasn’t structured right, it only coughed up $81K: but it sounds reasonable to me:
| R25MH070369 | PROMOTING HS MINORITY ADVANCEMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES | NIH | NIMH | $ 81,491 |
| Title | Promoting HS Minority Advancement in the Social Sciences |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R25MH070369 |
| Project Start/End | 01-JUL-2004 / 30-JUN-2006 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The long-term goal of the proposed HS-COR Honors Research Training program is to achieve ethnic parity in admissions to (goal=100%) and success in undergraduate programs (goal = 100%) related to the biomedical sciences or mental health fields. Nationally, African Americans, Latin Americans, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans are underrepresented in the sciences and social sciences.
{{POSSIBLY — just conjecturing here, total hypothesis, but I HAVE been nosing around a lot of these grants for many months now — POSSIBLY because the powers that be would rather STUDY such populations than have them participate in running the studies. JUST an idea…}} The specific aims of the program are to increase underrepresented student success by: (a) identifying 6 students who appear to have the greatest potential, (b) training students in the fundamental assumptions, value of, and pitfalls of research, (c) facilitating students’ specific research skills by their working with a faculty mentor on a specific research project, and (d) providing specific information and support to ensure that students have the qualities required to be successful in an undergraduate program, such as assistance with SAT preparation and the presentation of research in science fairs. Students will attend a summer training program on the research process that is designed to build scientific and critical reasoning skills and a practical seminar series and work one-on-one with their research mentors. Faculty mentors’ research projects reflect a variety of areas including the neuropsychology of Alzheimer’s disease, quality of life of elderly women, effects of stereotype threat on academic achievement of minority students, adolescent wellbeing, and violence prevention. Evaluation of three goals is specified. The goals are: (a) admission to college; (b) success while in college; and (c) professionalism. Each goal is made more specific and specific program components are matched with each goal. |
| Thesaurus | academic achievement, behavioral /social science, ethnic group, secondary school, training, vocational guidance African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Native American, health science research potential, mental health personnel, university adolescence (12-20), behavioral /social science research tag, human subject |
| PI Name/Title | QUILICI, JILL L. |
| PI eMail | jill.quilici@csun.edu |
| Institution | CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND SPONSORED PROJECTS NORTHRIDGE, CA 913308232 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2005 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZMH1 |
This might upset a few apple carts and probably wouldn’t be duplicated. Better to mentor children of prisoners, than potential social science superstars….
This one got over $1 million, so it must be very important (or, hard to study):
| R01MH066836
Massachusetts |
FACE OVERGENERALIZATION, PREJUDICE, AND STEREOTYPES | NIH | NIMH | $1,403,454 |
Took 4 years.
$
| Award Number | R01MH066836 |
|---|---|
| Project Start/End | 10-SEP-2003 / 30-JUN-2007 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Considerable research demonstrates a strong tendency to use facial appearance when forming first impressions.
(What’s more, common sense says this as well)
Moreover, these impressions show remarkable consensus, yielding significant social consequences. (ibid). The long-range objective of the proposed research is to explain consensual first impressions of faces and to develop methods for ameliorating their negative social consequences. Consensual First Impressions of Faces? Does this relate to (or, lead to…) “consensual sex.”?? The working hypothesis is that the psychological qualities that are accurately revealed by the functionally significant facial qualities that mark babies, unfitness, emotion, or identity are overgeneralized to people whose facial structure resembles that of babies, a particular level of fitness, a particular emotion, or a particular identity. The research has three specific aims. One is to use connectionist modeling to test the facial identity overgeneralization hypothesis that the tendency for responses to strangers to vary with their facial resemblance to known individuals contributes to racial prejudice and stereotyping. The connectionist modeling experiments seek to demonstrate that the physical similarity between two faces can in and of itself account for similar impressions of them quite apart from similarities in the social categories of the faces. The second aim is to test whether generalized mere exposure effects can be used to reduce race and age prejudice and stereotyping, as predicted by the facial identity overgeneralization hypothesis. The mere exposure experiments seek to demonstrate that increasing the familiarity of an out-group facial prototype will decrease negative reactions to out-group members. The third aim is to use functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to investigate neural activation patterns in response to faces that are predicted from each of the three overgeneralization hypotheses. The fMRI experiments seek to determine whether categories of faces that are differentiated by human judges’ ratings and by the activation they elicit in connectionist modeling experiments also elicit distinct patterns of neural activation, thereby demonstrating a neural substrate for the overgeneralization effects. By focusing on the structured facial information that influences prejudice and stereotypes, the proposed research brings a novel theoretical perspective to the field of social cognition, demonstrating that the intrinsic properties of faces make a significant contribution to social biases that have been largely viewed as social constructions. It also suggests novel interventions for reducing prejudice. |
| Thesaurus | face, impression, prejudice, racial /ethnic difference bias, face expression, handedness, identity, neural information processing, social perception, visual stimulus behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, functional magnetic resonance imaging, human old age (65+), human subject, young adult human (21-34) |
| PI Name/Title | ZEBROWITZ, LESLIE A. PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | zebrowitz@brandeis.edu |
| Institution | BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY 415 SOUTH STREET WALTHAM, MA 024549110 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2006 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
| Total of all awards: | $ 1,403,454 |
Oh, Here’s a $2 million one: Must be longitudinal and very relevant to national health and wellbeing or safety:
| R01HD021332
TEXAS |
ORIGINS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCE-BASED STEREOTYPES | NIH | NICHD | $ 2,352,235 |
| R01HD021332 | ORIGINS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCE-BASED STEREOTYPES | NIH | NICHD | $ 2,352,235 |
| Title | Origins and Significance of Appearance-Based Stereotypes |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01HD021332 |
| Project Start/End | 01-SEP-1986 / 31-DEC-2007 |
| Abstract | This abstract is not available. |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | LANGLOIS, JUDITH H. CHARLES AND SARAH SEAY REGENTS’ PROFESSO |
| PI eMail | langlois@psy.utexas.edu |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN PO Box 7726 AUSTIN, TX 78713 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2007 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
(NOTE: project duration says 1986 – 2007. These records therefore don’t show 1986 – 1997, probably similar amounts/year.
Well, since this project was over with one and a half years ago, perhaps we can write and find out what they learned.
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/LangloisLAB/
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/crl.html#scope
The Children’s Research Laboratory (CRL) was founded in January 1982 to facilitate training and research on a wide variety of topics relating to infant and child development. We are located in the Seay Psychology building at the corner of Dean Keeton and Speedway on the University of Texas campus.
Approximately 7 faculty members and 20 graduate students currently conduct research at the CRL. While most are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, research assistance also has been provided to faculty from the Linguistics Department, the Department of Human Ecology, and the College of Education. Our current facility includes a waiting room for parents, numerous laboratory suites, offices for faculty and graduate researchers, a student lounge, and a developmental psychology library. Space is also available for visiting faculty and post-doctoral fellows. In addition, the CRL provides invaluable training to approximately 150 undergraduate students per year. Their close work with both graduate students and faculty on specific research projetcts prepares them for graduate work toward advanced degrees or other careers involving children.
Our research has examined a broad range of topics, including studies of infant vision and audition, the early development of cognitive and intellectual ability, the development of language, parent-infant interaction, social stereotypes by young children and adults, and the causes of parental abuse of children. Research projects at the CRL are funded primarily through federal and private foundation funds.
Rebecca Anne Hoss, Judith H. Langlois, Rebecca Bigler, Jacqueline D. Woolley, Robert A. Josephs, Kristin Neff, …
This dissertation is dedicated to all those who have supported and guided me in my quest for a graduate degree in psychology, including my loving husband Chance Lawson, my unconditionally supportive…
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1129416
(Abstract:)
The relation between physical attractiveness and behavior was examined by assessing whether behavioral differences exist between attractive and unattractive children.
{{As determined by . . . . .??}}
64 3- and 5-year-old boys and girls were selected as subjects on the basis of physical attractiveness. Same age and sex, attractive, unattractive, and mixed-attractiveness dyads were formed and were observed in a seminaturalistic play setting. A categorical observation system was used to record affiliative, aggressive, activity-, and object-directed play behaviors. A developmental pattern was found for aggression: no differences based on attractiveness were evident in 3-year-olds, but 5-year-old unattractive children aggressed against peers more often than did attractive children. Unattractive children were generally more active than attractive children. Few differences in affiliative behaviors were found between attractive and unattractive children.
>>>>
Phew!
This is a side-note to a Judith Langlois site, but I don’t think the topic is “incidental” to WHAT is our federal HHS department doing with these grants (and why):
INTRODUCTION
It is useful to distinguish, in a first approximation, between behavioral biology in general, and the more special fields of classical comparative psychology, classical ethology, and the newer fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Contemporary animal behavior research often tries to combine the methods and insights of the experimental approach of comparative psychology with the field observational approach of ethology. Comparative psychology originated in North America as a branch of experimental psychology; its practitioners were mainly interested in differences between species, especially in intelligence and learning. Classical ethology is a branch of biology that originated in Europe, used observational rather than experimental methods, and was interested first and foremost in the naturally occurring behavior of animals. Although the dichotomy must not be overstressed, animal behaviorists tend to be trained in psychology, work with “bright” animals, and generally are interested in learned behaviors; while contemporary ethologists, sociobiologists, and evolutionary psychologists are likely to concentrate on innate behaviors. While the study of learned behavior is both important and immediately applicable to human psychology, these behaviors do not have an evolutionary basis beyond the neural capacity to learn. (For a more detailed account of the differences between these traditions, see, e.g., Barry Sinervo.)
The research covered in this area introduction encompasses a very large domain. For the sake of convenience, we have divided it in clusters that are listed alphabetically under the conventional labels “animal behavior,” “animal cognition,” “ethology,” “behavioral ecology,” “cognitive ecology,” “neuroethology,” “sociobiology,” and “evolutionary psychology.” It should be borne in mind throughout that these labels reflect little more than the contingencies of the history of behavioral biology, and that in practice, the boundaries between these sub-areas tend to be quite blurred.
The question I pose is whether historians and social scientists have much to gain from models of cultural evolution that treat cultural change as a kind of selection process. Can such models provide a unifying paradigm for the social sciences that plays the same role in the study of human culture that models of biological evolution play in biology as a whole?
As an explanatory theory of human behavior, dynamical ((Kind of dynamic, but not quite, so only “dynamical”??) models of cultural evolution and social learning hold more promise of success than models based on rational choice. Under the right conditions, evolutionary models supply a rationale for Nash equilibrium that rational choice theory is hard pressed to deliver. Furthermore, in cases with multiple symmetrical Nash equilibria, the dynamic models offer a plausible, historically path-dependent model of equilibrium selection. In conditions, such as those of correlated encounters, where the evolutionary dynamic theory is structurally at odds with the rational choice theory, the evolutionary theory provides the best account of human behavior.
— Brian Skyrms
Evolutionary Psychology (EP)
EP was articulated in the wake of human sociobiology’s unsuccessful attempts (most notably, Lumsden/Wilson 1981) to come to grips with gene-culture coevolution. Its goal is to uncover “the psychological mechanisms that underpin human … behavior, and … the selective forces that shaped those mechanisms” (Donald Symons). Its key assumptions are, in Eric Alden Smith’s accurate summary, modularity (human behavior is guided by specialized cognitive mechanisms performing specialized tasks); historicity (natural selection shaped those modules to produce adaptive behavior in the paleolithic EEA or “environment of evolutionary adaptedmess”); adaptive specificity (adaptive outcomes, e.g., mate preference, are very specific); and environmental novelty (modern environments are characterized by an unprecedented degree of novelty). From these assumptions, EP deduces that valid adaptive explanations must refer to genetically evolved psychological mechanisms linked to specific features of the EEA; that “culture,” “learning,” “rational choice,” and “fitness maximization” are insufficiently modular to be explanatorily realistic mechanisms, whether cognitive or behavioral; that contemporary human behavior may often be maladaptive; and that measuring fitness outcomes or correlates of contemporary behavioral patterns is irrelevant.
{{I”m tempted to add, this includes collective institutional behavior in many matters. Either we (so to speak) are trying to study, manage, and predict human behavior, so as to better MANAGE it, (evolutionary bias) OR we (so to speak) are trying to enforce a certain religious paradigm on the entire country, a paradigm in which all animals are equal, but SOME (male) animals are more equal than others. And, anyone, incidentally, who doesn’t agree with the above will be tortured in one (or more) institutions, until they do. How this differs IN THEORY AND PRACTICE with what this SAME United States is sending troops overseas to quell (insurgents, and make the world safe for “democracy,” I’m not sure – – it does have frightening similarities. Except, in many other countries, I could probably only put up ONE blog post saying this. . . . . . if I dared. We DO make fun of our government pretty well, I admit }}
ANYHOW, do you catch the flavor of the lingo?
By the way, calling people “bipolar” is popular these days. Never fear, a “Special Unit of Government” is on it, since about 2002, with a Mental Health Research Discretionary type grants. Apparently designed for this particular recipient only: (this is the only recipient that came up under Mental Health Research Discretionary and “Special Unit of Government.”
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Grantee Class | Award Title | Award Action Type | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 821,185 |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | INNOVATIONS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF RACIAL/ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 85,881 |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LITHIUM MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH BIPOLAR | NEW | $- 105,248 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 906,904 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | INNOVATIONS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF RACIAL/ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE | NEW | $ 85,844 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LITHIUM MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH BIPOLAR | NEW | $ 213,300 |
| 2007 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | A TREATMENT OUTCOME ANALYSIS FOR BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 77,680 |
| 2007 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 951,551 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | A TREATMENT OUTCOME ANALYSIS FOR BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS | NEW | $ 80,000 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 985,750 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | SUPPLEMENT FOR EXPANSION | $ 59,555 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | HMO SELECTION INCENTIVES AND UNDERPROVISION OF MH CARE | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 80,561 |
| 2005 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NEW | $ 921,689 |
| 2005 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | HMO SELECTION INCENTIVES AND UNDERPROVISION OF MH CARE | NEW | $ 82,500 |
| 2004 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 200,000 |
| 2003 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LATINO RESEARCH PROGRAM PROJECT | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 898,383 |
| 2003 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 280,000 |
| 2002 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 280,000 |
Total (quick-check) $6,753,531
WHO, you may say, is the Cambridge Health Alliance, and what are they doing? What’s so special about them?
Psychopathology and controlling behavior in adolescents. . . . . . . Perhaps someone ought to study where they’ve been for the prior teen years, and take a look at which institutions as well as which environments. . . . .
5R01MH62030-020 (Federal Grant ID — you can look it up):
| Title | Psychopathology and Controlling Behavior in Adolescents. |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01MH062030 |
| Project Start/End | 25-SEP-2001 / 31-AUG-2006 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Recent attachment-related studies {{PROBABLY ALSO FEDERALLY FUNDED}} have demonstrated that both childhood behavior problems and adolescent psychopathology are predicted by (1) disorganized infant attachment behavior, behavior that is characterized by conflicting behavioral tendencies and the lack of a coherent relational strategy for dealing with stress (2). However, based on current literature, it is unclear whether a validated measure of disorganized attachment in adolescence exists.(3)
The first aim of the proposed study is to develop and validate a coding protocol for identifying controlling-punitive, controlling-caregiving, and other insecure-disorganized behavior in adolescence. (4) The coding scheme will be based on previous work in the field (5) and will be applied to two attachment-related parent-adolescent interaction assessments. Participants will be 120 adolescents and their mothers from low-income families, (6) 65 of whom who have participated in a longitudinal study at ages 12 and 18 months, 4-5 years, and 7-9 year. (7) The construct validity of the new measure of controlling attachment strategies will be assessed in relation to coding of Unresolved or Cannot Classify attachment strategies as assessed by the Adult Attachment Interview and will also be validated against broader aspects of parent-adolescent interaction assessed in a standard revealed differences conflict resolution task, as coded by the Autonomy and Relatedness Scales. (8) The second aim of the study is to assess whether overall risk in infancy is an important antecedent of disorganized/controlling attachment strategies in adolescence. (9) Mediational models will test whether the onset of behavior problems in the early school years or the mother’s lack of facilitation of automony and relatedness in adolescence adds to and/or mediates any observed relation between early relational risk and adolescent attachment behaviors. (10) The third aim of the study is to assess the degree to which adolescent disorganized/controlling attachment strategies are associated with adolescent psychiatric morbidity. Psychiatric diagnoses will be assessed by the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnosis (SCID) Axis I, the borderline and antisocial personality disorder sections of the SCID II, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) , and the Adolescent Dissociative Experiences Scale (ADES). Longitudinal analyses will further assess the degree to which early relational risk and early school age behavior problems are important precursors of adolescent psychopathology. The proposed study will contribute to increased understanding of long-term developmental trajectories that eventuate in psychopathology. In order to implement prevention or treatment programs for reducing adolescent antisocial behavior and psychopathology, it is essential {{FOR WHOM??}} to seek a thorough understanding of the developmental pathways through which such behavior develops over time. |
| Thesaurus | adolescence (12-20), child behavior disorder, child psychology, longitudinal human study, low socioeconomic status, parent offspring interaction, psychopathology age difference, behavior prediction, caregiver, conflict, depression, disease /disorder proneness /risk, gender difference, human morbidity, infant human (0-1 year), maternal behavior, mental disorder diagnosis, psychoanalysis, psychological stressor, psychosocial separation, racial /ethnic difference behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, human subject, interview, videotape /videodisc |
| PI Name/Title | LYONS-RUTH, KARLEN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | klruth@hms.harvard.edu |
| Institution | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE 1493 CAMBRIDGE ST CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 |
| Department | |
| Fiscal Year | 2004 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
COMMENTARY BELOW:
Assistance to Recipient(s) “Cambridge Health Alliance”
(FY 2000-2009)
Summary
| Federal dollars: $25,309,682 Total number of recipients: 1 Total number of transactions: 87
|
| Massachusetts 08 (Michael E. Capuano) | $8,151,249 |
Top 10 Recipients
| CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | $25,309,682 |
Recipient Type
| Government | $20,271,453 |
| Other | $4,681,488 |
| Nonprofits | $311,588 |
| For Profits | $41,653 |
| Higher Education | $3,500 |
| Individuals | $0 |
Type of projects: Top 5.
| 93.242: Mental Health Research Grants (Doesn’t quite match the total above, eh?, same category) | $11,129,223 |
| 93.145: AIDS Education and Training Centers | $3,953,377 |
| 93.252: Healthy Communities Access Program | $2,476,400 |
| 93.887: Health Care and Other Facilities | $1,633,902 |
| 93.243: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services_Projects of Regional and National Significance | $1,450,000 |
..
SHARE THIS POST on...
How can we analyze policy inbetween these leading, bleeding headlines?
Maybe if I intersperse headlines, policy talk, and commentary I can get through another day without mourning evidence of national return to stupidity day.
Man, then about 19, begets child; mother (now in other state) age not mentioned
Separation happens; Dad gets custody, Dad remarries (in which order?)
Dad has two more children and, now 34 himself, is accused of molesting his first one, now 15.
DCFS removes daughter he is allegedly molesting from his custody — SORT of, not quite!
Pissed off, or coldly determined, Dad obtains gun — or grabs one he already owns.
Before much of anything is discovered (LEST it be discovered?)
He simply heads two doors down, kills foster Dad, attempts to kill foster mother, DOES kill his own daughter,
What a life she led with her FATHER, a STEPMOTHER, two stepsiblings, and being molested, ALLEGEDLY.
