Posts Tagged ‘“We had no idea!”’
(Yet another) Court-enabled infanticide on court-ordered visitation
You want to know why I call the DV Restraining order process “certifiably insane?” Whether granted, or NOT granted? Here’s why.
-
Local News in Victorville, CA
Pinon Hills man plans murder of infant son, suicide on Facebook
Comments 55 | Recommend 8
February 01, 2010 11:19 PMIn a chilling letter posted on Facebook for anyone to see, Stephen Garcia, 25, of Pinon Hills appears to detail how he planned his suicide and the murder of his 9-month-old son.
…..
Thinking that it is going to help us is grasping at straws. Instead, make a safety plan.
However, this mother had a choice of possibly going to jail for contempt if she decided to disobey a court order that overrode her mother’s instincts.
“I led everyone on my side of the family to believe I wouldn’t of done this because I did not want them to know…” the letter reads. “I had been thinking about doing this for months.”
In other words, the guy was deceitful, deceiving even his own family. However, the mother of his son, who apparently knew him more “intimately” saw the danger, and tried to stop it. She tried with the usual tools that women in this position are given: Seek a restraining order.
She didn’t even GET one, because there had been no prior criminal record.. Therefore, he could not have possibly been a danger. Sure…
The post may help San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Homicide investigators piece together what led to the Sunday morning tragedy, when Garcia took his infant son during a court-ordered visitation, drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks and ended both of their lives.
In the letter posted to his Facebook profile, Garcia claimed the deaths were an attempt to save his son from a difficult life — and to punish the baby’s mother, Katie Tagle, for refusing to come back to him.
“Our deaths are a lot for her,” the post continues. “It will have to suffice as her punishment. But that is not the reason I did it. It was the only way we could be happy without Katie. I did this out of love for our son, to protect him and myself.”
Saved letters, text messages and massive files containing e-mails and other correspondence give a glimpse into Garcia’s obsession, cursing Tagle and her family in some posts and asking her to return to him in others.
Court documents tell more of the story, with Tagle filing a request for a domestic violence restraining order on Dec. 11, 2009. On Jan. 12 that order was denied, as it was found Garcia was not a “threat to petitioner or the minor child.”
A search of his criminal record showed no history of domestic violence, battery or similar offenses in San Bernardino County. However, in one of a slew of other online letters attributed to Garcia, it states, “I’m sorry for hurting you. I’m sorry for hitting you. I’m sorry I made the wrong choices.”
On Jan. 17, shortly after the final visit with Judge David Mazurek, Garcia joined a Facebook group called “Organ Donor.”
In the days leading up to the murder-suicide, Garcia posted a half-dozen videos and dozens of photos of Wyatt with cryptic captions such as, “Please, it’s not too late.”
On his MySpace page, his mood over the last week was listed as “tested,” “bummed” and “scared,” with “one more day :(” his final post.
Hours before officials got a call Saturday night that Wyatt was missing and Garcia had threatened to kill him, he made his final online post: “We love you all.”
The suicide note was posted on Garcia’s Facebook profile Sunday, about eight hours after Hesperia Sheriff’s deputies found the bodies in Garcia’s car. It appears Garcia left directions for someone to post the letter and make it public for everyone to see.
The lengthy post also reads as a will, with directions for how to distribute his possessions and personal notes to family members and friends. It also states that Garcia left a signed letter in his truck, confessing to the killings and explaining why he did them.
Though Garcia mentions using a gun, investigators have not released information on how he killed Wyatt and himself, stating only that they both died from “traumatic injuries.”
Anyone who may have information about this case is asked to call Detective Ryan Ford or Sgt. Frank Montanez at the Sheriff’s Homicide Detail at (909) 387-3589 or call WeTip at (800) 78-CRIME.Brooke Edwards and Natasha Lindstrom contributed to this report.
Beatriz E. Valenzuela may be reached at 951-6276 or at BValenzuela@VVDailyPress.com.
Here’s the SFGate Report on this:
SoCal man mentioned son’s killing on Facebook
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
(02-02) 09:04 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —
A newspaper says a San Bernardino County man who killed his 9-month-old son and himself left a Facebook message saying he did it out of love.Sheriff’s officials say 25-year-old Stephen Garcia of Pinon Hills was on a court-ordered visit with his son Sunday when he drove to a dirt road in Twin Peaks, killed the boy and committed suicide.
The Daily Press in Victorville says Garcia left a message on his Facebook profile about eight hours after his body was found. The note, apparently posted on his behalf by someone else, says Garcia had been thinking of the crime for months and wanted to punish the baby’s mother for leaving him.
Garcia says the deaths are the only way he and his son can be happy without her and says he did it out of love to protect the boy.
Information from: Daily Press, www.vvdailypress.com (the first article, above).
He did it for “love.” Some kind of love….
Here’s a fellow-blogger’s reaction.
And a site worth spending time on. . . .
See the heartbreaking MySpace page that belongs to the father and the bizzare RIP on it.
Judge J. David Mazurek needs to held accountable on this, and charged as an accomplice in this murder. This needs to happen to every judge that allows abusers to take children, and then hurt or murder them. Maybe then judges will start taking domestic violence seriously. Thanks to the father’s rights advocates and their “false allegations” drivel, they have turned America’s judges into a bunch of pussies who absolutely have no clue. Just get the child to the father….doesn’t matter if he is violent or not. It is time to stop listening to the mantra from these groups and start taking these violent guys seriously, and start putting judges in prison that don’t.
We Moms are NOT de-sensitized to this insane callousness to who lives, or who’s going to die. But if a Mom goes to jail in protest, what good is that to her children? If she doesn’t go, then the risk goes to the children. And/or her, and/or innocent bystanders, in some cases.
THIS overentitled, disillusioned, and unable to have a vital purpose in life other than punishing the mother of his child (how perverted is THAT?) was only 25. Bet he attended a public school system, possibly in this great state. Did he do college too? If so, to what point? Whether or not, there is clearly an attitude problem, a spiritual problem, and a moral problem. I don’t think the millions upon millions (literally) going to the California Healthy Marriage Coalition are going to stop troubles this entrenched. This guy was narcissistic, period. And to a point, he was a product of a system that encourages — and does not DIScourage — this. It’s a system where women have to fight uphill to get away from ground zero in their own lives.
I wonder how well we (well, people) are also reading characters before having babies. Makes you think, right?
BUT: Apparently the courts are, and clearly the judges are callous. Or, they are bound by the requirement to keep an ongoing stream of unwilling clients to their cronies. Excuse me, colleagues.
Well, no, I don’t think the judges are not clueless, and they are not pussies, I believe. They just don’t care! Why? What’s at stake if they do? . . . . An entire system.
A bribe perverts justice. I’m not accusing this particular judge of taking a bribe, but the court docket below tells clearly that they passed the buck to family court because there were custody and visitation orders. That’s how it goes.
And family court was SET UP from the start, at least per some sites (CANOW.org family law page, NAFCJ.net, and some others) to be abuser-friendly, and father-friendly (despite allegations to the contrary).
It was just business as usual. And if you want “business as usual” to change, friends, you have to change who is paying for the “business as usual,” and in the bottom line, this is the taxpayers. The Dept. of HHS in combo with some DOJ (Office of Violence Against Women) sources are conferencing together, educating together, declaring together, but the ONE thing they are NOT doing is confronting t he mandated mediation or custody evaluation where there’s conflict. And that “required outcome” model of the court process.
The judge is not going to be charged as an accomplice to murder. With luck, and persistence, he MIGHT be held accountable if this becomes a pattern. The people most highly motivated to do this are probably already victims of the court system, and are still in the process of trying to stay housed, alive, and their kids alive also.