SOMEONE TALKS. She gets out, but not safe. Now she’s dead.
Oh yeah, and not one to go to prison, her father also shoots himself, fatally.
Her MOM was in another state — WHY?
Just another small, friendly, Tennessee Town.
Does anyone know her brief life well enough to tell its brief story? Because when these things happen
at home, the theme is NOT telling anyone outside the family; collusion is the order of the day.
THIS ARTICLE IS FROM TODAY — August 4, 2009
QUIZ — from what YEAR are the orange quotes mid-article?
ANSWER BELOW.
Color Code:
- light blue — quotes the article
- black — my comments
- orange — quotes from a different article (speech, to be precise).
Police: Dad fatally shoots daughter, foster dad
(AND, SELF) (AND TRIES TO KILL FOSTER MOTHER, too)
DYERSBURG, Tenn. – Neighbors in Tennessee are asking why a teenage girl
fatally shot by her father was placed with a foster family just two doors down
after he was accused of abusing her.
Omitted from this lead sentence — ONE WEEK after . . . . .
I believe one of the tags on this one might be “AFTER SHE SPEAKS UP” (if it was the daughter, or her mother, or her stepmother)
This puts a CHILL on reporting abuse…
As dads disappear, the American family is becoming significantly weaker and less capable of fulfilling
its fundamental responsibility
of nurturing and socializing children and conveying values to them.
In turn, the risks to the health and well-being of America’s children
are becoming significantly higher.
Christopher Milburn, 34, killed the 15-year-old and her foster father and
wounded her foster mother before taking his own life Sunday, authorities said.
Sounds like a virtual honor-killing of some sort..
Children growing up without fathers, research shows, are far more likely to live in poverty,
to fail in school, to experience behavioral and emotional problems,
to develop drug and alcohol problems,
to be victims of physical abuse and neglect and, tragically, to commit suicide.
{{THis being a case in point, I suppose?}}
{{The order of events is reversed. Victims of physical (and sexual) abuse are often
turning to drugs, alcohol, and other risky behaviors as a result, per a decade-long
(and basically ignored by the fatherhood movement) Kaiser/CDC study (see blogroll to right), completed the
year before THIS quote I am inserting to this recent Tennessee tragedy.}}
Neighbor Frank Hipps said Milburn was good friends with Todd Randolph, the 46-year-old foster father,
and had worked for him in the past. Hipps, who had known both men for about eight years, said he didn’t know
the details of the abuse allegations but questioned why the girl had been placed so close.
Maybe he didn’t know them so well as he thought.
Who paid WHOM to get this daughter switched only 2 doors down, instead of the Dad switched out of the neighborhood?
Dad used to work for the foster father? Just HOW inbred was this town, exactly?
A mature 46 year old man, foster father, married, and a daughter in the home.
Let’s do the Father/Daughter math: 34 – 15 is HOW old was he when he got a woman pregnant?
Legally old enough: 19. Probably just out of high school.
“That kid shouldn’t have been in that house,” he said.
I agree. I think she should’ve been with her mother.
“This might have been preventable if she had been placed with foster parents out of the community.”
MIGHT is true, especially if he still knew where she was ….
OR for SURE if the man had been in jail for molesting his daughters, which is where child-molesters belong, at least to start.
Neither police in Dyersburg, in northwestern Tennessee, nor child services agency spokesman Rob Johnson
would elaborate on the abuse allegations other than to say the investigation began last week.
The girl, whose name was not released, had been staying with Todd and Susan Randolph
while the state Department of Children’s Services investigated, Dyersburg Police Capt. Steve Isbell said.
WHo paid WHOM to put her there? Come’ ON! !!! Give the girl a fresh start!
Susan Randolph, the girl’s foster mother, was released from a Memphis hospital Monday.
Frank Hipps’ wife, Tammy, said the 15-year-old was Milburn’s daughter by a previous relationship.
He was married and the couple had two younger daughters.
The court probably saw a stable TWO-parent family, it probably had at least HEARD about
the great crisis of fatherlessness we’ve been plagued with as a nation for the past about 15 years
(This girl was born right around the time this doctrine took nationalized, Congressionally recognized wings..
She must’ve been born around 1994. See below. Gee, by then, my In-the-home husband had already
started assaulting me, between babies. WHat a coincidence that, unbeknownst to me, my government
was aware of the crisis and addressing it. . . . . Oh, excuse me, not the crisis of child molestation or
domestic violence, but of FATHERLESSNESS.
The girl’s mother was living out of state
{{HOW COME SHE LOST CUSTODY?}}
and police were waiting for her to arrive before releasing the girl’s name, Isbell said.
Police found the teenager and Todd Randolph dead at the Randolph home and Milburn about a block away,
dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
One less child molester, allegedly, OR man who didn’t trust the legal system to get the truth out of his innocence.
Guess they must do things different in Family Court in Tennessee; he’d have been FINE if he could just connect
with some PAS-theory court professional and discredit whoever was alleging the abuse. Unless it was the girl…
Charles Wootton, 71, who lives across the street from the Randolphs, said he heard five pops. He looked out the window
and saw Randolph on the ground near the mailbox.
“My wife opened the door and walked out and seen the blood. That’s when I called 911,” he said.
Wootton said neighbors started to gather at the Randolphs’ house and a nurse performed CPR on Todd Randolph,
who had been shot through the neck. {{FOR THE CRIME OF . . . . . . . ??}}
Wootton said when he first looked at Susan Randolph, he thought she was dead, too.
“She told me who did it,” Wootton said.
The Randolphs have two young children who were at their grandparents’ house during the shootings, Wootton said.
Wootton had moved to the neighborhood about two weeks ago, and Todd Randolph had mowed his yard several times.
“The people around here are just about the friendliest you’ve ever met,” said Wootton. “I don’t know what happened to that guy.”
MORAL OF THE STORY: FRIENDLY PEOPLE CAN STILL MOLEST THEIR CHILDREN. WHO REPORTED? THE DAUGHTER?
THE NEW WOMAN? ONE OF HER MANDATED REPORTERS.
Isbell said Milburn had no criminal record in Dyersburg, a city of approximately 18,000 people about 70 miles northeast of Memphis.
Tammy Hipps said Milburn worked as a counselor at the McDowell Center for Children,
which helps at-risk and troubled children.
Well, was he falsely accused or properly accused?
If properly, then again, let’s note here: PERPS like places that give them access to CHILDREN, esp. troubled ones.
The shootings came just over two weeks after Jacob Levi Shaffer of Fayetteville, a small Tennessee town
near the Alabama border about.
70 miles west of Chattanooga, was accused of fatally stabbing his estranged wife,
three members of her family and a neighbor boy to death on July 18.
He also is accused of beating an acquaintance to death in nearby Huntsville, Ala.
BEFORE or AFTER she became “inexplicably” “estranged”??
Perhaps stories like these are why the word “RESPONSIBLE” was added to things like, “National Fathers Return Day?”
One Congressional discussion of which I give, below:
FROM THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD:
| Lieberman, Joseph[D-CT] | ||
| Begin | 1999-06-17 | 10:13:34 |
| End | 10:21:48 | |
| Length | 00:08:14 | |
Leading off with African Americans and teen pregnancies, he relates:
Mr. LIEBERMAN.
Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues.
Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report,
can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers.
We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.”
It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
COMMENTARY:
(THis mental image appears to be far less vivid than the ones of SOME fathers doing horrible things when they DID or DO live
with their children..
Like beating them. Or having sex with them. Or beating their mothers. Or simply refusing to work OR help around the home. Or,
engaging in multiple sexual relationships with other women while married. Or verbally berating a mother in front of the children.
SOME Dads are great Dads and SOME Dads are a terror. Likewise, SOME Moms are great Moms, and SOME Moms are negligent
or bad Moms. It is also harder for a mother to care properly for her children, or in the best manner, which she is afraid of being assaulted
over a minor issue by the Dad when he comes home. If he does that day. Are these senators thinking about these images when they
shudder and are aghast at a home without a Dad).
Many homes were without Dads during the World Wars I, II, Korean War, Viet Nam War, in Iraq, Afghanistan, and many other places
men (and women) have been sent because men decided to make war with each other, in the name of peace and democracy and self-protection.
Some homes of law enforcement officers are now without Dads in them because their Dad responded to a domestic violence dispute, and
caught a bullet, generally also taking out the attacking father as well.
MY Dad’s home, growing up between two of the abovementioned wars was without a Dad in it because, guess what: His Dad (a fireman),
got tired of beating his German immigrant wife and abandoned her with three children. He witnessed this growing up.
He went on to become a successful scientist, raise children he did NOT beat (at least I wasn’t and I never saw my siblings taking this),
studied hard, worked hard, sent ALL children not just to, but also through college also, and left an inheritance. And provide for, from what
I am told/understand, not only his own mother, but also a younger brother who never quite got it together, possibly related to something that
happened when he WAS with that abusive Dad, or what, I was never told. That brother also served his country as a soldier, and died before his time,
never having married or had children.
My Dad NEVER put his children (all daughters) in contact with the abusing/beating/abandoning father, ever, in his lifetime.
I never regretted this, that I can recall. How can you regret something you never saw, where the only thing you knew about him was,
he beat the grandmother that I DID know (a little bit).
However, while Sen. Lieberman was making this speech, about a decade ago, I was for the first time in a full decade of substantial
domestic violence in MY daughters’ lives, with them at an overnight, stay-away camp, a music camp, which we had managed to get
to no thinks from the father who never left. For two weeks, I was not going to be abused at night and was around people who actually
treated me respectfully, and I worked along side them in my profession. We had had a real push getting up there, and were punished
soundly for having left, but during that week and seeing the response to us getting free from abuse for only (and not entirely; there was
a dour-faced, rules-of-camp breaking midweek visit, where $20 was casually tossed at me so I might have enough gas to get back home)
I MADE UP MY MIND that this domestic violence restraining order was GOING to be filed, and I’m “out of here.”
How ironic that i didn’t know what was being prated and pronounced in Washington, D.C. at this time.
Here’s the rest of this little 8 minute speech, in case you WOULD like the names of some of the prominent thinkers behind this
June 1999 presentation to the President of the United States, and get a glimpse inside the working of great, Constitution-respecting, minds
when left unsupervised in the Capital of our beloved country:
We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped
in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless
profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness,
{{Gee, that must have been a grass-roots appeal from the teen mothers for help, or their mothers, or
theirs sisters. WHERE did this knowledge about the impact of fatherless come from, given the
establishment in 1994 of: (A) The Violence Against Women Act (help some women leave, rather than
stay, in abusive, dangerous relationships) and (B) Also in 1994, the National Fatherhood Initiative.
(Should I compare months of incorporation as nonprofit with the passage of the law?)}}
and indicate we are
in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to
the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
(CONTINUED QUOTE, in different format..):
At the end of this column, Michael Kelly asks: How could this happen
in a Nation like ours? And he wonders if anyone is paying attention.
Well, the fact is that people are beginning to pay attention, although
it tends to be more people at the grassroots level who are actively
seeking solutions neighborhood by neighborhood.
{{Evidence being….. WHO?? Time frame? Organizations? Written declarations by any of these?}}
The best known of these groups {{in fact the ONLY one named here..}}
is called the National Fatherhood Initiative.
{{Possibly because of its funding? and prominence of who’s in it?}}
I think it has made tremendous progress in recent years {{CONTEXT 1994-1999}}
in raising awareness of father absence and its impact on our society and in mobilizing a
national effort to promote responsible fatherhood.
Per the HHS TAGGS search on its name:
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Award Number | Award Title | CFDA Number | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2007 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2006 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90FB0001 | NATIONAL FATERHOOD CAPACITY BUILDING INITIATIVE | 93086 | $ 999,534 |
| 2001 | NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | MD | 90XP0023 | THE RESPONSIBILE FATHERHOOD PUABLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM | 93647 | $ 500,000 |
And for column width, same search (common field: Award# / CFDA Code)
| Fiscal Year | Award Number | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | 90FB0001 | 09/25/2008 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHRISTHOPHER BEARD | $ 999,534 |
| 2007 | 90FB0001 | 09/21/2007 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | CHRISTHOPHER BROWN | $ 999,534 |
| 2006 | 90FB0001 | 09/25/2006 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | CHRISTHOPHER BROWN | $ 999,534 |
| 2001 | 90XP0023 | 04/09/2001 | 93647 | Social Services Research and Demonstration | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | HEATHER THURMAN | $ 500,000 |
I’d DONE data entry before, and typing. Do you know what the odds of someone even on no sleep, and having a sugar buzz, making THAT many
mistakes in 4 entries (fatherhood, responsible, and public, plus “Christopher” spelled wrong. Same grant, 3rd year, “Christhopher Brown” entered a
samesex marriage, apparently and changed last name “Brown” to his partner’s name “Beard”?
This database exists so the public can search on it. Hmmm…… I wonder if they know to search for misspelled names…. and key terms.
AND SINCE 2000– seen below:
Funding for the “Father Organization” in this “national effort”
| 93.086: Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | $1,999,068 |
However the funding for the wild oats it sowed, under this # 93.086:
(I JUST LEARNED) I believe that this code only arose (emerged naturally of course) in about 2006. However, as of 2009,
it is still not a searchable agency code on the USASPENDING.gov. Either in listing “all” programs, or under the agency it belongs under
Hmmm — $2 million less in California for our shelters? (yes, yes, I realize this is federal, not state, spending).
2000-2009 NFI Funding: (See bar chart): Well, I guessed this may not be responsible “Spelling” on whoever entered the data,
but . . . .
When we simply search only the word
“fatherhood” under “recipient” for FY2000-2009,
we get an entirely different picture (also diff’t database):
Top 5 Known Congressional Districts where Recipients are Located 
| District of Columbia nonvoting (Eleanor Holmes Norton) | $6,942,352 |
| Maryland 08 (Constance A. Morella / Chris Van Hollen) | $2,625,112 |
Yes this is definitely an “up from the people” grassroots movement,
and not a DC.-down
initiative, surely. They are just responding to (a certain sector) of their constitutents, and from Washington, acting on it. I know straight out of
getting out of my house safe, the FIRST thing on my mind was telling Washington, I needed (well, another) father in the home, since now
I was a “female-headed” household and my children, while this Domestic Violence Restraining order was in effect, were sleeping in a fatherless
home and in danger of (NOT) learning the rights values. They were learning that that stuff they witnessed growing up was illegal. And how to
leave a dangerous relationship and start to recover.
Of course, family court was there waiting for them to go UNlearn those values, fast, and that the 14th Amendment is just a theory.
Top 10 Recipients
| NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | $11,067,190 |
| FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE | $8,673,900 |
| INSTITUTE RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | $6,557,520 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM RE | $1,500,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITA | $300,000 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. RE | $99,350 |
| INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAMILY REVI | $-14,518 ** |
93647 word “fatherhood”
Was that misspelling intentional? I mean, it WOULD complicate a search by Award Title
Searching, CFDA 93647 (Not the CFDA actually assigned the word “fatherhood” in its description) & word “fatherhood” (“keyword in award title”):
Exact same search, different fields, so you can see grantee, principal investigators….
i.e.,
“It did this ALL on its own altruistic self, and I’m just reporting on it here.”
The President (is this the same one that signed that 1995 proclamation? about fatherhood?)
SEARCH ON ALL grants, with only the word “fatherhood” in the grant (not grantee) title, produced
358 records, of which here are the 1995-1999 ones:
| 1999 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90XA0005 | REPLICATION & REVITALIZATION FATHERHOOD MODEL | 93670 | OTHER | NEW | $ 300,000 |
| 1999 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90XP0014 | EVALUATION OF THE INSTITUTE FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 93647 | SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 180,000 |
| 1999 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH FOUNDATION | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD035702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 139,665 |
| 1999 | UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH | MINNEAPOLIS | MN | State Government | R40MC00141 | AN INTERVENTION FOR THE TRANSITION TO FATHERHOOD | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 344,470 |
| 1999 | UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS | NORMAN | OK | State Government | R40MC00110 | AMERICAN INDIAN FATHERHOOD IN TWO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 149,507 |
| 1998 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY, RESEARCH FOUNDATION | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD035702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 104,927 |
| 1998 | UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA NORMAN CAMPUS | NORMAN | OK | State Government | 1R40MC0011001 | AMERICAN INDIAN FATHERHOOD IN TWO OKLAHOMA COMMUNITIES | 93110 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 154,395 |
| 1997 | OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY | COLUMBUS | OH | State Government | R01HD35702 | IMPROVING AND EVALUATING NLSY FATHERHOOD DATA | 93864 | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | $ 119,899 |
| 1995 | ADDISON COUNTY PARENT & CHILD CENTER | MIDDLEBURY | VT | County Government | 90PR0005 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0003 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | INST FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD & FAM. REVITALIZATION | WASHINGTON | DC | Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0004 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | ST. BERNANDINE’S HEAD START | BALTIMORE | MD | Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations | 90PR0002 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
| 1995 | WISHARD MEMORIAL HOSPITAL | INDIANAPOLIS | IN | County Government | 90PR0001 | RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECTS | 93647 | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | $ 85,000 |
Notice the variety of recipients, including Universities (this will be useful for later “evidence-based data” resulting from grants to study the topic.
Notice that the TYPE of grants appears to be either “new” or “noncompeting.” Hmmm.
AND NOW Sen Lieberman is reporting on this grassroots movement.
Along with a group of allies, the National Fatherhood Initiative has
been establishing educational programs in hundreds of cities and
towns across America.
It has pulled together bipartisan task forces in
the Senate, the House, and among the Nation’s Governors and
mayors.
YES< there’s ONE thing that a bipartisan majority male Congress and the Nation’s (also primarily male,
if I’m not mistaken??) can unite on, and that the problem with the nation
relates to a lack of male (father) influence on young children throughout the land.
Presumably, these children that are spending, probably, the majority of their waking hours
in school, are not connecting with any decent father figures or adult males and learning from them
good values.
I wonder what the male/female ratio of teachers is in the nation’s elementary and high schools….
It has worked with us to explore public policies that
encourage and support the efforts of fathers to become more involved
in the lives of their children.
Last Monday, the National Fatherhood Initiative held its annual
(FIFTH?) national fatherhood summit here in Washington. At that summit, Gen.
Colin Powell, and an impressive and wide-ranging group of experts
and advocates, talked in depth about the father absence crisis in our
cities and towns and brainstormed about what we can do to turn this
troubling situation around.
And Last June, 2009 President OBAMA, had a “town hall on fatherhood”
which was visited by a major representative in the Violence Against Women movement
(see last post). 15 years later, these articles are still leading, suicides (NOT by the troubled
teens, bu tby at times the fathers who troubled them….) are still happening. Well, the
doctrine’s NOT about to change, it must because THAT murderous, suicide-committing father
HIMSELF had no father model in his life.
There are limits to what we in Government can do to meet this
challenge and advance the cause of responsible fatherhood because,
Because — Because — Because, “regretfully” I supposed according to this point of view,
the FOUNDING Fathers put LIMITS to government into the U.S. Constitution,** and a few
MORE also made their way into the Bill of Rights as Amendments.
(**To appreciate the link — or be tempted to read it, hover cursor over it)
I can’t WAIT til the “Equal Rights” Amendment makes it in, if it ever will.
Of course I would settle for an enforced and respected 14th Amendment:
after all, it is hard to change people’s attitudes and behaviors and
values through legislation.