However, what we MIGHT do for the next batch of innocent young mothers who show up thinking that family court is something you can walk into, and then also walk OUT of with a restraining order, is warn them…
HERE’s the Docket:
12/11/2009 – She requests ex parte DV restraining order.
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
WOW, lots of “Tagles” in this jurisdiction. This appears to be Katie Tagle in a previous relationship, or another Katie Tagle. In this one, she was charged with domestic violence.
Either way, the KNEE-JERK reaction of the court is to:
1. Consolidate with a family law (dissolution, I guess case).
2. Make a really STUPID order as to where violence has been alleged. THIS one has a daughter, “Dakota” and they are to alternate every other DAY, and — of course — go to mediation, or else.
Here: 2007 DOCKET, different couple (or at least, father)….
Action: (Choose)04/04/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…04/03/2007 – EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORAR…
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR
04/03/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M2
BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING. |
CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ |
REPORTER: GARY RAGLE |
– |
PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT |
DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT |
– |
PROCEEDINGS: |
DECLARATION RE: 4 HOUR NOTICE FILED. |
WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE JR IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. |
CASE CONSOLIDATED WITH CASE(S) MFL010729 MASTER FILE MFL010729 |
– |
{{NOTE: THis “consolidation” is where the issue of the DV gets basically lost, and is intentional. It happened to me. … This consolidation action violates due process for at least one of the parties, but is routine…}}HEARINGS: |
CURRENT HEARING CONTINUED TO 04/04/07 AT 08:29 IN DEPARTMENT M3. |
– |
TEMPORARY CUSTODY ORDERS: PARTIES STIPULATE TO |
SHARE CUSTODY OF DAKOTA TAGLE ON AN ALTERNATING |
BASIS BEGINNING 04/01/07 EVERY OTHER DAY UNTIL |
FURTHER ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE. WEDNESDAYS DAKOTA |
IS TO BE PICKED UP BY FATHER FROM DAYCARE UNTIL |
04/18/07. IF IT IS MOTHERS DAY FOR EXCHANGE IT |
IS TO BE MADE AFTER MOTHER GETS OFF WORK. |
THESE ORDERS ARE TEMPORARY UNTIL FURTHER ORDER |
OF THE COURT. THINK: IF violence truly occurred, the Court just buried discussion of it, and made SURE that the child IS going to be in the full, unmonitored (not that I’m thinking monitoring makes a difference) custody of the abusive parent. |
– |
THE PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO REPORT ON 04/11/07, AT 08:00 TO FAMILY COURT SERVICES AND TO COOPERATE FULLY WITH THE FAMILY COURT SERVICES COUNSELORS DURING ALL STAGES OF THE MEDIATION/EVALUATION {{Do you GET this yet? The racket is going through mediation and evaluation and counseling. Yes, I said “racket.” See “Access/Visitation funding” which was thinly veiled way to get more fathers (although it says “noncustodial PARENTS, in practice, and even the language frequently slips into saying, FATHERS) more time with their children. I have blogged on this earlier..} |
PROCESS. CUSTODIAL PARENT(S) SHALL MAKE CHILDREN AVAILABLE AT ALL TIMES REQUESTED BY COUNSELOR. |
PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND ORIENTATION ON |
04/09/07 AT 3PM. |
ACTION – COMPLETE |
=== MINUTE ORDER END === |
==MINUTE ORDER CHANGED OR CORRECTED BY P MARTIN; CHANGES MADE ARE AS FOLLOWS: TO CHANGE TO ORIENTATION == |
It might be that she filed for divorce, and he quickly filed for DV. I don’t know without further research.
Here’s the minutes of the order, the next day. As you can see, the court called the DV “mutual combat” (Sure, right….) and ordered them to a “Strengthening Families Class.”
Here it is. We are talking, now 2 YEARS (almost) before another infant son died:
EX-PARTE HEARING RE:TEMPORARY ORDERS (DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION)REQUEST FILED BY RICARDO TAGLE JR (==link here)
04/04/2007 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3
BERT L SWIFT PRESIDING. | |||||||||||||||||
CLERK: PEGGY JIMENEZ | |||||||||||||||||
REPORTER: GARY RAGLE | |||||||||||||||||
– | |||||||||||||||||
PLAINTIFF RICARDO TAGLE JR PRESENT | |||||||||||||||||
DEFENDANT KATIE MARIE TAGLE PRESENT | |||||||||||||||||
– | |||||||||||||||||
PROCEEDINGS: | |||||||||||||||||
WITNESS — RICARDO TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
WITNESS — KATIE TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
WITNESS — SOMMER MERCER IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
WITNESS — CARLOS TAGLE IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
WITNESS — MARIA BROWN IS SWORN AND EXAMINED. | |||||||||||||||||
EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. | |||||||||||||||||
EX PARTE ORDERS GRANTED AS FOLLOWS:
|
|||||||||||||||||
COURT FINDS MUTUAL COMBAT AND ORDERS PERSONAL | |||||||||||||||||
CONDUCT ORDERS AGAINST EACH PARTY. | |||||||||||||||||
THE RESTRAINED PERSON MUST NOT DO THE FOLLOWING THINGS TO THE PROTECTED PERSON OR PEOPLE: | |||||||||||||||||
HARASS, ATTACK, STRIKE, THREATEN, ASSAULT (SEXUALLY OR OTHERWISE), HIT, FOLLOW, STALK, MOLEST, DESTROY PERSONAL PROPERTY, DISTURB THE PEACE, KEEP UNDER SURVEILLANCE, OR BLOCK MOVEMENTS. | |||||||||||||||||
– | |||||||||||||||||
THESE ARE NON-CLETS ORDERS. | |||||||||||||||||
– | |||||||||||||||||
PARTIES ARE ORDERED TO ATTEND THE STRENGTHENING | |||||||||||||||||
FAMILIES PROGRAM AT THE NEXT START CYCLE. | |||||||||||||||||
– | |||||||||||||||||
HEARINGS: | |||||||||||||||||
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SET FOR 08:30 AT M4 IN DEPARTMENT | |||||||||||||||||
PETITIONER TO PREPARE ORDER AFTER HEARING. | |||||||||||||||||
ACTION – COMPLETE | |||||||||||||||||
=== MINUTE ORDER END === |
There are “Strengthening Families” programs across the nation. A search found one from San Bernadino, UTAH (not this case, obviously), but this is probably typical of how it’s organized and got started:
(see original link, above for visuals. This is, naturally, an “Evidence-based” practice. The evidence in the Tagle case, out of San Bernadino, CAL is still that something ain’t getting that job done. …. No matter, the court-ordered parenting classes continue…)
The Strengthening Families Program (SFP) is a parenting and family skills training program that consists of 14 consecutive weekly skill-building sessions. Parents and children work separately in training sessions and then participate together in a session practicing the skills they learned earlier. Two booster sessions are used at 6 months to 1 year after the primary course. Children’s skills training sessions concentrate on setting goals, dealing with stress and emotions, communication skills, responsible behavior, and how to deal with peer pressure. Topics in the parental section include setting rules, nurturing, monitoring compliance, and applying appropriate discipline.
SFP was developed and tested in 1983 with 6- to 12-year-old children of parents in substance abuse treatment. Since then, culturally modified versions and age-adapted versions (for 3- to 5-, 10- to 14-, and 13- to 17-year-olds) with new manuals have been evaluated and found effective for families with diverse backgrounds: African-American, Asian/Pacific Islander, Hispanic, American Indian, Australian, and Canadian.