Possibly because the purpose of legislation is to express THEIR attitudes, by laws they voted on,
or their elected representatives did. Possibly because the purpose of government is to PROTECT
the inalienable rights of citizens….
But that doesn’t mean we are powerless,
Yes, time has shown that the federal grants systems, and initiatives, and private deliberations IS a
way to get around the danged legislation that has made “us” (Who all agree about this fatherhood crisis)
so “powerless.”
nor does it mean we can afford not to try to lessen the impact of a
problem that is literally eating away at our country.
How do you know it’s a PROBLEM and not a SYMPTOM of another problem?
In recent times, we have had a great commonality of concern
expressed in the ideological breadth of the fatherhood promotion
effort both here in the Senate and our task force, but underscored by
statements that the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary
of Health and Human Services have made on this subject in recent
years. Indeed, I think President Clinton most succinctly expressed the
importance of this problem when he said: {{in 1995….?}}}
The single biggest social problem in our society may be the growing
absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes
to so many other social problems.
Again, in your opinion, supported by government-funded research with the premise already supposed.
AS WE CAN SEE BY THE ABOVE NEWS ARTICLE. THE REAL PROBLEM WITH THE SITUATION, AND
WHAT CAUSED THE MAN TO KILL 2 (NOT INCLUDING HIMSELF, AND THE FOSTER MOTHER HE TRIED TO KILL)
was HIS INDIGNANT FEELINGS ABOUT, WELL THE FATHER-ABSENCE IN HIS ADOLESCENT DAUGHTER’S LIFE.
IT WAS, REALLY, LOVE IN ACTION.
(FOR REFERENCE: This was the Monica Lewinsky president, right?
Well, I guess we can overlook that because he has just flown to North Korea,
with a shock of white hair and looking dignified (and leaner) to attempt to retrieve
two FEMALE journalists sentenced to 12 years of hard labor. I hope he succeeds.
However, his signing of that 1995 Memo sentenced women here locally to some unbelievable
long-term trauma, because of its chilling effect on the 14th Amendment (and others)
and the placement of daughters and sons in the household of men who abused (or are
abusing) either them, OR previously their mothers) (case in point).
So there are some things we can and should be trying to do. I am
pleased to note our colleagues, Senators BAYH, DOMENICI, and
others have been working to develop a legislative proposal, which I
think contains some very constructive and creative approaches
Yup, parTICULARLY creative with the laws, due process, and the titling of the
various grants involved. Let alone the use of them, or the monitoring of their use
if any indeed actually takes place.
in which the Federal Government would support financially, with
resources, some of these very promising grassroots father-promotion
efforts,
WOULD support? WOULD support?
Check HHS’s CFDA# 93.086, “promoting responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage” for yourself on THIS site:
http://usaspending.gov (under “SPENDING” “GRANTS”)
and also encourage and enact the removal of some of the
legal and policy barriers that deter men from an active presence in their children’s lives.
A “LEGAL BARRIER” MUST REFER TO A LAW, RIGHT?
Another thing I think we can do to help is to use the platform we
have on the Senate floor–this people’s forum –to elevate this
problem on the national agenda. That is why Senator GREGG and I
have come to the floor today. I am particularly grateful for the
cosponsorship of the Senator from New Hampshire, because he is the
chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Children and Families.
YES, I AM SURE WE ARE REALLY, REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
MORE THAN CHARACTER, OR LEGAL RIGHTS OF MEN AND WOMEN BOTH….
We are joined by a very broad and bipartisan group of cosponsors which
includes Senators BAYH,
BROWNBACK, MACK, DODD, DOMENICI, JEFFORDS, ALLARD,
COCHRAN, LANDRIEU, BUNNING, ROBB, DORGAN, DASCHLE, and
AKAKA. I thank them all for joining in the introduction of this special
resolution this morning, which is to honor Father’s Day coming this
Sunday,
but also to raise our discussion of the problem of absent fathers in
our hopes for the promotion of responsible fatherhood.
Senator GREGG indicated this resolution would declare this Sunday’s
holiday as National Fathers Return Day and call on dads around the
country to use this day, particularly if they are absent, to reconnect
and rededicate themselves to their children’s lives, to understand and
have the self-confidence to appreciate how powerful a contribution
they can make to the well-being of the children that they have helped
to create, and to start by spending this Fathers’ Day returning for
part of
the day to their children and expressing to their children the love they
have for them and their willingness to support them. [Page: S7164]
The statement we hope to make this morning in this resolution
obviously will not change the hearts and minds of distant or
disengaged fathers, but those of us who are sponsoring the resolution
hope it will help to spur a larger national conversation about the
importance of fatherhood and help remind those absent fathers of
their responsibilities, yes, but also of the opportunity they have to
change the life of their child, about the importance of their
fatherhood, and also help remind these absent
fathers of the value of their involvement.
We ask our colleagues to join us in supporting this resolution, and
adopting it perhaps today but certainly before this week is out to
make as strong a statement as possible and to move us one step
closer to the day when every American child has the opportunity to
have a truly happy Father’s Day because he or she will be spending it
with their father.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
Just for a reminder:
– Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History
1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,
shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
– Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. Note History
1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States
and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
WELL, wordcount 5216, enough for today.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Golden State $$ Deficits: What doesn’t trickle down from DV Coalitions (to victims), bubbles up instead to supporting “Father Involvement”
We all know our state (California) is bottomed out.
Supposedly.
“June 19 NYT: Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose manly posturing either charms or repels, . . sent an oblong, melon-size sculpture of bull testicles to Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the Democratic-controlled State Senate.
The gift was apparently meant as a barbed joke, symbolizing the Republican governor’s hope that California legislators would display fortitude in deciding how to close a $24 billion budget deficit.
Mr. Schwarzenegger’s press office said the gag was a retort to a lighthearted present that Mr. Steinberg had sent the governor. That gift, a basket of mushrooms, followed Mr. Schwarzenegger’s description of Democratic budget proposals as “hallucinatory.”
I have not been hallucinating and I will display fortitude in reminding us that both government and nonprofits or both of them hand in hand (with foundations), have not opened their books and given an “evidence-based” (versus, walked through our doors-based) account of whether, to what extent, and HOW are they addressing hard social issues (including domestic violence, and the poverty that comes in it train
(NB: poverty does NOT cause abuse; abuse is a CHOICE, and there is no excuse for it. I have been poor in many ways during my years with this person, and I have not stalked, attacked, slapped, pushed, threatened with a weapon, attempted to cut off his relationship with his family (as he has — and has succeeded — with mine, including my own daughters — or any of those.).
Instead, they have run us around the block 15 times promising “help” and selling grandiose intentions until, wisely observing we’re exhausted, no evidence of help is even on the horizon yet and we just PAID someone with our time in expectation, or false hope.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-awareness — we just learned we’re gullible.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-sufficiency — we just learned how important free time and a purpose for it are.
And the entire structure of the U.S. economy is that those who, for one reason or another, DO have time to spare will (generally speaking) spend it on either themselves, or some noble cause to inflict on those who do NOT have time to spare. Though I’m pretty well educated, it took me the school of hard knocks knocking on nonprofit (and government agency) doors for simple, basic HELP, to figure out WHY this problem of making excuses for abuse.
For those of you who do refer to scripture (Bible), here’s the relevant parallel. A woman went to the doctors, and having spent all, was still bleeding, and as a result (in her society) considered in a continual state of “uncleanness,” she was an outcast socially.
(Mark 5):
25 And a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to (with DV) these people not only bleeding, they are hemorrhaging jobs and relationships, and sometimes HOPE, as well. Whether or not you believe the situation or the miracles, this IS how it feels not to be able to get free from domestic violence (it’s hard, with children involved; it’s near-impossible, once one sets foot in family law arena, which typically doesn’t like to ACKNOWLEDGE that abuse is a choice, domestic violence is dangerous to those kids, but instead holds conference about how to put them back with their abusers — 100%, or at a minimum weekly. And bill the public (or the nonbattering parent) for this. Don’t believe me? read my blog! Access Visitation Grants funding.
What that woman needed was NOT another coalition of doctors discussing blood flow, she needed it STOPPED while she had some strength left, and as the account says, she already had no money left! . . . . . . I have actually been in this situation, literally as well as figuratively, during a highly stressful time in my life (in fact, it was actually that season I was in a full-blown custody suit, as well as possibly that “season” of my life). I needed to take a long, long car-drive and was not going to be able to do so in this condition — or at least I’m sure the driver wouldn’t have approved the multiple stops. You know what? The solution was SIMPLE — an herb costing about $11.00 called “shepherd’s purse.” For a little 2-oz. bottle. I was able to get it, and make the trip. If I’d actually HAD health insurance coverage at the time, I’m sure I’d have been put through an appointment, and on a prescription. Butt I didn’t, so a simpler way had to be found.
I believe if we as a society really WANTED domestic violence to stop as much as we wanted not to change our ways (or institutions — can anyone say “faith institutions” ??) or beliefs that someone else is handling this, when they aren’t, or give up our mythic continual trust in Big Brother to come and rescue us — it would be stopped. I’m SURE of it. How hard is it to really shun an abuser, the way a person reporting it gets shunned and outcast and stripped of her funds, and eventually (and partly because of this) children? – – but not of the abuser’s ongoing access to her.
SERIOUSLY NOW, we are hearing daily on the news how broke we are. Take for example, BUSES have been cut back one day a week, and routes re-routed, and shortened. Things and tempers are tight at times.
Across the nation this week, funding for domestic violence programs is being cut, incoming emails proclaim:
In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “terminated” the budget for domestic violence programs. Although cuts were anticipated, the elimination of all programs was not. Learn more.
The City Council in Washington, DC voted to cut an already underfunded victim services budget by 10%. Read more.
If your state is facing similar cuts, let us know atpublicpolicy@ncadv.org. We’re here to help!From the “National Coalition on Domestic Violence” website and update:
California News (KFSN) — California’s recently adopted budget has dealt a severe blow to the state’s victims of domestic violence. Governor Schwarzenegger cut 20-point-4 million dollars to 94 shelters and centers statewide. As a result, many centers will have to make drastic cuts to their programs. Some will have to close their shelters altogether.
Executive Director, Rita Smith, attended President Barack Obama’s Town Hall meeting on Fatherhood held on Friday, June 19, 2009. {{IN WHAT CAPACITY? TO ENDORSE THIS, AS IF THE MOVEMENT WAS LACKING ENDORSEMENT? OR TO REPRESENT THE VOICES OF WOMEN WHO COULDN’T BE THERE– BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD, IN A SHELTER, IN HIDING, OR DESTITUTE FROM THIS EXACT TYPE OF FATHERHOOD PROMOTION FROM “ON HIGH” THAT HAS DILUTED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MOVEMENT AND CHANGED ITS CHARACTER ENTIRELY, WHILE KEEPING SIMILAR LABELS ON THE ORGANIZATIONS?)) President Obama discussed the importance of balancing work and family responsibilities, meeting obligations to children and serving as a role model to them, even if one’s own father could not do so. The President also encouraged fathers to break their fathers’ cycles, learn from their mistakes and “rise up where [their] own fathers fell short.” Watch here and read more.
However SOME of us, because we look!, know where some of that money goes. (if not — yet — what’s done with it once it gets there). For example, although social services are going to be cut, judges’ supplemental pay apparent is not going to be. Nor can we sue judges retroactively who took bribes, apparently (Richard Fine is still in jail for confronting THAT, Senate passed a law prohibiting it).
I’m sure our Governor and Legislature will work SOMETHING out that won’t leave them, at least, out in the cold:
Then ONE organization I thought was on the same page (understanding relationship between “family court matters” and “domestic violence” and “feminists v. anti-feminists (a.k.a. “Father’s rights’ promoters) ” and the general funding war, sent out another panicked alert that the Guv (Governor Schwarzenegger, i.e., the social services “terminator”) was cutting funds to domestic violence shelters, and this alert bore the name of some group I’d not run across, although for the past 10 years I sure have been RUNNING (and driving, calling, web-surfing, networking, asking, etc.) for HELP, etc. The name, being “California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.” Then the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” sent out another.
I’d recently turned from tracking HHS funds to finding out what’s up with all these DV Coalitions across the country…
I said, “say, WHO?” and then ran across THIS: I’m not the only person that noticed this ? ? ? ?
Governor Schwarzeneger is right about cutting DV funding
Okay, with all the chaos floating around about how wrong Governor Schwarzenegger is for cutting or vetoing Domestic Violence funding all together I have to say he is right on point. I never thought I would agree, however, I am coming from the victim point of view.
I reached out to get help from dv coalitions, who refused to help me. For what I am about to say isn’t going to sit well with people, but I am sorry, I didn’t get help,
Heather Thompson didn’t get help and was basically battered by her local coalition to stay away and was told if she didn’t they would file a restraining order against her.Yes, that’s right, a restraining order against a victim of domestic violence begging for help.
Maria Phelps, a victim who resides in New York, has been following protocol and filling out forms that are required to receive help and the folks in New York, pull her chain on daily basis. What kind of hoops does one have to jump through to get their needs met from those who claim to help.
Claudia Valenciana, a former Ventura County Sheriffs Deputy was turned away from the Coalition to End FamilyViolence in Oxnard.
Alexis A. Moore was refused help simply because of the profession her abuser was in and she ended up living in her car, is this what the states money is funding? Survivors In Action has started a petition for Domestic Violence Reform, we are calling you out and believe us when we say, this is serious.
Thousands of victims of domestic violence have been refused help. In California alone, there are many, most are afraid to speak up. This what I feel is the threat of Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto, this means the salaries of the big wigs who work at these coalitions are going to be cut. They won’t be able to drive around in their nice cars or buy their fancy clothes to wear to State Capital hearings.
Commentary Cars and clothing don’t bother me. What bothers me, personally, is all the conferencing, policy-making conferences, forgetting that the REAL stakeholders are those whose very lives are most directly at stake, literally. And that among the stakes that these nonprofit participants hold, when those funds come FROM government, the recipients have a duty to actually serve the PUBLIC. Not themselves, their ideas, and their careers. When the nonprofit funding comes from individuals, or foundations, it’s a bit different, BUT, the jobs done SHOULD relate to the title on the funds collected. “Are we done yet?” in some of these issues? And if not, WHY not? (Just to distinguish my point of view from what I’m quoting here).
I understand that Tara Shabbaz of the California Partnership To End Domestic Violence spoke out about what a travesty this would be. I didn’t see anything on their website. Perhaps Tara, your salary is in jeopardy of being cut, are you getting a little worried that you and other executives will be hurting and that you may not be able to pay your rent, make a car payment or a utility payment, well maybe this is a sign that you may have to suffer like the rest of us? I think this is exactly what should happen. While you sit in your cushy office, victims ARE SUFFERING.
WHILE I’m here, there’s a “CFDA” (federal grant program code) called 93.591, and according to this database, the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” got funding in 2008 & 2009. Is this a new code? I DNK:
Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions 2009 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0901CASDVC 2009 SDVC 06/11/2009 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 241,086 2008 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0801CASDVC 2008 SDVC 04/18/2008 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 231,230
AND, ANOTHER SOURCE< RELATED:
Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
Author: Randi Rosen
Domestic violence victims are not getting the help and services they need when reaching out to their local DV coalitions. More and more women are coming forward and expressing their frustrations which needs to be addressed.
Domestic violence coalitions receive federal funding for the victims of domestic violence, so if the victims aren’t getting services they need, where is the money going? This is a personal issue for me. Many years ago, I reached out to the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence in Ventura county. No ever called me back. I shared this with my mother and she couldn’t believe that I was ignored and a victim of domestic violence, she called the coalition herself and received the same response, nothing.
(I presume you called more than once, right? As I see below, obviously. I know how often I called agency after agency– ran up that cell phone bill….NONE of them were prepared to deal with chronic, long-term, family abuse through family court AFTER the restraining order expired, by which time you were supposed to be, I guess just hunky-dory fine…)
In January 2008, Assembly member Fiona Ma introduced AB 1771 Nadga’s Law. Assembly member Ma stated, “California can do more to curb the dangerously high number of domestic violence incidents through prevention.” That meant providing online information about prior convictions and providing potential victims with useful tools to avoid violence or a potentially violent partner, thus reducing the number of domestic violence incidents.
(Here is the blurb on “Nagda’s Law”:
Assemblywoman Ma Announces Groundbreaking Legislation
to Create Online Database of Domestic Violence Offenders
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) and former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer will unveil a landmark bill to create a state-wide database of domestic violence offenders. The legislation, AB 1771-The Domestic Violence Prevention and Right-to Know Act of 2008, would require the Attorney General to develop an online database that would report the name, date of birth, county and date of conviction for individuals convicted of felony domestic violence or multiple counts of misdemeanor domestic violence. The database would keep updated information available for 10 years. It is believed that this would be a first in the nation law and would go into effect on January 1, 2009.
Assemblywoman Ma, who is the Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence, introduced the bill in response to the case of Nadga Schexnayder and her mother who were shot to death in 1995 by Ronnie Earl Seymour, a former boyfriend of Nadga’s who had a 20-year history of violence against women. Hammer secured a life in prison conviction as the lead prosecutor in the case.
WHEN:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
10:00 a.m
Alexis A. Moore, President of Survivors in Action who sp0nsored the bill, stated, “This bill will reduce the numbers of domestic violence incidents by providing prior conviction records on line. Equally important, the bill will be a valuable preventative measure to help potential victims and their family members protect themselves from violence.”
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), California District Attorney Association and Interface California Family Services opposed the bill claiming an infringement on the perpetrator’s privacy. Interface is an organization that is contracted with the court system to provide batterers with anger management classes.
The bill was introduced to protect victims and potential victims of violence and these organizations are worried about the privacy of the perpetrators and their personal information. There is something really wrong with how domestic violence legislation is voted on, especially the very coalitions who claim to protect the victim. The laws that are in place today, are not working and they need to be changed, no longer are the victims willing to be the status quo.
Now, the coalitions want to spend a great deal of money to change Domestic Violence Awareness month which is October and shared with Breast Cancer Awareness, to another month. The intent is to separate the two different causes so Domestic Violence gets all the attention. What for? Why spend all that money on advertising and printing, when it should be used to help the victims. Domestic Violence is still in the closet as far as being taken seriously with Law Enforcement and the Judicial System. Look at how many women are being murdered as result of DV**. These coalitions need to be held accountable for their programs and services. When a victim of DV reaches out for help, those services have to be provided to them. If victims are turned away, then the coalitions should prepare to show where the money is being spent.
About the Author:
I founded Women’s Legal Resource in 2006 to help women who face the brutal challenges of the legal system. After going through my own experience in the Family Law Court without the financial resources to obtain proper counsel, I was faced having to represent myself. I attended Los Angeles Valley college in the paralegal studies program which helped in legal research and document preparation. All though I faced many legal hurdles, I felt the need to help other women, especially those who are Domestic Violence victims in document preparation and as a advocate.
The present laws as they are written is flawed and not honoring the safety of victims of violence in the United States. The manner in which police officials and the courts enforce protection orders, custody orders, child visitation and confidentiality escalates violence which leads to murder. Women’s Legal Resource is a nonpartisan organization to support the effort and petition congress for the revision of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault laws. Women and children are being murdered at the hand of their abuser’s, accountability; intervention and prevention are the crucial elements for change.
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
I realize (really I do!) this chart will not display well (any more than the others throughout my blog):
However, the CFDA code “93.592” under this http://www.taggs.hhs.gov website, is labeled officially:
“Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary”
This is a single California Entity (high-profile) that knows about this funding, obviously. I do not know whether they work also with
battered women’s shelters, or more on the “discretionary” part. I do also know that this group seems to have undergone a recent (to me) “sea-change” in the focus of its work. It has recently become intensely interested in “Fathers” work. I guess this is to help more with the prevention aspect.
| Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Award Number | Award Title | Award Code | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 07/28/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/27/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 145,000 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 08/13/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 01/26/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 32,940 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/20/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 182,375 |
| 2006 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 09/19/2006 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,145,872 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/29/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/14/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 115,000 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/14/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/27/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 90,000 |
| 2003 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/07/2003 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,133,236 |
| 2002 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/04/2002 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,113,796 |
| 2001 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/13/2001 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 958,542 |
| 2000 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/10/2000 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 804,542 |
| 1999 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 08/19/1999 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 698,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 678,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0153 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/30/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0157 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | LRNI MARIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0012 | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | 2 | 07/11/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | OTHER REVISION | JANET NUDELMAN | $- 9,549 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/17/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 600,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 1 | 06/13/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 37,604 |
Summary report on these 3 categories:
93.591
93.592
93.671
(All, basically “Family Violence Prevention” funding, and ALL have the word ”
Let’s Get Honest COMMENTARY: – which became a discovery — which became the remainder of this post —
RE: “Interface California Family Services opposed the bill ”
I thought I’d look to see WHO would oppose a bill letting people in our very mobile society know who has had a conviction record on-line (for those, like me, who aren’t expert at running down to the court, or cannot afford background checks…). While I don’t know about this bill, I was curious about “Interface California Family Services.” What I found there stopped me in my tracks.
So, I’ll detail what happened to those “DV Coalition $$” in an ensuing post….. I know y’all (even Plano Texas) probably don’t get through posts more than 4,000 words, and that data is too important to leave at the bottom of a post …..I DO have some rarely published (I think) observations……
After I started studying these DV coalitions (the ones that didn’t help me once I set foot in family court — it wasn’t their “venue”) are actually doing. Not in detail, but in the broad sweep of the market (niche) — I mean, it’s clean, it’s antiseptic, for the most part, and it’s colorfully logo’d internet-based, replicatable ideas that have LITTLE to do with the legal infrastructure of this nation, INDIVIDUAL LEGAL RIGHTS, but only “units,” of which a man MUST be a part, or it ain’t a family.
I’ m beginning to see the name of the organizational game>>>>>> that basically leaves actual suffering victims OUT of it, including kids, moms, and road kill…. and policies that do nothing to make a dent in those statistics. But are a GREAT market niche. Maybe we should just skip welfare, child support, and all that, and teach women leaving abuse how to start a nonprofit, and some internet skills, catch the surf of federal funding foundations (figure out first what the foundations actuallly really want — and here’s a headups. MOST of them are old money and DON’T want women to leave a marriage just because he’s a batterer. They also want no kids out of wedlock, hopefully, because people in trauma don’t make good employees. Just hang in there and take it a few more years……If you can’t, you’re on your own, because these days, it’s not about individual rights, or legal rights, it’s about “FAMILIES.” )
OK, so below here is my guided exploration to where your $$ went and what social policy is, apparently, these days. This may explain why the headlines haven’t changed much in a decade. People still throwing up their hands, “why??” did he suddenly “go off” and “off” his family, a police officer, a bystander or too, and/or his kids?
(I get more and more sarcastic as I go, so you might want to quit before the end of the post. )
These days, almost any organization that says “family” “healthy” “children” (“parenting”) basically is NOT sticking up for violence against women. It’s just a little linguistic thing. So I just looked . . . . I’m not saying they aren’t doing great things. But, I do know what help I just couldn’t seem to access, though having gotten it on time MIGHT have meant (1) solvency (for which safety was a component) and (2) neither my daughters, nor I, nor the several organizations I was working for at the time, nor the closer friends I leaned on (reeling from this event) might have had to experience an overnight, traumatic custody switch in the context of increasing child support arrearages, escalations outside of court and increasing denial INSIDE it, that domestic violence ever happened to start with, OR, that this was indeed the real thing.
On this site, we find, under “PROGRAMS (i.e., what they do, right?) ” . . . .
- Child Abuse Prevention
- Youth Services
- Domestic Violence
- Mental Health Services
- Strategies Family Support Program
OK . . ..
Batterer’s Intervention Program
Court Recommended
A 52-session program to help individuals change their violent behavior patterns.
The program provides the knowledge and tools to make new choices.
I’m not impressed . . . ..
HEY! — there’s no EXCUSE for abuse. It constitutes choices. Suppose that guy doesn’t WANT to make new choices, but fakes it well?
(This has been documented in later DV murders). WHY is this still going on, and at whose expense? Who is documenting behavior change and later safety of the partners?
(AND information showing the difference between violence/nonviolence, warning signs, and encouraging us to make a safety plan. Been there, done that. . . . . . . ). And the wheel of violence (old as the hills, and from Duluth). And what DV is, and so forth. How much funding is going towards maintaining THAT page? Let’s move on to another category of “Interface California Family Services.” What are they serving up?
AHA, now we are learning something . . . .
Strengthening ORGANIZATIONS to Support Families and Communities. (Probably training..–what kind of training?..)
Strategies is funded by the
State of California, Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the S.H. Cowell Foundation
A comprehensive training and technical assistance project for Family Resource Centers ???) and more.
Strategies provides practical and highly interactive training, as well as organizational needs assessments and individualized technical assistance to professionals in the field of family support.
I GET IT: “Technical assistance and Training” is a great way to access federal funds. It’s not so messy as dealing directly with victims, (and their PTSD, fears, and/or injuries) perpetrators (and their attitude), or PPIT (“poor people in trouble.”) It’s easily replicatable, and a lot of information-based (websitek printouts, powerpoints, seminars, etc.) I GET IT !!! The key word is, they are going to help the PROFESSIONALS.
Also, what is this vague, wide field of “FAMILY SUPPORT” (I somehow don’t think it’s the $$ counterpoint to “child support,” meaning funding that goes to children (supposedly)…)? What is meant by “families” and what kind of support? Pro bono legal to get (or defend from) a restraining order? Child support enforcement? Helping that dude get a job?
Strategies’ capacity building activities focus on using a strengths-based perspective, promoting evidence-based practice,** sustainability planning and developing effective public/private partnerships.
**flag — that “evidence-based” terms is often a fatherhood indicator.
This is the history. In 1994, some “prominent thinkers” (Per National Fatherhood Initiative) decided there is a crisis of father-absence throughout the nation. Helpfully, one of the NFI guys also had this post, or got it, in the Health and Human Services department, THE largest US Dept. He was the Secretary, or HEAD of it. He had some pull.
IN 1995, “coincidentally” a Democrat President endorsed this supposedly Republican conservative viewpoint, in a famous, short, memo (link on my blogroll) endorsing this point of view and telling all HIS departments and agencies to quickly “hop to” (into line with the above-mentioned prominent thinkers. No, I do NOT have their names, it’s not on the website, but we are told to take it on faith, this is THE major social ill around. Well, as to moving the huge wheels of state to point in a different direction, there ought to be SOME evidence to base it on. RIGHT? I mean, we have SOME progressives and radicals around the country (meaning, women that sometimes make a hard choice between staying, and being hit, and leaving and being criticized for being single; as well as men and women BOTH that simply didn’t do the marriage thing.
Note: I CANNOT criticize these people, because I DID the marriage thing, and it almost killed me, literally, and apart from some fantastic children (that I can’t see any more, thanks to programs like these spawned, and what they did to the process of divorce), I really am not in a place to look down on some who didn’t opt in the wedding band “thang”. . . . . In THEORY, yes. I think it’s better to figure out a serious commitment before pregnancy, than, say pick up the Son of the Porn King in a bar, as a women did recently, and ended up dead on her daughter’s 1st birthday. There are definitely some kinks also in marriage to be worked out in practice, and many of which this overentitled “fatherhood” (really, male supremacy) theology put in there to start with. It kind of meant, for me, I had to leave the “human” parts at the door (or they’d be kicked out), and when in the home, pretty much just only do things that looked REALLY “wifely.”
LIke scrubbing laundering, listening, giving birth and nursing (unless he wanted sex, or to engage in a lecture of some sort), oh yes, bringing home the bacon, but also handing it over once I did (Because after all who’s the head? It’s divinely, genetically ordained), smile when people were over, and shut up when they weren’t (well, I could talk, just not talk back to abuse…), and not complaining when the (US, incidentally) mail was opened, to make sure I wasn’t engaging in any NON-wifely, NON-womanly activities without permission — like
singing, playing the piano, and spending money I’d earned without clearance from the head. Or even saving it (possibly for an exit).
Eventually I did get a PO Box (after 3 warnings to stop this), there was a good deal of resistance (which was of course punished), but then he just assumed I was squirreling away money (when I wasn’t) and withheld contributing to the household even more. At this time it had been my assigned job to pay rent, and utilities, and my own way (and the kids’, too).
That I did this while in full possession of two college degrees, a professional background, and, I thought, my senses, is something of a real marvel, in retrospect. What I DIDn’T have from nearly the beginning was consistent access to: (1) Finances, or even a bank account, and (2) transportation. So I kinda sorta try not to blame myself for this. I also didn’t have ANYONE confronting this joker in front of me and saying “STOP” to back up my (frequent) STOPs! And I DID tell (not cover up), but was not fully informed on WHO to tell (Or, they just didn’t respond). Now, to hear women in 2006, 10 years later, say the same things, is very sad to me.
Well, back to the “evidence-based” phrase. Grants are grants, and they go to universities and researchers, and when it comes to the social sciences, well, it’s a little unclear whether the chicken (policy) came before the egg (studies, institutes, etc.) or vice versa. I guess I should’ve used the word “sperm” instead because after all this is regarding fatherhood, but then I couldn’t really in public complete the analogy. ANYHOW, in 1998 and 1999 the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives kind of went along the same “fatherhood rules, father-absence is a social plague” line of thinking and voted in some resolutions, just in case Clinton’s revamping all departments and programs to accommodate fathers better didn’t really work. This is the short version; in short, major universities got in on the grants also, and so everyone is stroking everyone’s policy/procedures/evidence back. The federal grant #, should you care to check, is 93.086, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriages”, which is only part of the mountain, and which if you’ve been paying attention here, is clearly, well, a going concern in California.
Now about those “evidence-based practices.” in a little nonprofit with the word “family” in it….
So, let’s see how this: 
(NOTE: at bottom of page:
New for agencies and practitioners: Supporting Father Involvement.
For information visit the Supporting Father Involvement website.Strategies is funded by the State of California, Department of Social Services,
Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the Stuart Foundation. (what happened to the “S.H. Cowell Foundation,” above? How many foundations are in on this thing??)© 2009
Let’s see how it develops the theme of “Strategies to Support Families & Communities”:
Increasingly, the social service sector is being challenged to provide evidence that their work is making a real difference for the people and communities they serve.
That’s for damn sure.! IN part, because the same domestic violence fatalities, child-kidnappings, and difficulties with “access/visitation” still happen. People are still poor, of course, and women are still jailed when they try to protect a kid that the courts won’t protect, but Dads are NOT jailed for harrassing our asses through family court allegations, hearsay or frivolous in nature, rather than, (say), working, and moving on in life. And for denying past, present, and risk of future abuse and extreme psychological difficulties for kids. . . . That’s not ALL Dads, I am talking about abusive ones, who are having a heyday in the family courts, and through this managing to trash attempts to get free from the relationship, share visitaiton, but NOT being part of a tyrannical dynamic. . . .. This was my issue, I know. I don’t see that it particularly phased ANY of the court-related OR the nonprofit-related organizations I was dealing with in the past several years.
You know what I recommend? ASK US!! READ THE NEWSPAPERS !!! TALK TO LITIGANTS!
No, that’s too messy. Can’t be data-justified; no reports can really be sold from anecdotal evidence, and in short, we’d just rather not. Here’s a BETTER idea (and use of short-in-stock social services funding….):
A powerful and user-friendly evaluation tool to help programs answer these questions is the Family Development Matrix.
That’s the better idea — a BUSINESS NICHE. There you go. THAT will help families experiencing stress from repeated interferences with work and relationships coming out of these situations . . . .
In a unique partnership the Strategies and the Institute for Community Collaborative Studies at California State University Monterey Bay provide training and technical assistance to organizations interested in learning how to use the Family Development Matrix in their programs.
The Strategies web page lists all upcoming trainings, includes a virtual tour of a Family Resource Center, provides links to relevant resources, and hosts a library of sample policies and procedures.
Community Training
Strategies draws from the broad range of expertise of Interface’s staff and consultants to provide community trainings in the areas of family support, child abuse prevention, cultural competency, domestic violence, mentoring programs, mental health issues and non-profit management.Upon request, Strategies also provides meeting facilitation, strategic planning assistance, and individualized coaching services.
My idea of a “Family Resource Center,” before I was in the social science sphere of family court, was my FAMILY. And a little privacy within it too: Home, meals, schedules, activities, associates, children and their friends and their firend’s parents, work, school, transportation, shopping, playing, time outside when possible, facing challenges together. AND seeing their Dad regularly on the weekend (my particular idea didn’t include the stalking and trauma part, but without that, I think you could definitely call it a “resource center,” our home. It had musical instruments, books, food, clothes, bedding, pictures on the wall, play gear, usually some pets, and sunlight. It had sleep walk, jump, talk, eat, drink, inside and outside, plan, and play. It was VERY resourceful and inspiring to combine these activities in the best way for the most richly rewarding use of our limited RESOURCES to get education, work, relationships and growth to happen.
The only problem for too many people — we weren’t in a properly approved PROGRAM, on the government radar, or asking permission from Dad to breathe or not breathe, come or go, sleep or not sleep as the case may be. Now THAT was a resource issue.
My idea of a resourceful family lifestyle did NOT include being analyzed every moment from waking up to going back to sleep too late and worried about the next exterior “analysis” of what we were doing from a persons or institutions who didn’t care if we were threatened or not, prospering or not, and safe or not.
Well, if can’t beat’em, might just as well join ’em. Here are some of those trainings:
Sho ’nuff, here’s one for “Fatherhood.” We want us all to be on the same page about THAT doctrine now, eh?
“Announcing: Journal of Marriage and the Family Article Published August 1, 2009Press Release:
NEW STUDY MEASURES BENEFITS OF MORE INVOLVED FATHERS
Children face greater risk when agencies focus only on moms, overlook dadsFamily service agencies are missing huge opportunities to help children by focusing only on mothers and ignoring fathers, according to a groundbreaking study by some of the nation’s top family and child development researchers..”
We ARE??? Where’s “motherhood.gov” or “hhs.motherhood.gov” — ever looked?
OH YEAH, it’s GROUNDBREAKING AND NEW — As new as the 1995 letter from President Clinton, as new as the 1994 National Fatherhood Initiative, and many other “Social Research Demonstration Projects.” It’s as “new” as “fatherhood.gov” and “hhs.fatherhood.gov.” To promote schlock like this:
A growing body of research has concluded that fathers are important to their child’s development, and yet the vast majority of programs that serve families with young children, especially low-income families, tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers.
It’s “growing” because it pays to study this field! Get a logo, write something, set up a website, and start marketing — you got a federal grant coming your way SOON! Get on the bandwagon, there’s room for plenty-a-more!
(Basically the page exactly mirrors Obama’s “Families” page propaganda in every point).
Perhaps this is why the women above couldn’t get help from the Coalitions they sought help from??? Social Services funding — and this IS funded by social services –a re going to father propaganda, spread by basic internet marketing practices through government agencies and other community organizations. We’re in the internet age, after all…..
the logo has two adults, right — nurturing a (single) child:
HEY — in this photo (a trick question) – –
s
WHERE’S MOM? DID HE GIVE BIRTH TO THOSE BABIES?
“As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these to benefit us all!”
and . . . .
The Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) intervention is entering its 5th year of implementation. From its inception, SFI has been a collaborative effort in funding and implementation representing a strong private-public partnership. The project is funded primarily by the CA Department of Social Services (DSS), Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP). Its partners have included the University of CA at Berkeley, Yale University, and Smith College School for Social Work. The state social services provided the impetus for SFI through its need and vision, funding, and administrative oversight. The college and universities have provided faculty leadership for design, implementation, and research.
The project has been implemented in a robust and supportive way {{OH!! That sounds so ‘masculine ‘ it sends shivers down my spine. WHERE IS HE??}}{{Unless they were talking about a coffee flavor — robust and supportive}}{{Oh, dang, it was just a “project.” But at least it was implemented robustly and supportively…}} by five able
{{oh mi God, able-bodied too? Where IS this?}}
{{Translation??: Spiffy websites with downloadable information, telephone numbers and a few trainers, and occasionally we’ll rent a hotel room, pull in some speakers (like us) and promote more fatherhood doctrine, and keep “mum” about the fact that domestic violence can suddenly turn lethal, batterers are NOT good role models, the cruelty of kidnapping to punish an ex-partner, the deaf ear the family courts turn when child sexual abuse is actually reported, and the fact that the custody evaluators (et al) are making a killing, financially, while the women adn children aren’t. And sometimes are killed, or Dad does himself in too. I bet these conferences don’t talk about THAT hard truth……??}}}
in Contra Costa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Tulare (Lindsay), and Yuba counties.
{{Well perhaps this explains a few court cases I’m familiar with throughout the state….}}
Strategies, the technical Assistance arm of OCAP, is helping to disseminate the program to organizations throughout CA.
{{Why don’t they, instead, disseminate the laws against these crimes, and things such as the flow of a lawsuit in the criminal, vs. civil, vs. family court? Why don’t they disseminate how to financially plan to leave an inheritance to your grandchildren by starting businesses, running them, or investing? Why not try something like, with that MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE/LICENSE, a copy of the laws against DV? Why don’t they disseminate to faith institutions that, fatherhood dominance or no fatherhood dominance, they are still mandated reporters, and next time they WILL be reported on if they fail to follow through? And give them some helpful books on the topic. And mention that economic abuse and verbal abuse is STILl abuse . . . . . . Why don’t they disseminate some thing that would help in REALITY, not in THEORY?}}
Additional funding for dissemination and public policy initiatives, as well as cost-benefit evaluation, has come from the Stuart Foundation and a grant is under consideration at the CAL Endowment.
“Given the widespread significance of the indications of SFI program success in terms of father-engagement and family well-being for California’s families and the agencies that serve them,. . .
1. Don’t break your back patting yourself on the back. The message is clear: you wouldn’t be looking for MORE funding were not the program so widely signficantly indicating that it’s engaging fathers, which is, (FYI), our definition of “family well being” and our version of child abuse prevention (it is funded in part by that office of child abuse prevention still, right, or advertised on a site that is….)
2. Suppose they don’t WANT a particular Dad engaged, because he’s dangerous and abusing a child? Does that still qualify as ‘family”? Would you lose some funding? SUPPOSE, in a situation like that you went ahead and engaged the Dad anyhow (the ones that the “access visitation funding to the states — all millions of it” didn’t already haul further into their lives, including sometimes out from a jail cell, or unemployment intentional to punishing an ex by not paying child support), and the situation “went south.” Would you re-evaluate the SFI program success a little DIFFERENTLY?