Goal / Mission | The goals of this program are to improve parenting skills and children’s behaviors and decrease conduct disorders; to improve children’s social competencies; and to improve family attachment, harmony, communication, and organization. |
Results / Accomplishments | SFP has been evaluated at least 18 times on Federal grants and at least 150 times on State grants by independent evaluators. {{I question HOW independent…}}The original National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) study involved a true pretest, posttest, and follow-up experimental design with random assignment of families to one of four experimental groups: 1) parent training only, 2) parent training plus children’s skills training, 3) the complete SFP including the family component, and 4) no treatment besides substance abuse treatment for parents.
SFP was then culturally adapted and evaluated with five Center for Substance Abuse Prevention High-Risk Youth Program grants by independent evaluators using statistical control group designs that involved quasi-experimental, pretest, posttest, and 6-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. Recently, SFP was compared with a popular school-based aggression prevention program (I Can Problem Solve) and found highly effective (effect sizes = .45 to 1.38), employing a true experimental pretest–posttest, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up design in two Utah school districts. A NIDA four-group randomized clinical trial with about 800 primarily African-American families in the Washington, DC, area also found good results. |
Categories | Social Environment / Family Structure Social Environment / Children’s Social Environment |
WHICH (to me) JUST GOES TO PROVE, THERE’S NO “FREE” LUNCH. YOU GO TO A NONPROFIT (POSSIBLY FUNDED B Y THE US GOV’T OR A STATE, OR BOTH) OR THE GOV’T (VIA AN AGENCY) FOR HELP — OR FOR THAT MATTER, ENROLL A CHILD IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL FOR EDUCATION– AND YOUR CHILDREN, AND PROBABLY YOU, will, (read my lips), will BE “AT RISK” of becoming the subject of a demonstration, or randomized trial of some behavioral management theory.
in this case, Ms. Tagle went to a judge seeking protection for her (new) infant son, and lost. Again, I do not know that this is the same Tagle. Possibly, possibly not. Different man, though. Last names not changed. Was this a rebound relationship?
Oh yes, the 2009 docket, in reverse chronologic order. No dissolution in this one:
- Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Viewed Date Action Text Disposition Image
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/26/2010 FEE PAYMENT Not Applicable
01/12/2010 9:00 AM DEPT. M3 OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
01/11/2010 ANDREW H. LUND IS REMOVED AS ATTORNEY FOR STEPHEN GARCIA, AND PRO/PER IS ADDED AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF SUPP DECL BY KATIE TAGLE BY MAIL ON 01/07/10 AS TO ATTORNEY ANDREW LUND, FILED. Not Applicable
01/08/2010 DECLARATION OF KATIE M TAGLE FILED Not Applicable
01/05/2010 PROOF OF SERVICE OF ANSWER TO TRO/IE BY MAIL ON 01/05/10 AS TO KATIE TAGLE, FILED. Not Applicable
01/05/2010 INCOME AND EXPENSE DECLARATION FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA Not Applicable
01/05/2010 ANSWER TO TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FILED BY STEPHEN GARCIA, PARTY REPRESENTED BY ANDREW H. LUND. Not Applicable
12/15/2009 8:29 AM DEPT. M3 EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE – Minutes Pre-D Complete
12/11/2009 CERTIFICATE OF ASSIGNMENT RECEIVED. Not Applicable
12/11/2009 EX PARTE RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
12/11/2009 REQUEST FOR ORDER DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION Not Applicable
12/11/2009 REQUEST AND PARTY INFORMATION ENTERED.(DV) Not Applicable
Case FAMMS900840 – KATIE TAGLE -N- STEPHEN GARCIA
Action: (Choose)02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT02/01/2010 – ORDER FOR TRANSCRIPT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/26/2010 – FEE PAYMENT01/12/2010 – OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FI…12/15/2009 – EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC…
EX-PARTE MOTION RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
12/15/2009 – 8:29 AM DEPT. M3
DEBRA HARRIS PRESIDING. CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH COURT REPORTER GARY RAGLE GARY RAGLE – PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT SPECIAL APPEARANCE BY LORI SMITH FOR ANDREW EUND FOR RESPONDENT. – PROCEEDINGS: OSC/MOTION HELD. BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED. DECLARATION REGARDING EXPARTE NOTICE FILED. EX-PARTE HEARING IS HELD. EX PARTE ORDERS DENIED. – HEARINGS: OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE IS SET FOR 01/12/10AT 09:00 IN DEPARTMENT M3. ACTION – COMPLETE === MINUTE ORDER END ===
For those unfamiliar with the process, let me narrate:
- She asks for ex parte protection (12/11/09) which starts a process, and gives the respondent time to go get an attorney, which he does. The request for protection stands, it’s just not ex parte — a requirement which is for safety purposes, because of potential for retaliation.