SFI is actively disseminating the rationale and results of the study. {{We got it already, OK. It’s straight out of Whitehouse.gov/issues/families page — the one with the word “mother” barely in there, remember?}}
We are open to and seeking support for expanded public-private partnerships to publicize the compelling results of these evidence-based best practices to increase awareness of service providers, practitioners, and policy makers with the goal of
fostering substantive organizational change within public and private organizations to think of fathers as caretakers of California’s and the world’s children.
WOW, so much for custodial mothers. I guess we’re out the door then?
and Wow, that “target market” is not even just CALIFORNIA’s children, but the World’s. That even tops the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition’s” target audience of everyone — literally, married, or unmarried, parent or not — 15 years or older in the entire state. (Guess that includes me….) Not content, “Strategies for Families” is going for the world’s children.
And it’s only our broke state of California helping FUND the organization…..
Does anyone in these programs (or the brunt of them) actually READ this shlock? First of all, it appears as though the prime EVIDENCE is if a warm-bodied father (whether or not robust and supportive, let alone ABLE to fulfil his responsibilities — and did we talk about INTERESTED in doing so?).
Second, it appears that the noble esoteric business GOAL is to “foster substantive organizational change . . . (blah blah blah) TO THINK OF FATHERS AS CARETAKERS.
In short, to change the way organizations “think.”
First of all, this organizational change within public and private organizations has ALREADY taken place. TRUST me, I stood in front of a mediator three times, at least, in the past 10 years, and the “fatherhood thing,” well, he “got” it.
There are few places a single mother can hold her head up, when it comes to agencies. There are few policy making places I’ve seen in the past several years — I DID find one in Australia several posts ago — that accept the concept of a single mother living with her children and NOT in frequent contact with Dad as even acceptable, let alone legitimate. I live in a “blue” (Democrat / progressive for internationals) state, and the moment I went single, I had government folk down my pants almost, and saying, essentially, put back on a skirt and take orders from us, or we take your kids. This began with a certain male in my family (not himself a father, perhaps he had regrets in that matter and was looking for someone new to dominate, as his wife, well, they’d been married a long time and living together a few decades….I’m not sure how submissive she was either, in private life. OR, they needed a reason to live — which FYI, kids really make a difference in, folks. LIving for someone else in relationship with you. Women need this too, at times….)
Now this person had absolutely no legal standing, no jurisdiction (and no legitimate reason) to start bossing me around, or my kids. I wouldn’t have mind, except he was herding us back in a direction I’d already adequately explored, and knew where it went — back towards poverty and dumbed-down education, with more stress and less success. We are not exactly in the top performing public education system in the nation — in fact Arne Duncan came out here several months ago and started scolding California like it was a bad little boy. And I took my kids OUT after this man had forced us in, and in a covert, dishonest, and pressured way when I didn’t have a valid choice not to obey.
At THAT point (or very shortly thereafter), I went to my government structures to put down a righteous foot, legally. But all I can figure out is, they’d already seen my girls, and they were (by and large) pulling the API (grade point averages) up, plus if I could be made to actually need SOCIAL SERVICES again, then at least something could be gotten out of this domestic violence survivor actually making it almost to the shore of solvency and safety — WITHOUT THEIR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT!
And this is where the anti-feminism thing, through the courts, really kicked in.
AND I am really off base here. I hope the post was informative. The next one contains the data I had in THIS one, til I saw this fatherhood shlock again, hiding in a federally supported program purporting to stop child abuse and reduce domestic violence. ACTUALLY it doesn’t claim anything of the sort, just has drop-down menus with those titles on them. However, the real “thrust” of the overall website and “family resource centers” is obviously leading one to “Support Fathers Involvement.” The other pages barely have sublinks and downloadable information — just a phone number for a batterer’s program, not a lot more. And a few flyers about some upcoming trainings.
(Ah well. . . .. )
“Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) is a family focused, evidenced-based intervention aimed at effectively engaging fathers as a key participant in family support and strengthening. It is also a method of fostering organizational development and growth for agencies and professionals serving at-risk families.
SUCH DOUBLE-TALK: INTERVENTION IN WHAT / / / in the way these organizations, often protecting children (and one way to protect children is to support the parent they’re with, emotionally or financially, i.e., that bond. When it comes to VIOLENCE< the bond with the NONbattering parent is the one that, if supported, will help and allow that child to heal. This is NOT, currently, public policy in the United States. But in case some “old-school” folk are still around, this workshop is here to “intervene.”
Notice the word “fostering,” a loaded word in the social science field. Good choice . . .. . ANd they’re talking about agencies and professionals as if they were living, animate beings, growing and developing (like kids, right?). While this has an element of truth in it, why isn’t the focus on the actually living animate beings IN those families? ANd their immediate safety and welfare, and then setting them free from program after program??
SFI offers multiple levels of participation in building effective strategies and methods to recruit, engage, and support the involvement of fathers in the lives of their families and the services provided, which includes access to web based materials, other resources, and networking. Agencies can assess their current Father Friendliness {{gag!!!}} and measure growth and improvement over time, using the SFI Organizational Self Assessment.
NOTE: there are so many millions $$ of funding going to from the Feds to the States ALREADY, which I have blogged about and which you can look up under 93.597 CFDA on the TAGGS database (going back to 1995), or if you want cool graphic summaries with lots of breakdowns and bar charts, you can get 2000-2009 on usaspending.gov under “grants.” These are the “Access visitation” grants ALREADY corrupting due process in the family law, so that results have required out come of more noncustodial “parent” (father) time by mandatory mediation, etc. MOREOVER, CFDA 93.086 {“Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. . “}has been up and running STRONG and FULL THROTTLE through the same department since about 1995, as I have blogged and you can search. Yet the materials always make it sound as if this was some radical NEW idea.
OR some grassroots, bottom UP movement, when it was nothing of the sort — not when a President, without legislation, issues a memo like that which revamps a federal agency.
DECEPTIVELY (very), “USASPENDING.GOV” does NOT have a searchable subcategory 93.086 along with all the others, but you CAN and WILL find plenty of funding by searching on other fields as to this. For example, one time I searched on “Noncustodial Fathers” and found millions of $$, and one of the 10 largest recipients across the entire country was, surprisingly, “Family Violence Prevention Center” in SF. The light bulb went off in my brain as to why the word “mother” was disappearing from this major nonprofit’s publications, agenda, and website.
For a noncustodial mother who’s had now almost 20 years of her prime work life, adult life, badly interrupted (you can call THAT an “intervention”) by domestic violence, first living with it, and then trying to leave it, after several years of which, setting proper limits and boundaries and doing what I would call incredibly heroic efforts to rebuild things AND send a clear message, AND when it was ignored, seek outside help for enforcement, AND when that really didn’t come through just about learning law, the courts, a whole field of study (domestic violence) and amazing number of related communities — WHILE also taking care of my kids, and trying to keep DAD off my front step, library steps, friends telephones, MY telephone, and other related areas — I cannot tell you how discouraging it is to see the direction of public policy and initiatives in these matters. It’s as though the entire structure just lost its mind and forgot the Constitution and what this country was ‘about,” which was independence from oppression and colonization.
GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND NOT TO RESHAPE HUMANITY. ALL PRESIDENTS, SWORN IN, are SWORN TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION, AND FULFIL THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT (IN REVERSE ORDER). THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM, MANDATES, AND BASICALLY BRIBING THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO INVOLVE FATHERS AT ALL COSTS. OR FOR THAT MATTER TO HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT IS SUCH A FAILURE, WE’VE FORGOTTEN THESE THINGS.
Look at this: remembering that this “Strategies” is part of “interface California Family Services” and is state-funded. And our state’s BROKE, supposedly:
Strategies embraces an approach that acknowledges that no child, family, or organization stands alone
WHAT THE HECK DOES “EMBRACES AN APPROACH” HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
So much for the Declaration of Independence
Rather, they {{THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING SENTENCE IS SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL}} must navigate complex systems in order to thrive.
Personally, I have tried to keep my life fairly simple and its processes too. But my thinking is a lot more complex than the tripe I’m reading on this website. Bureaucratese that simply loosens up $$ to get more professionals together to push propaganda that doesn’t, it appears, help them THINK better, and how can one operate better without thinking straight? It’d be better to haul out some classic literature and assign it. A man working with Viet Nam vets with severe PTSD did just that — he used the Odyssey! (apparently it helped too — last name “Shay.” You can look it up). I’m sure some personal relationships were involved in the process — not pdfs and websites and one-day or three-day trainings designed to infiltrate (sorry, “intervene” in how an organization operates….
Strategies’ initiatives provide an opportunity for organizations to participate in comprehensive, in-depth, evidence-based projects that address complex systems change. Each initiative involves multiple sites that work together over time to achieve common outcomes designed to strengthen children, families, and communities.
This Day Will Include:
- Introduction and Orientation to SFI (WHICH WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT BECAUSE . . . . . ?)
- Interactive Tutorial of SFI Web Based Resources
- A Discussion of Barriers and Bridges to Involving Fathers
(just tell them to go to family court, or head down ot the local child support office, where they will be recruited into a program).
- Resources Available Right Now To Strengthen Efforts to Serve Families
(guess you have to “be there” to understand. But of course serving families, well, that’s a great goal. I deduce it mostly means, putting Dad back in.
- A Luncheon Discussion Focusing on Next Steps of SFI Participation and Implementation
Basically, sounds like a cult. . . . . .
(OK, I get the picture — that’s enough. ALL THIS on just one little company, “InterfaceCalifornia Family Services”
We encourage you to integrate the resources of this site into your work with
families and your community.As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be
relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness
practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these
to benefit us all!
OK, I’ve had enough for now.
But what you see here is going to be in nearly every service organization, and branch of government. This will help explain that kind of “glazed look” you get in certain quarters when speaking of things like laws, rights, and enforcement.
No woman, or man (although men, if fathers, are being “recruited” remember? to be more “engaged” in their families. . . and getting help making this happen through the courts, help women do NOT get in retaining custody of their kids IF a local man wants them…..) could possibly go throughout the internet and figure out this was going on to such an extent.
the only reason I took time to was after running the gauntlet of expecting a court order — ANY court order — to be taken seriously in court — EVER, when it favored my rights, and not his whims.
forget it.
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Radical Idea — Enforce Existing Custody Laws . . and the rest…
(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, . . .
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:
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 andmaliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a right to custody,or a person of a right to visitation, shall bepunished 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 andtraining court personnel out of remembering this, and instead to reward this (criminal) endeavorwith 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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Demonstrating Healthy Marriages – Think Big, Invest Much, Expect a Lot, Require –???
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
Federal Project Officer:
Heather Sonabend (202) 260-0873
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:
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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California
After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:
TITLE OF REPORT:
CALIFORNIA’S ACCESS TO VISITATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING RESPONSIBILITY AND
OPPORTUNITY** FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENTS
2001-2003
WHO THIS REPORT WAS ADDRESSED TO:
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
WHO SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ON THE ABOVE TOPICS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
(The) Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature
pursuant to Assembly Bill 673.
Copyright © 2003 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the
Courts. All rights reserved.
This report is also available on the California Courts Web site:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v.htm
I HAVE A QUESTION:
HOW COME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR CHILD SUPPORT LITIGANTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THIS SITE
or INFORMED OF THIS PROGRAM
SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE BEING
FORCED THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS?
(FYI: “mandatory mediation” is the one of many way to achieve the grant-mandated “required outcomes”attached to this particular program funding. The “required outcome” is more hours, more time, more “accesss” going to the noncustodial parent. While “parent” is said, “father” is basically meant. Any legal process (with “due process”) that has a “required outcome” is by definition going to be, in some fashion, “rigged.”)
(It’s a rhetorical question.)
most of us are not checking up on the California Legislature while in an abusive relationship. . . . .
MANY of us cannot afford attorneys, and have come to this place through nonprofits. . . . . not police. . . .
Most of us are not rolling in extra time to do this research.
DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, I was dealing with transition from domestic violence.
It would’ve been helpful to know these processes and intents!
Brief Quote (I am running out of time to post today. . . . . )
Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded
a total of $50 million in block grants to states to promote access and visitation programs
to increase noncustodial parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. The federal
allocation to each state is based on the number of single-parent households. California
has the largest number of single heads of households (1,127,062) in the United States.3
California receives the maximum amount of possible federal funds (approximately
$1 million per year), representing 10 percent of the national funding. Federal regulations
earmark grant funds for such activities as mediation (both voluntary and mandatory),
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including
monitoring, supervision, and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines
for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of
California be further limited to the following three types of programs:
q Supervised visitation and exchange services;
q Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
q Group counseling services for parents and children
NOW, FRIENDS, FOES, AND VISITORS: HERE’S YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
READ THIS DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT (FROM OTHER YEARS, FROM YOUR STATES — I’M SURE THERE’S SOMETHING SIMILAR). “RESPONSIBLE CITIZENHOOD.”
And take a GOOD look at the “Fathers Rights” languages it’s laced with, and references to publications in footnotes on these matters.
This is social sciences through the courts. . . .
. . .
A recent study by Amato and Booth (1997), who
looked at several trends in family life and their effects on children, found divorce of all
factors considered, to have the most negative effect on the well-being of children.7
The trends of separation, divorce, and unmarried parents, have potentially adverse effects
on the financial, social, emotional, and academic well-being of America’s children.
Noncustodial parents, generally fathers, struggle to maintain healthy and meaningful
relationships with their children. A recent report by Arendell (1995) illustrates the
gradual disengagement of noncustodial parents. Contact with separated dads is often
minimal, with 30 percent of divorced fathers seeing their children less than once a year
and only 25 percent having weekly contact.8
Or, on page 6, Footnote 17:
K. Sylvester and K. Reich, Making Fathers Count, Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood
Efforts, (Social Action Network, 2002), p. 2.
In a nation where 23 million children do not live with their biological
fathers and 20 million live in single-parent homes (most of them lacking fathers)
AMONG REASONS, POSSIBLY, WHY, MIGHT BE”
(intake forms to screen and assess for safety risks; separate
orientations and interviews with parents; written child abduction procedures; policies to
respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior;
copies of protective orders, protocols for declining unsafe or high-risk cases).
(POST TO BE CONTINUED)….
SHARE THIS POST on...
The Golden State’s Gold Rush, 1998-2009, Healing Families, Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
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:
|
|
| 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?
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout.” Maybe–MAYBE, Forget the Restraining Orders, Remember 2nd Amendment? Or, toss a coin…
Part II of II on “Responsible Citizenhood” is in labor.
The waters have broken, and there is a flood of information and synthesis of concepts gushing forth on many topics, and my brain is dialating. They will have to be posted in stages.
Translation: I am being a Responsible Citizen (see prior posts) and exploring who is my Congress, the Constitution, who is funding whom, and finding all kinds of juicy information on whose idea was it to reinstitute a national religion called Fatherhood, funded by all of us. I have also located a few new (to me at least) search tools How many thoughts have been provoked!
But, this (relatively) recent news alert reminded me, that Part of Responsible Citizenhood might entail learning how to handle a gun, and being willing to use it during a home invasion. Even a home invasion by an estranged husband:
Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout
by Michael Rubinkam
Let’s look at this headline again. This woman fought him off, and neither she, nor any of her offspring got killed. If you look up the articles and read the details, she made a mistake, which, if you read below and see how WIGGLY Pa considers the “PFAs” when it comes to what they mean, is almost understandable. But once the situation became clear, she took QUICK action to protect her children, get free, and call for help.
This is not, folks, how it often plays out. Who knows whether, God, fortune, or luck played a role, but we DO know this woman didn’t stop to debate, and she also didn’t panic and go dysfunctional. May I propose that this woman listening to her INSTINCTS and acting on them may have prevented a higher body count. LESSON ONE: Don’t jerk around with someone who has just crossed a boundary. Don’t second guess instinct. And (next time) don’t compromise one INCH on an existing protective or restraining order — it sends a mixed message, and could lead to this.
May I propose something else? I suggest that lawmakers and courts consider that women are people too, and smarten up to having us believe the fiction and play the slot games with any intimate partner who has been battering us in the home, or threatening to, etc. May I suggest that instead of — or in addition to — DISarming him, they somehow ARM her, and if she’s not trained how to do so, get her some professional responsible training. It could be mace, it could be pepper spray, but constitutionally, it could be a gun, too, at least in the home.
Given the options, she has hope, luck, prayer, and walking around the neighborhood with her instincts on alert, her antennae up, and then trying to also rebuild a life. “LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” Now what was that first one again?
Detriment: May give a whole new picture of “motherhood” to “fatherhood” people who don’t believe women should be allowed to separate, do not have equal rights, and VAWA should go back to where it came from.
In this above statement, I omitted the comma between “fatherhood” people and who don’t believe. This is generous on my part, because I am conceding that there could be people all excited about and promoting fatherhood who DON’T believe these things. In fact, I don’t really believe this. I think that what the “fatherhood” movement is about is that the genetic / gender / biological composition of a family and household (one man, one woman, both married) is more important than the character or behavior of such families. I am not the only person who believes this. Some data is here (hover cursor for my comment. Note: This dates to 2002, almost 7 years ago. .http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf.
Now, when I married, I picked someone of the opposite gender, rather than someone of the same gender and, when it came to wanting children, either adoption or a sperm donor. This is probably because of how I like my sex, and the other versions didn’t concern me.
However, when I realized that my opposite-gender person’s main concern was my gender and household function ONLY, and not me as a person — and began physically punishing me for showing up as a person like him, and expecting to pursue some personal goals, not only the laundry/cleaning/nursing/f____ing role (in addition to supporting him in his business, and — if I wanted necessities — also working myself in and/or outside the home for pay) — I made a determination that behavior was the determinant, not gender, or a two-parent status. The MAIN reason I did this was because we had children, and it was a damn lousy role model they were being exposed to. The children were of my gender, and they were being taught how this one was somehow inferior and equipped with fewer rights, if any, and no boundaries or ability to say NO without taking retaliation for it. THAT’s a lousy role model, and he got himself evicted, not after several warnings.
I suppose you would like me to get to the story here, how THIS woman saved her life, her children’s life, but alas, not the pursuing policeman’s life, or her husband’s (although I lay that one as his responsibility — no one forced him to threaten his wife with a gun or kidnap his child, or place himself above a clear law he knew was in place upon him).
YATESVILLE, Pa. (AP) — Hobbled by a broken ankle, the estranged wife of a man killed in a shootout with Pennsylvania state troopers managed to fight him off as he threatened her with a gun before he kidnapped their 9-year-old son, the woman’s friend said.
The order of events is a little jumbled in the paragraph. The AP wanted it out fast, I guess, and so we get this:
- A. Her ankle was broken
- B. She was estranged from her husband
- C. He was killed by PA state troopers in a shootout (i.e., he was shooting back).
- D. 1. She fought him off 2. while he threatened her with a gun.
- E. He kidnapped their 9 year old son.
Having been through a FEW of the events above (not including the shootout), let me put it, I suspect, chrono.
- B. Cause of broken ankle — don’t know and probably not relevant.
- D.2 He threatened her with a gun
- D. 1 THIS MOM FOUGHT BACK.
- E. THEN (having been fought off), he grabs their son and dashes off (probably in a car).
- C. State troopers, apparently, caught up with him, and I’ll gol-dang bet he shot first. Predictably, they shot back.
- Thank God the state troopers had some firearms training, so HE got killed, not his wife and not the son he kidnapped, this time.
First of all, let’s deal with the grammar dishonesty (gender bias?) with B. “She was estranged from her husband” which has an element of the truth, and distorts the actual context. This is such common press practice in domestic violence homicide (or incident) reporting:
LEGALLY, it appears he’d acted first, and she had responded with a “protection from abuse” order. Unless the news disagrees with the judge that is THE most relevant factor in the case, apart from this incident. It most certainly is prime factual, legal and emotional dynamic CONTEXT of the incident. “She was estranged” could’ve been, she got tired of his dirty socks around home, she wanted to pursue another affair, or he did; he refused to work OR was an alcoholic, she was bored, he was using drugs or alcohol, or they had other “irreconciliable differences.” “She was estranged” already must minimized the truth. If a protective order was in place, and these reporters are not aware enough yet that this produces LOTS of hot news leads in the form of crime reporting, they need to review the job descriptions — or their editors do. (To tell the truth, I didn’t notice this the first time through the story myself, although I have always thought it an odd phrase).
B. THEY were estranged. or, better,
B. “In _____ (date) (or how recent), she obtained a PFA (say it: “protection from abuse“) order (in what court, or county), forcing him to leave the family home.
It is so typical of abusers, abuser enablers, and for that matter, the bulk of the family law system, to IGNORE THE ACTIONS and TALK ABOUT WHO “WAS” WHAT RATHER THAN WHO “DID” WHAT. IT”S PSYCHOLOGY NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS NO ACCIDENT!
From the 2002 California Family Court Report (link above): (under “Loss of Due Process”)
A. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1992.
Alas (and the emphasis of other articles on this event) — – Mad Dad was not in a compromise mood, and shot at responding officers. Terribly, he got a cop, too. Again — and these officers WERE brave, and they DID stop a kidnapping in process.
That’s about a recipe for suicide by cop. Whether or not he had thought THIS far ahead, one thing is clear: He’d pre-meditated far enough ahead to bring a gun and point it at his wife.
I experienced a decade of being exceedingly afraid of my husband in the home, being traumatized, and eventually being sure enough (because he talked about it often enough, fantasizing about this, and telling me, so, or otherwise bringing it up casually in conversation: “I’ll just have to kill you.” At this time, both our children were under 8 years old.) This has caused economic devastation upon me, my daughters, and people associated with both him, and us. It has wasted taxpayer funds year after year (in family law, where our case shouldn’t have been at the time) and taken almost 20 years of the prime working years of my life and trashed them repeatedly, under threats, stalkings, intimidations, sudden appearances at my home, and in general, one hell of a mess. He is still only working part-time, if that, doesn’t pay taxes (I don’t because I don’t earn enough), he is not financially independent yet and, because of this and unfortunately, neither am I. Our state is broke (supposedly) which is headline news, and is getting people very short-tempered in general.
I wonder, and I DO reflect — SUPPOSE I HAD FOUGHT BACK, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THREATENED BACK: IF YOU EVER DO THIS AGAIN, YOU’LL BE MISSING A BODY PART. OR DEAD! And then dropped everything until I had learned self defense.
Or, I had told been less committed to my marriage vows, and dumped his ass out on the street — in other words, brought it to a head earlier. WHY did I not do that? (a number of reasons: #1. VAWA and awareness of DV laws was not commonplace. #2. I’d never had a similar experience where I had to set a boundary with a violent man before, and wasn’t acquainted personally with such situations. #3. self-defense and handling a gun is not a typical part of the public school education, and not exactly promoted, as in, exercising 2nd Amendment rights, in general. We are not hunting our food, but buying it, for the most part (or growing it). I was not raised in urban areas, where awareness of guns and gun violence was commonplace, but in more rural; people shot deer, or sometimes squirrels, not people! I also wasn’t raised on TV.
School rewards taking orders and obeying rules, at least theoretically.
And that’s not “feminine” behavior.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WHAT IF MEN UNDERSTOOD – – – REALLY UNDERSTOOD – – – THAT EVEN WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP, A SMACK WILL BE SMACKED, BACK, HARDER, BECAUSE IT’S SO OUT OF ORDER? WHAT IF WOMEN WEREN’T SO DESPERATE TO SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY, OR FOR SEXUAL ATTENTION, OR TO HAVE A MAN ON THE ARM, THAT NONE OF THEM COMPROMISED?
WOULD THERE STILL BE FAMILIES AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?
Maybe the fatherhood guys are “right.” Maybe (from that perspective) if men are not needed to provide for and protect women,and defend them from other suitors, stalkers, or rapists, or to help them, particularly when they are more vulnerable, pregnant and raising young kids, the differences between the sexes (as to functions in life) would so blur, that, well, the drive to achieve and provide would diminish, the wheels of the economy would crumble (and a lot of faith institutions also), and life just wouldn’t have that same glow, or afterglow.
Without the primal urge, there would be no skyscrapers (9/11?) or cathedrals, and no empires, multi-national or otherwise. Maybe. life just wouldn’t have that zest and drama. Newspapers would need to find other ways to sell the products, if there weren’t crises to report.
Well, that’s a larger topic. But it seems a natural question: If the nuclear family ain’t what protects, and provides for its young, the only alternative is for equality of income. NOW, Papa Obama and the majority of Head Start, Zero to Five, Administration for Families and Children, (sorry sir to pick on you, this wasn’t your idea to start with) might be out of work. ONLY if the ONLY way to produce income is a “job” that MUST be done outside the home, ONLY then is it essential to have the other functions of raising a family: care, daytime feeding, and education — to be done by someone else, institutionally.
However the people so vigorously promoting this solution ONLY (and highly suspicious of, say, the homeschooling option which is a lot more fluid, lets mothers network and find each other’s long suits, collaborate locally to find the best teachers (including some of each other, as well as hired professionals), and fire the lousy ones — now THAT’S a plus) and actually have a better understanding of who their children are, and possibly better relationships with them, not rigidly defined ones) — these people — and I coudl show you, or you could look for yourself — are THEMSELVES either inheriting wealth, or have sufficient assets to go fund ggovernment policy, publicize and drive various programs through and teach THEIR young how to own businesses and produce passive cash flow, themselves.
Then who would work in the businesses they own? There has to be a steady population — and the majority of the population — that does NOT know how to live independently from the government, or the “employee” situation — or life would, well, it just wouldn’t work right. Who would work the factories, produce the many, many terrific products we enjoy in this country, the material prosperity, the varities of fast foods (and agencies pronouncing that fast foods are bad for you), and all that?
(Along with the domestic violence kidnappings, suicides by cop, traumatized kids, and sometimes dead people, that go along with when this doesn’t work out so well…..).
Well, that dialogue is what I get for thinking. It’s Monday night quarterbacking, I guess, “what-if” scenarios. I cannot turn back the clock in my own case. The fact is, if I hadn’t been who I was, probably the genetic and particular DNA of my two wonderful daughters (who are probably not reading this, yet), and with whom I am NOT spending any more time, would not have been born. I have already determined (and she’s spoken with me recently) that woman number two was targeted for a certain gullibility and in a certain venue, for use to get the kids away from me. He’s out on the loose again, troubling me, because I’ve been contacted, and her, because of what that indicates.
HOWEVER, the rest of this post, below, shows how the local Women’s Resource Agency describes why women should keep coming, keep asking for “PFA” orders and keep playing the odds, because, it’s after all, only about ONE out of THREE cases that violates these orders, and “NOT ALL” do “WHAT HE DID.”
Well, in school, 66% is not a passing grade. Last I heard, 70% was. We are talking 66% success rate when the other 33% (add your decimal points later) might get killed and result in this. We’re not talking about graduating from high school, but living out a normal lifespan, and not in terror, trauma, or having to before a child is ten, witness a homicide. Or two. Or being kidnapped. About officers NOT having to make that sacrifice, and THEIR children lose a Daddy also. How is THAT “promoting responsible fatherhood.”
I think that the time of restraining orders may have passed, and that we probably need to focus on both attitudes, cultural values and self-defense techniques (including weapons if necessary) that make it ABSOLUTELY clear that any such violation of a personal boundary in the form of a HIT will be met with equal, and to make a point, slightly greater responding force to emphasize the unacceptability of it.
I think local communities will have to figure out processes, not “states” they wish to achieve. And this requires being realistic about restraining order and a valid understanding of what abuse IS.
I have one: ABUSE is violating personal boundaries (and, most time, state criminal laws) in order to establish a “giving orders” situation between what should be intimate partners. As such, it qualifies as “two-year-old” behavior and should result in the adult who has regressed to it, and thinks that 2009 is, in fact, closer to 1920 (when women finally got the vote) should be treated like the two-year-old mentality of, the world should conform to you when you don’t like it, without your submitting to some process of negotiation, compromise, or humility. I would like to add that, as I recall this, I always wondered why our daughters didn’t go through the famous “Terrible Twos” {is this an Americdan term only? I don’t know…} rebellious stages. I remember this at the time also. It could be that we weren’t dumping them off in daycare, where they needed more attention, oir it just possibly could’ve been that we had a much larger Terrible Two in the home, in the form of their father, and they knew this.
Only when it’s UNacceptable throughout society to beat women, and terrorize anyone, will this stop. The only acceptable reasons for doing anything like this in defense of life’s essentials — and these do not include maintaining a status quo in which the abuser’s world is perfect, and his ego cannot handle rejection, the need to apologize, or occasional value conflicts. The heart of any really good intimate relationship would do real well to closely resemble what’s written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which most of us (and our legislators) have apparently forgotten.
I happen to be a Christian, and my faith tells me about when this will, and will not happen. I have had to often re-evaluate the duality (us/them) and domination (Christ came once and was humbled/crucified voluntarily, but will return in authority as king and by force put down all rebellion, bringing in world peace), and I assure you, in the many, MANY years I have been around and working (through music) in several faith institutions, the music is terrific, but within white (in particular, but not only) Protestantism, nondenominational especially, equality of women is “anathema” and these places are producing wife-beaters and wife-killers. They do not communally or prominently acknowledge the laws of the land in their hearts, and many (those who do not ordain women, or and hate even the concept of them in leadership, let alone of gays, or lesbians) , despite sometimes sheltering a battered woman, or helping her (i’ve been helped a few times recently), they will NOT stop sheltering the doctines and attitudes that produce more batterred women, and more overentitled men. this is behind the “fatherhood” movement, and it produces a form of social schizophrenia, in which we have a public school system where “God” is not allowed, or prayer, yet public policy where “faith-based” advice and policies are promoted. Well, which is it, folks?
That’s all the psycho- social-analysis for this post. What’s below (written earlier) relates more directly to this particular domestic violence double-homicide, kidnapping, assault, and tragedy which began with “she was estranged,” and a look at the neighborhood response.
What probably kept that woman and her children alive was her willingness to fight back. What put her at risk was compromising the existing restraining order (including drop off at curb), and (possibly) her not having the means or intent to, at ALL times since it was issued, NEVER compromise it AT ALL. ONE means might be for her husband to have understand that she understood her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, and having it in the home, AND her willingness and intent to act on it, if even 3 yards of a restraining order was violated. This sends a clear message, and would put that man back in a place to reconsider whether he wants to test the limits, or can talk or plan, or manipulate his way out of obeying that order.
The courts need to do more to communicate this necessity to women who have just separated. They need to understand that NOW, it’s OK to take a personally aggressive stance and back it up with a willingness to act if boundaries are violated. That IS, after all, WHY the “United States of America” is no longer a British colony, or any other colony (so far), and we might do well to keep communicating this principle to our young, boy and girl alike. Not to belabor the point, but our schools absolutely do NOT, do this at this point, and I say, intentionally so. You can’t “manage” people so well who understand their self-worth.
However Susan Autenreith may have been raised, at the crucial time, she found something within herself to say No, and stand up to this. Having made a mistake, she didn’t condemn herself or try to talk out of the situation. Gun meant FIGHT BACK, YELL DIRECTIONS TO HE KIDS, & CALL FOR HELP.
How Logical Is This?
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About that MOM?
Let’s go chrono, OK?
Not all (female) readers have been through the process of, say,
(1) childbirth,
(2) being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, battered, and in short abused, or other situations which tell you “Danger! Danger!,”
(3) filing and getting a PFA (domestic violence restraining, or etc.) order with kickout, indicating “Danger! Danger!” to all and “STAY AWAY!” to Dad, (and, you can’t buy guns, either, or own them), and then
(4) IMMEDIATELY after these at least actions (applying for a temporary, filing with judge, getting it signed, serving the husband (which then in effect throws him out of the house in some manner), going to court for a hearing to have it made permanent, having it made “permanent” (i.e., facing the ex in that court hearing), and meanwhile attempting to explain this to one’s children in terms they can understand why he can’t live here anymore, then — with a restraining order in effect — typically the NEXT stop is the mediator who will then proceed to act as though there wasn’t really, any serious domestic violence (other than, meetings may be separate) and say, “OK, so long as it’s peaceful communications around the children” and then design some visitation plan any other divorcing couple might have, even the most amicable divorces. Which appears to have happened in this place.
In 1992, Jack Straton, Ph.D. (NOMAS: National Org. of Men Against Sexism) recommended a cooling off period.
So far, no one has figured this out, evidently.
(5) Agreeing, after this, to a custody/visitation exchange plan which basically has a split personality:
Hey, he was so dangerous, you had to get a judge to tell him to stay away, and order no weapons in the home, BUT . . . .. BUT . . . . . it’s OK to give this same, by now pretty distraught or indignant/upset man access to the fruit of his loins, regularly . . . . After all, what about a child’s right to bond with both parents?
This, I say, gives the man, the woman, and the children a mixed message. I have also learned (the hard way) since, the courts ALSO are getting contradictory messages (and funding) about these matters. IS domestic violence a crime, or not a crime?
And so we get cases like the Autenreiths, where Dad didn’t LIKE having that protective order in place, and made this clear with a 9mm. His girlfriend helped him get a gun. Again, his girlfriend.
WHICH BRINGS UP THIS POINT: Telling a man to not own weapons, and get rid of any he does own, doesn’t prevent him — in the least — from grabbing one from a friend who has one (or in this case, a girlfriend buying one for him. I believe this is called a straw purchase, and laws exist to address this, but still, it points out that generally there is a way around the law for those who intend to find one).
(How long were they separated? How hard is it for a man with a plan to get around a piece of paper?)
in order to STOP the cycle of abuse which, without intervention, generally does one thing — escalate, until someone is killed, or more than one,
WHAT ARE THE ODDS? HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THAT MAN? HOW WILL HE RESPOND TO THE PFA?
=======
HERE IS THE RESPONSE REGARDING “PFA’S” TO THIS PARTICULAR ASSAULT, BATTERY, CHILD-KIDNAPPING, THREATS, CAR CHASE AND DOUBLE-HOMICIDE. I HAVE EMPHASIZED ANY AREAS THAT SHOW UNCERTAINTY, LOOPHOLES FOR DANGER:
WOMEN’S RESOURCES OF MONROE COUNTY (PA): PFA’s WORK IN MOST CASES
By Andrew Scott
Pocono Record June 12, 2009
A protection-from-abuse order [“”PFA”] may be just a piece of paper unable to stop the likes of Daniel Autenrieth, the Northampton County man who threatened his wife at gunpoint, kidnapped their son and led police on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal shootout in Tobyhanna.
{To review: PFA, then:
- DEAD PEOPLE — 2, OFFICER, MAN
- WOUNDED — 1, OFFICER
- VERY TRAUMATIZED — 9 YEAR OLD SON, MOM, OTHER KIDS}}
The fact remains that most people with PFAs filed against them comply with those court orders and don’t do what Autenrieth did. So although PFAs aren’t absolutely guaranteed to stop someone who’s unbalanced or really intent on doing harm, people who are being physically abused or feel threatened with physical harm in relationships still should apply for PFAs.
{{Perhaps they should also buy a Lotto ticket?}}
That was the message at a Thursday press conference at Women’s Resources of Monroe County in Delaware Water Gap. Women’s Resources is part of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which provides a network of advocacy, legal, counseling, medical and other support services for domestic violence victims.
. . .
In Pennsylvania, PFA violators can face up to six months in county jail and fines of up to $1,000, depending on the severity of the violation, said Wendy Bentzoni, a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office.
If a woman requests a PFA against her husband and he consents to the order’s terms
- Being evicted from the home he/she shares with the plaintiff/victim and having no contact with that person.
- Being evicted, but being allowed to have contact.
- Being allowed to stay in the home as long as there is no physical abuse or threat of physical abuse.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
Of the 450 PFAs granted in Monroe County last year, more than 125 were violated by defendants, Bentzoni said.
{{OK, Let’s look at that. Suppose it was 150. 150 violated out of 450 is 1 out of 3. That means for every 2 that WERE kept (as far as they know — by whether or not a violation was reported or not) 1 was not. How do you like them odds? Your PFA has a 33.33% of being violated (in which case, see above for potential risk/fallout).
In some cases, getting a PFA filed against an abuser can worsen the victim’s situation because the abuser sees it as the victim trying to take power away from the abuser{{WHICH IT IS INCIDENTALLY}}, she said. Desperate to retain that power over the victim, the abuser might become even more dangerous.
“Against someone with no fear of the law or jail, a PFA might not be the best action to take,” Kessler said. “In that case, we explore other options with the victim. The goal is to get the victim out of a vulnerable position.”
If the abuser is the sole breadwinner for the victim and their children, fear of losing the abuser’s financial support also might deter the victim from applying for a PFA, Kessler said.
Well, I know in my case it sure delayed getting one. Often economic abuse can precede physical.
Economic abuse can precedes and enables the physical AND IS PRE-MEDITATED. If the targeted person can’t afford to get away, or see how they could conceivably do so, they will take their chances staying, possibly. What a great choice — homelessness or increasing domestic abuse.
So, it seems to me if we want a less violent world, the most sensible thing would be focus on teaching children and young people how to become economically independent. In a wonderful contradiction of intent, we DON’T! The entire public schools system in the U.S.A., for the most part, consists of teaching children how to be submissive and take orders, leave the thinking up to the experts, who will grade them, and prepare them for this: College, and Jobs. Not, College and BUSINESSES. Or College, and understanding the economic principles that would help them become business owners, investors, cash-stream producers, foundation producers, and independent thinkers. How hypocritical.
And that includes independent thinking about how to survive financially should they choose to have children, or should they not choose to have children, but set up housekeeping (and sleeping) with a partner that might become sick, injured, or — face it – incarcerated. They should not have to go nurse off Dad, or Mom, or Big Brother the Welfare State, in this case. The goal should NOT be lifetime jobs, but lifetime progression towards financial independence. They cannot do this if they aren’t studying people who have accomplished this, and the basic principles of wealth.
We should also teach them not to let any partner or potential partner disarm them economically — whether it be job, or bank account, or credit, or access to transportation etc. That any such action is aggression, and dangerous to their welfare, creating an artificial co-dependence. They should know this going into relationships.
Now right there, we have a SERIOUS problems. Many world religions don’t accept this, and are not likely to.
Well, maybe they should, in the US, then lose their tax-exempt status. Believe me, I’ve thought of it. Because if they are contributing to the climate of “It’s OK to dominate a woman by any means (or weapon) that comes to hand, because it makes you more of a man,” then they should have to fork over the taxes that society might need to take care of the resulting mess.
And I’ll tell you another “secret” (not a real secret) — one I’ve been thinking about more recently. The majority of these institutions are in a co-dependent and domination relationship within their own ranks. If they didn’t dominate and under-educate them on their own sacred scripts (men and women alike), in the US, at least, many people would not be so dependent on spiritual, social, and emotional nourishment on the weekends and maybe ONE weekday. But that is another post, and probably, blog.
We ought to teach, besides, reading math writing, sport and the arts (to put it roughly) the PROCESSES and VALUES OF:
Self-sufficiency, Self-defense, and self-discipline, to the point of in-depth excellence and mastery in one primary area. With that I believe will come sufficient self-esteem not to enter into too many co-dependent relationships.
I recommend reading John Taylor Gatto’s short book called Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, in which he says, plainly, that the seven lessons he, as a teacher (and at the time NY State Teacher of the Year” actually is teaching is not “relevance” and “interrelationship” of subjects, but the exact opposite. Specifically, in order from the chapter: “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher,” they are:
- CONFUSION
- CLASS POSITION
- INDIFFERENCE
- EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
- INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY
- PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM
- ONE CAN’T HIDE.
The next chapter is called the “psychopathic school” after which he details his efforts of getting a little girl who read beautifully out of a class of bad readers. The girl (reading aloud beautifully) tells him how the administration had explained to her mother that she was, in reality, a “bad reader who had fantasies of being a better reader than she was.” Then, the author relates how the principal tried the same thing on him: how was he, a substitute to know whether or not this child could read.
MY EXPERIENCE: This actually is at the heart of the educational AND the family law system of “experts.” My “sin” was homeschooling the children, and having fantasies (as do many single mothers leaving abuse) that we could make a sound decision on behalf of our sons and daughter, after we’d made just about the soundest one around — LEAVING the situation!
Consider this:
Our form of compulsory schooling was an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted — with guns — by about 80% of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost being Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard. (p. 25,
There is more, but as I review those 7 lessons above, I can’t help thinking about the uncommon similarities between abuse — even it’s definitions — and the family law system, as well as the concept of using another abusive system to handle abuse by one person towards another in the presence of children.
Is ALL conflict bad? No, conflict involving true self-defense, or boundary violations.
Is marriage, or an “intimate partner relationship,” a person as property contract? A relationship as property contract? I believe the law calls it a FIDUCIARY relationship. As such, no one has a right to commit what in other context would be a crime, to protect loss of contact with this former sexual partner, parent of one’s children, children, or the breakdown of a relationship.
WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT OF PFAs and RESTRAINING ORDERS, the enforcement should be thorough, immediate, clear, and strong. The dialogue above illustrates why, in practice, it ain’t. SO the conflicts go on, and escalate.
I have taught lots of children (and adults) in lots of venues and classrooms, and non-class situations. There are always rules ,and in-progress negotiation about common standards, there is always a dynamic flexibility within the group, there is the matter of consensus and critical mass.
The superb choir that got me going into music was about 40 in number, and we stood in mixed quartets, holding our own parts, produced records, soloists, and in general moved mountains and kicked butt musically. It was powerful stuff. We rehearsed almost daily and worked to pay for some of our own needs (including uniforms, painting the room, and going to conferences). We associated after school (and sometimes before) and in other venues than school; we ate, played, and attended concerts together.
Since then, I have sung in (and sometimes directed) choirs numbering from approximately 12 up to over 100. The ideal size (and one of the best choirs I was in) was about 18, or very maximum 20, if they were professionals and unified. I have had a little choir of only 11 do amazing things, because it was small enough to be responsive.
I have always thought it odd that the top ensembles are generally smaller than a typical public school classroom, and many of them not much larger than a large family, with a cousin or two. It brings out the best when there is a unified goal that is reasonable (but still stretching limits) to the people involved. The best choirs also were VOLUNTARY, not compulsory. They chose challenging music (to keep the participants growing) but always taking into account that the audience might not feel so esoteric in general. They mixed and matched, but they HAD to set a fairly high standard technically and musically – or in portrayal.
How does this relate to the Wife who Fought Back?
The system they were ensared in was too large, and is ruling and prognosticating by “the odds.” MOST people (translation: men) do not violate the PFAs, after all, just over 125 out of 450 did in this particular area. Therefore, the women should keep on coming, because what else could they do? It MIGHT not result in this, after all, NOT ALL men do what Mr. Autenreith did.
And we have this growing crisis of “fatherlessness”? That’s a fatherless family, and it just made a peace officer’s kids fatherless, too. I wonder what kind of father the nine-year old will make, should he become one.
I think the doctrine is becoming a little self-defeating, if not downright dangerous. I mean, this is all about the children, right? It’s all because children in single-parent families are at risk.
Well, yeah, with some vigilantes running around the place . . . . . However, if she’d been armed and determined…
I think we (Responsible Citizens) need to take a serious look at the Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher and ask, is this what we are willing to be taught, as adults, by our elected officials? I mean, the same values ARE shared, it is the “Hidden Currriculum” overall, I’d say. And it’s downright un-American, including “parenting classes.” The government already had a shot at the majority of the children in this country, through the public school system. If it were my kids, and the teachers failed, I’d go find me a new teacher and system.
OH, I FORGOT TO MENTION — I DID. AND MY CHILDREN WERE STOLEN ON AN OVERNIGHT VISITATION (UNSUPERVISED) PRECISELY BECAUSE I DID. AND PUT BACK IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THEIR MAMA HAD ALREADY FIGURED OUT THAT THE 7 LESSONS WERE BOGUS.
This is a system that brooks no competitors. It allows some, but scoops up any stragglers, and family law is a great place to find them, and weaken them for the snatch.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Where’s Mom?” Or, “Virtually Invisible in Public Policy Agenda” — The Amazing, Disappearing Word, “Mother”!
If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
I revisited WhiteHouse.Gov/Issues/Families (again) to check my memory or whether the Change we are to hold in our national imagination, did not include — almost at all — the concept of MOTHER in association with the word FAMILY.
I was right, and will demonstrate this for you today:
Despite public proclamations that we are suffering from “father-absence,” in fact, our country’s going to hell fast unless we declare war on fatherlessness (source of society’s ills), I am here to tell you, to the contrary, public policy actually is suffering — and has been for some years now — from “MOTHER-ABSENCE.”
I mean, I went looking and the word is just about Not There! Below (skip down to the color-coded section if you are short on time) I am going to take you by the hand (so to speak) and show you this, from “whitehouse.gov.” If time and fate allow, on another day, I will show you the almost identical phenomenon on the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” website. Possibly this relates to the respectable, and long-established nonprofit having taken its funding from certain government departments (like HHS), or perhaps it relates to its Board of Directors (I did look); it seems to be a sea-change. We’ve gone so Ga-ga over Dada that it has become necessary, supposedly, to eradicate the mere mention of “Mama” from the vocabulary.
I have picked up a similar trend, possibly, in even the National Organization for Women, which I declare HAS helped me considerably in family law matters (no, I am not a member), but which appears in some respects to have dropped the ball. It seems that no one can really picture a world with the word “mother” in it, but instead daycare is in order — only. LGBT rights and Pro-Choice candidates (that means, choice to abort) are the word of the day. The fantastic background, for example, that I see on the California NOW Family Law Page, seems to have languished since about 2005. More on that later. Yet feminism, motherhood, and choice to stay home with one’s own, ARE women’s issues. That topic, I have not fully looked at yet — I am too upset by the current topic.
Women are allowed to exist, just not for the most part, “mothers.” I don’t think this is accidental.
How are we supposed to fulfill our maternal obligations in any personally responsible manner if someone one at the Top Doesn’t Remind us of it (and promise to Reward us for it, too, you know, the carrot and stick routine of behavioral modification? That is, FYI, what our government is doing these days to Fathers. It’s stroking their — egos — verbally, talking them, it hopes, into an upright, erect, and functional position within their families.
Which, apparently, do not include mothers. I mean, can YOU Find it on these pages?
I went looking again, and if you can tolerate my bad taste, off-color sarcasm (which makes me — and I’m a Momma with a bad hair day in progress — a little happier). If you can’t change it, mock it. But I mean, how come this type of talk is being taken seriously? Is our public education system, nationally speaking, worse off than I even imagined? I mean– is it that no one is LOOKING? Or is it that this is now normal talk?
You can either scroll right down past the opening (long) dialogue (again, which makes me feel a little better for having said it) to the portion where I start color-coding a page of the white house web page (I think this is called profiling, but I don’t think it’s illegal) to illustrate just how many times the word “mother” appears on a full blown description of “Families.” and the Obama Administration’s agenda for us.
I know someone who runs a blog called “Mothers of Lost Children.” (wordpress.com in case you were curious). However, this pages talks plenty about “children,” but seems to have lost a grip on the fact that before you get a single child, ANY child, somehow, somewhere, sthere has to be a delivery. And she can be cutt open, conscious or unconscious, she can push it out, with or without help, but THE second that baby comes, alive, out of her womb, SHE becomes technically speaking, a MOTHER. So IO just feel that as a good proportion of the population, and as mother of ALL of the US population, wherever we presently are, the word MOTHER should be statistically a little better represented than it currently is. Below.
Of course the reason I myself am actually LOOKING at these sites, is that I want answers for why my mothering wasn’t good enough for this court system; behaviorally, I committed no crime, obeyed the law, and shared my kids with Dad. I also worked, taught, and educated those girls. I speculate (below, top rant — not summary rant) on what the cardinal sin was. You may not be interested, but I bet the color coded guide to the Family page might be relevant to these discussions. Perhaps — this will show why I got all hot and bothered when a group from Australia surfaced, talking about the issues of domestic violence and poverty, and could actually SAY the word “mothers” in a non-negative sense. (NCSMC).
Well, wordpress takes about 4 minutes to save these days, so here it goes:
I complained about this last April, also
I know I have been picking on “President Obama” in this blog.
Well, He’s not my Daddy, and he’s not the Nation’s Daddy, He’s not the Father of all the Head Start Children, and He’s not my Webster’s Dictionary or Roget’s Thesaurus. Neither He, nor the Executive Branch of the United States, nor all 3 branches together, not one entity is my Messiah either.
You can’t tell this by reading what the White House has been saying, or taking a good look at some of the HHS budget. We are in Designer-Family mode (designer-nation mode?) Have we ALL forgotten the words, republic? Legislature? etc.? Just because some people have fancier, faster, and more interlaced internet connections (i’ve had to FIGHT even to keep mine on, post-divorce), that shouldn’t eradicate our form of government (of, by for the people, right?) How many people, specifically?
I’m a domestic violence survivor, and a vocal/choral person. My BUSINESS has been paying attention to words, for performance, and for survival. They are indicators, they are signposts, and they can incite people to different activities, including sometimes wars, or genocides. And I have studied some of these, and just as there ARE parallels between PTSD after domestic violence and PTSD after war, there are also parallels between the talk PRECEDING such things as the Holocaust and Rwanda. Hate-talk, broad sweeping declarations, and scapegoating.
I can’t figure out what’s behind scapegoating motherhood as a whole, unless someone really HAS produced an artificial womb, and we will not longer be even needed for the first 9 months or so. Whatever’s behind it, I say, wake up!
Back to our President. He’s NOT my kids, or the nation’s kids, “Daddy.”
He’s the Elected (and not by a landslide, either) President, and sworn-to-uphold the Constitution Man on the Job. I think too many Americans (perhaps we may point to our school systems?) have forgotten that document, along with the Bill of Rights, and have possibly lost our moorings among the designers of the titanic (pun intended) ship of state.
LINGUISTICALLY, I can say that language doesn’t even match biology on many of the white house sites, evidence-based practice or no “evidence-based practice.”
Upholding the Constitution and performing the office of President — and not designing and restructuring families, linguistically or any other way — IS the job description, among other things — detailed in the U.S. Constitution.
ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY
I’m a mother. I’m no longer kicking out babies to shortly thereafter kick out of my house (to go to Head Start, Early Head Start, or offer their poor little selves for a 0 to 5 program evaluation of “how children learn” or “the effect of paternal involvement on school readiness” or such.
I didn’t become a Mom:
undereducated,
poor(relatively speaking), or
unacquainted with responsible MOTHERhood,
Like many of my cohorts, I got more than a bachleor’s degree — and professional experience — before hooking up and settling down, I wasn’t clueless on how life works or how to have a healthy baby.
I also didn’t become a Mom even outside wedlock, which happened mostly to be simply part of my belief system, both common sense and faith.
I also didn’t become a Mom in my teens (or pre-teens), or even 20s, but late 30s, in fact I was 40 for one child. Nor am I at all alone in this statistical profile.
I had not been taught how instinctively to tell when wedlock might turn into a “headlock” which mine did, physically speaking. Maybe a more promiscuous lifestyle, or prostitution for that matter, MIGHT have taught me to judge men better, but I doubt it.
Now I have a rhetorical question, for Father Obama: I realize you are recently a President (although as a Senator — and in 2007, the 10th richest in the US, according to one study I read), you did not START the Fatherhood thing, and we now have a pretty good idea who. (“WE” meaning women who’ve been through what I have. Note. Most of us wouldn’t qualify for spitting out more kids for the 0 to 5 program. One thing I have recently Re-qualified for is Food Stamps.) Actually, I have two questions:
QUESTION 1:
(1) Where’s the Change in the fatherhood propanda? Aren’t we done yet? If not, why not? You are talking just like Bush & Clinton in this regard. The talk matches the budget — you don’t want the kids with Mama, and you consider OUR kids YOUR (communal) property, i.e., the “Property of the State.” While this may be appropriate for a prison uniform (only) or a courthouse, it is NOT appropriate for boys, girls, and adult mothers, or, for that matter, law-abiding fathers.
When about half the US is female, and a GOOD portion of those are OVER 21 years AND mothers, one time or another, Where’s the Representation of this word in the White House Style Sheets? Because I’ve looked, and I see “women” (though not filed, for the most part, under “families”) but I don’t see “MOTHER.”
So rhetorical question one is, that aint’ change — where’s the change in this talk, action, and budgeting?
QUESTION 2:
(2) Since you have now proved how a single MOTHER can get a son into the U.S.Presidency (and married to a Harvard grad), and since
I have now proved how a single MOTHER can get get one intact (female) child into the UC Berkeley, and graduating in the top 3% of her class, despite hell she went through from 2-8 (when I filed TRO with kickout) and MORE hell and abuse (including parental kidnapping — unchecked, unreported, and uncorrected), and I also proved how to get my entire household OFF food stamps and within plain view of solvent — withOUT taking up some of the $XX,000 of state (or is it federal?) public education funds to do so — how come YOU can’t keep YOUR administration out of MY family’s pants, purse, and pursuit of excellence, let alone happiness?
How come you can’t say the word “MOTHER” on the site “FAMILIES” in “WHITE HOUSE.GOV”
I’m now back on a Food Stamps leash (no nonfoods, no cat food, no vitamins, no fish oil, and only certain– higher -riced — stores are acceptable).
While I”m on the topic, we have recently learned that the head of “Office of Child Support Enforcement” (Nicholas Soppa) and “Project Save Our Children” is himself a deadbeat Dad in the employ of — get this – the largest federal department, you guessed it, HHS. Last I heard, he spends his weekends in jail rather than pay that money-grubbing bitch (MOTHER of his children). I doubt it’s that he can’t, or needs job training. He is himself a deadbeat Dad. And how come the HHS refuses to garnish his wages?
Why has “competent single mother” become an unpronounce-able concept? Why have women like myself become a social pariah? Because I might show someone else where certain policies are full of holes
Now, I had myself off that, and my household too, until Family Law had a better program design, a seamless, womb to tomb, morning to night, hospital to hospital (birth/death), nationalized everything plan. I didn’t want to sign up for the educational portion of this, which REALLY, I guess put a monkey wrench in the works — a solvent single mother not on food stamps and off the radar. “Help, help, get her back!” Was the sense I had.
And I was within range of getting off that child support safety (?) net too. I ALMOST made it. I called this behavior “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” which didn’t take $100K a year for me, IN fact, I have since learned, I was making somewhere around what it costs to incarcerate an adult male in my state, for a year.
But I had just not done my patriotic and Personal Responsiblity to JOIN the welfare state. I wasn’t earning enough money to fund a foundation, or REALLOY kick in some tax revenues, NOR was my family, really on welfare and as such providing fodder for the Ph.D. programs’ federal grants to study.
(NOTE: this may sound irrational. Don’t judge until you’ve followed more of the links, posts, and data I have, many of them on this site. I was stunned, too. I felt fiscally clobbered at first, finding out how, why, and pretty much by whom my household — FAMILY – had gotten legally clobbered.)
Anyhow, back to then, me as single mother, daring to pursue happiness without enough government guidance. This HAD to be stopped. I would like to note here, that the guidance counselor (unsolicited), self-appointed, for the job, and just graduated from a government (actually, state) certification program, at which time it became clear that, as wet as (he, coincidentally, not “she” at this point) was under the ears in this category, this was no deterrent. Full of age, gender, pride, and presumption, he jumped, full-immersion style, into my personal business and continued to attempt to run it against my will, even after I (politely) put him out of my house and closed the door afterwards. And said, No thank you.
In fact, it was in this person’s subsequent (again, unsolicited) essays to me, about my sins (what else?), including dire prophecies and psychological armchair insights, (and a medical diagnosis or two of me, or my children thrown in for good measure), that I noticed this linguistic tricks, and perspective-switching talk, such as calling something “dysfunctional” which had already been called “violent” and mentally erasing about 20 hears of my life history, addressing me as if I was a little ignorant child, and a wayward one at that.
Anyhow, several years ago< i was caught in the act of being Personally Responsible AND a Mother, and without a man in the house. I forgot to add, our daughters were seeing Daddy regularly, in fact weekly (unless he skipped by choice). Even though a DV restraining order was in place. We were healing, recovering, and prospering. Horrors! !!!
Enter “Family Law” venue, the reversal of the income growth chart, and back go Food Stamps, eventually. It took a little while, because I fought back. Oh yes, that’s not a responsible motherhood behavior either. No, no.
ANYHOW:
Virtually Invisible in Public Agenda
This should be not taken personally, although I am having a bit of hard time, on behalf of the many, many mothers who became noncustodial as what now seems to be an overdosage of federal fatherhood funding f–ing (excuse me..) “duking it out with” due process in the family law arena.
I have noticed this before. I thought I would visually and statistically SHOW how ODD it is that the word “mother” just went underground, in favor of “father.”
Hey, if cars are going off the road and hitting pedestrians (see my last “can we call it a Day on these “Days”? post), which they are (some of them kids, many of them women), one might look at mechanical system (laws, rules of court). One might look at the gas in the tank (VERY few do this, some do, Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net in the D.C. area being one, also people in StopFamilyViolence.now and some others have finally begun looking at the FUNDING) (see randijames.com also). FINALLY.
How many are also looking, perhaps at the carburetor? It adjusts the mix of gas and air in the inflow right? (I’m obviously no mechanic). How rich is the fuel? Is there oxygen?
Well, the “atmosphere” of the “inflow” (of gas — cf. $$) is the rarefied vocabulary of the tops, decisionmaking intake funnels of these places.
Today, we look at usage. WORDS.
WHERE’S MOM? WHERE ARE MOTHERS?
what did we do, to deserve to disappear?
I have some friends who belong to N.O.W. (I don’t) and we commented on the need to return
this issues of mothers and the courts to the dialogue. The public has a short attention, but it takes a good 18 years at least to raise a responsible father or a safe mother, or (tap on wood) perhaps both genders might make it to 21 without starting a family yet.
I personally feel that keeping the public education system both relevant and engaging MIGHT help in this matter, but that’s my private opinion.
I already did this for FVPF.org. Here, I am doing it for WHITEHOUSE.GOV/ISSUES/FAMILY.
The Message is in the Usage.
The Power of Repetition
WHAT IS THIS, GENDER/BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION PROFILING?
HOW DOES OBAMA/WHITE HOUSE/YOUR GOVT? LOVE THEE?
LET ME COUNT (and Color Code) THE WAYS.
- 1x PINK — mothers — ONE, and ONLY one, stellar appearance, (not independently of fathers.)
- 10x BROWN — Families
- BLUE — Fathers OR Fatherhood
- 4x GREEN — PARENTS
- 13x Grape — Children, Young people
- 3X RED: — Women. (“Ladies first”)
- (Never independent of “and men” or children
- 3x “and men”/1x “young men”
- “President Obama Is/was/are/will”
FAMILY
Progress
Ten days after taking office, the President established a White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, led by Vice President Biden. The Task Force is focused on raising the living standards of middle-class, working families across America.
The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided needed support to families enduring difficult times.
- The Act protects health coverage for 7 million Americans who lose their jobs through a 65 percent COBRA subsidy to make coverage affordable.
- The Act also boosts family incomes by expanding the Child Tax Credit to cover an additional 10 million children in working families and creating a new Make Work Pay tax credit.
- To help working mothers and fathers obtain quality child care, the Act includes an additional $2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion for Head Start, and $1.1 billion for Early Head Start.
- To fight hunger, the Act includes a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, as well as funding for food banks and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
- The Act increases the Weatherization Assistance Program by $5 billion to help low income families save on their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient.
- The Act increases job training funds for those who need them most, with $3.95 billion in additional funding for the Workforce Investment system, which will support green job training, summer jobs for young people, and other opportunities.
- The Act provides increased income support, including an increase of $25 per week for Unemployment Insurance recipients and incentives for states to expand unemployment insurance eligibility, as well as an extra $250 payment to Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries and new resources for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
Guiding Principles
A strong nation is made up of strong families. Every family deserves the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had – to make a better future for themselves and their children. Strong families will always be front and center of President Obama’s agenda.
Support Working Families
President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America. And he is restoring fairness to the tax code and increasing child care so that working families have the support they need.
Reform Health Care
President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctors, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Invest in Education
President Obama is committed to providing every child access to a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career. First, the President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for our youngest children, from birth through age 5. Next, President Obama will reform and invest in K-12 education so that America’s public schools deliver a 21st Century education that prepares all children for success in the new global workplace. Finally, President Obama is committed to ensuring that America will regain its lost ground and have the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by 2020.
Promote Work-family Balance
Millions of women and men face the challenge of trying to balance the demands of their jobs and the needs of their families. Too often, caring for a child or an aging parent puts a strain on a career or even leads to job loss. President Obama believes we need flexible work policies, such as paid sick leave, so that working women and men do not have to choose between their jobs and meeting the needs of their families.
Strengthen Families
President Obama was raised by a single parent ** and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.
**{{President Obama’s parent: REALLY? WAS IT A MOTHER OR A FATHER? IS THIS A PUBLIC SECRET?? CAN WE SAY “MOTHER” HERE?}}}
RELATED BLOG POSTS
MON, JUNE 22, 9:29 AM EST
A little more backstory on the famous and exceptional fathers who came to the White House for the “Responsible Fatherhood” event on Friday.
SUN, JUNE 21, 10:27 AM EST
A special Father’s Day video, and an op-ed from the President on being a responsible father.
Includes video.
FRI, JUNE 19, 7:39 PM EST
The President hosts a town hall at the White House to discuss the importance of fatherhood and personal responsibility.
Updated with video.
FROM THE PRESS OFFICE
FRI, JUNE 19, 4:15 PM EST
FRI, JUNE 19, 9:28 AM EST
Presidential Proclamation Father’s Day
FRI, JUNE 19, 8:26 AM EST
ADVISORY: President Obama to Discuss Importance of Fatherhood and Personal Responsibility
MY COMMENTARY:
Hey, I had a choice of candidates, and he got my vote, for many reasons. ONE of which was, I felt that perhaps, having been raised by a single MOTHER (translated below into the word “parent”), he might acknowledge, along with me, a single mother who, absent government interference through this family law forum, and despite domestic violence, was shouldering my “Personal Responsibility” without complaining about it, hesitating, or dodging it, either. I’m not anti–work. I also loved my children. In fact, when someone was interfering with me doing this, I actually sought help so I could continue to carry my share of work, and I already was of parenting. When their education was inferior, I also returned to the former, superior brand of it, innocently enough and reasonably so.
MORAL: NEVER, if possible get on one more than 3 governmentally organized radars simultaneously.
Little did then I know what demonstration projects had been projected upon our populace in this geographic area, and how deeply this would trickle down to the courtroom.
WHY did I not know?
Well, if your car ain’t running, would you think of looking at the atmosphere? or its mechanical operation? And how many people would go look at a federal agency (and its history) as well as a host of related credentialing and certifying organizations, and a child support agency, to figure out why this car keeps running off the side of the road (of evidence, facts, and fairness) into pedestrians? ANd yet, so extensive is the operating system these days, that this is about HOW ponderous, how networked, and how invasive and pervasive some very, very basic human processes are.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
When I did certain kinds of music, for years, I lived, breathed, talked and walked certain melodies, harmonies, vocabularies. Even in some of my mental down time (including going to, from and sometimes during school, as I took buses), and on weekends, and among my friends, this was what and who we were, enthusiastically so. We knew the jargon, and used it and could discern varieties of practice within it.
WELL, the Family Experts live, breathe, talk, and walk certain jargon with each other too. When Federal talks to Nonprofit talks to University talks to Court, guess what? that’s common air inhaled.
And where’s Mom? Where did she go? Is she hiding under “Women’s Issues?” Maybe. . . . I’ll have to go look (again) Where is the positive, federally promoted ACT of MOTHERING or being a MOTHER?
Even God, and an apostle or two, compared himself in some aspects to a nursing mother, a tender nurse cherishing. Jesus Christ compared himself one time (in grief) to a mother hen. One of his hallmarks (hey– it’s my blog! Did I say no religion? My Government hasn’t said that — they have a national religion (see last few posts) and faith-based advisories too. So, deal with it!) was that he actually NOTICED women that his disciples and others ignored: widows, women caught in adultery, (Where was the man), a broke widow casting in her last mite (for the cause), and old woman stooped over, a woman with a fever, and so forth. The reason I have noticed this is the stark contrast with many buildings, and locations, I’ve been in using the word “God,” and they not only didn’t notice women (except when their services were needed), they didn’t notice when one of the men was beating on one of his women. Or, living with him, they lacked, when he didn’t — same household. Basics.
Where did the concept of Motherhood go?
I gather, it is not wanted. We are to go to work, no matter what the wages and what the future, or hand over our children to a federal program. Alternately, we could seek to enforce child support, in which case, sooner or later, it’s quite likely that any “dude” who woudln’t willingly pay it may protest, and go grab his kids back, in which case she is STILL handing over them kids.
WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?
Look above: they are “our” children.
I want to know why the word “mother” is in disfavor, and whose policy was it to eliminate the usage. As a copyeditor, I know that there are “style sheets” and that these differ with different publishing houses.
As an educator, I read “The Language Police” (about the text publishing industry, telling how self-censorship affects even the proposal level of textbooks, for political correctness. I also know that, as in courts, California leads the way, along with Texas, in this arena).
So, HOW COME a private nonprofit (well-funded) dedicated to prevention of violence against families, including WOMEN, has now gone all gaga over fathers? And how come this reminded me of the whitehouse site as well?
How many people here noticed that the incoming “change.gov” did not have a hyperlink for (correct me if I was wrong), “women.”
How dare anyone talk so much about families, which requires 9 months (usually) of gestation, followed by labor for even one baby, to come to suck air, and sometimes this even can occur outside a hospital or without a doctor, and the child survive, or thrive, yet not say the word “mother?”
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves”
with 8 comments
She “did everything right,” filed a protective order and “reported every violation,” and even moved out of a home she owned, but still her death was her fault, because she (being a state employee) didn’t hook up with “agencies such as ourselves” to develop a safety plan. it wasn’t the county prosecutor’s fault because, well, sometimes domestic violence just “spirals out of control.” It wasn’t her coworkers’ faults (I don’t say that it was), because they (self-report) they were concerned and talking about intervention. it wasn’t any police officer’s fault, because bail should’ve been set higher. It wasn’t, as far as I can tell, anyone’s fault, is the general conclusion.
It is a self-defense mechanism, and entirely human, to ask “why” when something this horrific happens. It challenges a lot of theories (myths?) about the field of “domestic violence” and shakes up one’s confidence in authorities that were supposedly handling these problems so the rest of us could get about our lives.
Clearly it is in the interest of the stability of the social fabric (at least for those not IN such relationships currently, for whom stability basically doesn’t really exist outside the self-created kind) that said authorities should be interviewed, published, do press conferences and give an explanation. Then the public can accept their explanation, or ease all but the most persistent of interests, and go about their business, while the police, prosecutors, judges, and others continue to go about THEIR business of issuing protective orders that don’t protect, and releasing people with clear criminal intent and identified disrect for the law, on their own “recognizance.”
Case in point, this suicidal/murdering father was known to be a check-bouncer and significantly behind on child support. When he came up with $1,500 bail, why were no questions asked about why he could raise a bit less than that for his past-due support? He had 3 sons.
Why would not, of all places, the coworkers at DFYS where she worked, not see that this man was seeing $$ in a relationship, even though she herself may have thought this meant “love.” (or companionship).
Here’s the article, then my commentary/questions — below it. This is the 3rd article I’ve posted on the Zindell/Frisco situation in Toms River, NJ.
August 17, 2009
Toms River murder-suicide highlights domestic violence cycle
{{That’s ONE spin. I personally — from afar — think it actually highlights system failure, and inexcusable system failure, too. What about ‘evidence-based practice in this field, in NJ?}}
I would like to share my dialogue on reading the post-mortems of this account:
First of all, any sense that in Ocean County, the word isn’t out about this type of crime, should be made clear:
DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CASES REPORTED BY NEW JERSEY STAR LEDGER RESULTING IN MURDER-SUICIDE FROM 1998-2008
(The Blood & Tears of Domestic Violence: A Survivor’s Revelation)(note: she has a Victim Safety plan as well, read a few paragraphs: http://www.DonnaSavage.com)
NOW REGARDING TOMS RIVER 2009:
Sources of commentary (per this article):
{{note” The initial violations did not involve acts of tremendous violence” . notice attitude. This is what i ran across in my own case, when I attempted to tell police, in an incident that I took violations of court orders seriously. I also took threats to abduct seriously. Too bad they chose not to. I have explained to a policeman in a situation that because of the background of DV (and this was a situation that frightened me and had me trapped at home in a cul de sac situation without a vehicle to escape with) I am taking this seriously. It was “blown off.” This “blowing it off” response by a single policeman in my area was taken, apparently, as a declaration of “open season” for that season, and since, culminating — let’s hope — in felony child-stealing one and a half years later, as my reports of concern about that ALSO were “blown off”, shouted down, etc.
SO, . . ..
My question, to this response:
1. Who is Prosecutor Marlene Lynch Ford, and what does her (press conference statement) exonerating any type of legal/judicial/ or law enforcement miscarriage mean by “it just spiraled out of control” refer to specifically? Because it seems to me that a man was put into a mental hospital, when incarceration (without bail) would’ve been more appropriate, given the “lethality indicators” in his case. That’s my opinion.
2. How could a prosecutor be unaware of the prior lethality indicators in this case — was it lack of training? Was she so young and just unaware that economic abuse is an indicator, and that the love of money might be a motivator? My take on the situation was that someone in the police/legal community WANTED this woman dead, because otherwise, they would’ve taken appropriate measures to make sure she was not killed. How did her stalker know where she lived, since she’d left her own home (per this article), etc.
Has Prosecutor Lynch Ford had a family?
COMMENT FROM: Catholic Charities Providence House Domestic Violence Services Associate Director, Mary Pettrow:
From what I can see, Mary Pettrow is very experienced and understands the dangers of domestic violence, AND the word was out in Ocean County, among the powers that be. I searched, and found 11 categories of help through this Providence House listed in Ocean County alone! through Catholic Charities. They appear to be a press go-to resource after another DV murder. This one, in 2006 in which, of course, the neighbors and police had no idea. . ..
Neighbors, police had no indication of domestic problems
September 22, 2006
The Asbury Park Press consulted with Mary Pettrow of Providence House for an article on the murder of a Lacey Township woman. Pettrow told the Press that domestic violence is often a progressive pattern and that “warning signs are not always apparent to outside people.”
CRIMINAL DEFENSE TO DV CHARGES IN OCEAN COUNTY — A FACTOR IN THE CASE??
In my attempt to look up who that was in Lacey township in 2006, I came across this Criminal Defense firm, stating that while Northern NJ has plenty of lawyers, who’s a person accused of something to turn to in Southern (incl. Ocean County) Jersey?
(NOTE: the list of incidents above, dating back to 2000 was also found in my attempt to find out more about the 2006 this same Providence House associate director/director, had been consulted about 3 years earlier.)
And here’s their assertions of how aggressively they will defend against “domestic abuse” (notice: not “domestic violence”) in this Southern NJ shore area. While it is actually domestic VIOLENCE (even in the title to this section), notice how in the text it becomes “abuse” which somehow doesn’t sound so, well, you know, ‘violent.” NOTE: this isn’t accidental. NOTE: Well-known (and well-funded) DV group out of Minnesota has a well-known “Domestic ABUSE Intervention Program”, as is a different, “Domestic Abuse Project” out of Minneapolis with a well-known author in the field (Edleson, if I”m not mistaken — which I might be). Whether this is simply in those cases because a vowell makes a better acronym than the letter “V,” or because of ain intention to downgrade the severity of the issue in the public’s minds (i.e., in their language describing it), I cannot say, in that case at least. But I am on alert for the terminology-switch, for sure. This a criminal defense attorney firm (and domestic VIOLENCE is a crime — either felony, or misdemeanor) (and it sometimes escalates up to death(s)), so when that entity chooses to downgrade the term, I notice.
{{NOTE: isn’t that an interesting assembly of charges that seem to come hand in hand with “domestic violence” charges? Yet in the venue of family court, they are still convening studies (and taking federal grant money, LOTS of it) to “explicate” the context of this behavior in custody determinations, even though laws exist in many states saying that batterers don’t make good parents. That’s probably WHY more research is “needed” to (reframe) the discussion.
This criminal defense firm also mentions — right up front — things that many women are not told, fleeing DV into the arms of the local justice center, or agency. They are told to file restraining orders, and make custody arrangements, and not told what is going to happen in the family law venue (which exists primarily in part to weaken consideration of crimes as crimes, I say), nor will they be reminded THIS:
The stage at which a woman with children is likely to be remembering these above privileges (and thank God for them) is likely to be after a custody-switch in the family law venue which violated this due process. However, the person opposing the charges is not so likely to be unaware of these rights.
I know this is quite a bit astray from the Toms River case, except my question is, after a murder in 2006, same thing, same Providence House director quoting the same truths about the domestic violence cycle, how come someone died THEN? (And who?) and what policy changed, if any, after that?
Per zoominfo: Indicator the Probation Dept. might have been aware:
The Probation Association of New Jersey, Local 106 – [Cached Version]
http://www.catholiccharitiestrenton.org/news_arch.php?PHPSESSID=a3e29bff11ce388b63df4f67a63387fd
Several articles here refer to Providence House, including that Prosecutor Lynch-Ford might have known about it, as well as police chiefs, mayors, Ocean County Freeholders, and others. So “what gives” that Ms. Zindell didn’t get to their doors yet, or feel she needed to?
There is also a significant article on this same web page about a parallel (??) treatment program for men, dating to 2008, Feb.
I remember a certain close to Valentine’s Day long ago, a severe and escalating incident involving guns (and a close call) was defused. The next day, or soon after, I attempted to discuss this in the religious, joint-counseling we had been recommended to (and did) attend. BIG . . .. BIG . . .. mistake. They didn’t want me to bring this up, so I shut up. I was asked (in a show of grandiose, after the incident, and public, pretense – – absent any repentance or apology or acknowledgement for how this incident had affected me, including from those counseling — to go attended a couples Sweetheart dinner and dance at the same church. I was still in shock, and went, and entering into the ladies’ room, recognizing someone I knew whose husband knew of the incident, I collapsed. The ladies room of this church was apparently a safer place (to me, emotionally), than the pastor’s office in the exact same hallway. After speaking my piece to a woman, I wiped up off my face, straightened up, and went out to the event. I have a photo from it; and look frozen. I don’t see that its import registered — at all — with anyone employed by the church.
So, here is an article around Valentine’s Day written from the perspective of a man counseling men who have been court-ordered into treatment for Violence against, presumably, their intimate partners From the same organization and page as the Providence House one:
From Violence to Compassion
February 14, 2008
{{read on: sounds like the men coming through the program helped talk them into abandoning said plan, including accepting women as equals….}}
{{LET’s GET HONEST, anecdotal commentary: When I brought this up to individuals in my own case, the exact truth, and have continued bringing it, up, I found no such audience or understanding. This is in fact the general attitude I have noticed in the family law venue, and (generally speaking) in other venues in which “experts” tell those who have actually “experienced” violence and near-death or other trauma (ongoing, often enough), how to view their own experiences — namely, to minimize them. This is in effect telling people NOT to trust their gut and NOT to trust their own assessments of things that they actually have gone through assessing and taking legal action on. As such, it’s condescending, and yes, we do (whether male or female) pick up on the condescension AND the power tactics. One reason we understand this is that domestic violence IS a power tactic. The violence part is about power, punishment, and refusal to take orders, particularly from a woman (inferior in the relationship. Again, and unfortunately, too many “faith institutions” echo the same dynamics, including Catholics, Catholic Charities and other large institutions of various sorts.}}
Which brings me to the point of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood recipients in NJ. I thought, SURELY, the reason Ms. Zindell had to die was New Jersey somehow had missed the boat on udnerstanding that DV can be lethal, and they were also short of teaching “healthy marriages.” But here is someone out of Trenton, who is a devotee (apparently) of Dr. Sosny, who teaches, for a fee of course a Boot camp for Smart Marriage attendees.
(Where government programs meet market niches; we’re in it.)
Searching on David J Thomas (above’s) program area, Family Growth Services, it would appear that although there’s a high overlap with the department Ms. Zindell worked in, somehow a connection was made. Perhaps, because she wasn’t yet a “family”? Here:
Community and Population Served by the Organization
The Children and Family Service Division serves more than 500 abused and neglected children annually and attempts to also bring their families under the wing of its services. Its programs operate in Mercer, Burlington, Monmouth, and Ocean counties. Division programs are made possible by an extensive network of more than 700 employees and 400 volunteers. Many clients are referred to Catholic Charities from the corrections system or from the state Division of Youth and Family Services. ..Family Growth helps abusive families change violent patterns of interaction so that children can remain safely in their own home and rebuild their basic trust.
<><><><><><><><><><><>
Well, that’s it for this (now long) post, for now!
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
August 17, 2009 at 8:24 PM
Posted in "Til Death Do Us Part" (literally), After She Speaks Up - Reporting Domestic Violence and/or Suicide Threats, Fatal Assumptions, Lethality Indicators - in News
Tagged with domestic violence, Intimate partner violence, murder-suicides, retaliation for reporting, social commentary, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..