- 12/15/09 the OSC for EX PARTE (immediate, without telling the other party) protection is apparently denied and the request for protection is continued to 01/11/10. NOTE: Christmas seasons, holiday seasons, can be very dangerous for the parties when there’s been a breakup; as it highlights “family” and a family is breaking apart…
- On 01/05/10 the man, who by now has an attorney (WONDER WHO PAID FOR HIM… ACCESS / Vistation FUNDING?), Mr. Lund, and files an answer.
- The parties exchange income and expense reports (if family law is going to make some money off this, it’s important to know which side has the money…. If not, they’ll be sent quickly through mediation, not evaluations….).
- On 01/07-08/10 the woman files and serves (by mail) a supplemental declaration to the man’s attorney, properly (Proof of service).
- On 01/11/10, the man’s attorney QUITS. (not enough money in it for him? Or, the case has already been, basically, decided).
- On 01/12/10, the OCS for a normal domestic violence protection order occurs, as follows:
OSC RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FILED BY KATIE TAGLE
01/12/2010 – 9:00 AM DEPT. M3
J. DAVID MAZUREK PRESIDING. |
CLERK: KIMBERLEY HATCH |
COURT REPORTER JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND JENNIFER BARNAKIAN POLAND |
– |
PETITIONER KATIE TAGLE PRESENT |
RESPONDENT STEPHEN GARCIA PRESENT |
– |
PROCEEDINGS: |
OSC/MOTION HELD. |
BOTH PARTIES ARE SWORN AND EXAMINED. |
COURT FINDS THERE IS A PENDING PROCEEDING IN |
THE VICTORVILLE COURT THAT IS SUBJECT TO CUSTODY |
AND VISITATION ORDERS. |
– |
COURT FINDS THERE IS NOT THREAT TO PETITIONER |
OR THE MINOR CHILD. |
THE OSC IS DENIED. |
– |
ORAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES BY RESPONDENT IS |
DENIED. |
– |
BOTH PARTIES ARE REMINDED BY THE COURT OF THEIR |
FAMILY COURT SERVICES APPOINTMENT FOR THEIR |
VICTORVILLE CASE. |
COMPLAINT STAGE AT DISPOSITION – OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL) |
DISPOSITION OTHER DISMISSAL BEFORE HEARING (FL) |
COURT ORDERS ENTIRE ACTION DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. REASON: REQUEST DENIED.. |
ACTION – COMPLETE |
=== MINUTE ORDER END === |
- This (civil, I presume) venue tosses the ball back to the FAMILY law venue, and reminds them to be good little girls and boys, and go to Family Court Services.
- 01/26/2010 (LAST week, folks), something regarding fees is filed.
- 01/30/2010 — Father kills son on court-ordered visitation, and then himself. (NOT ON DOCKET).
- 01/31/2010 — Sheriff’s Dept. reports to press (see top of post):
01-31, 18:38 PST HESPERIA, Calif. (AP) —
Authorities in San Bernardino County say a 25-year-old father and his 9-month-old son have died in what investigators believe is a murder-suicide. A sheriff’s news release says deputies found Stephen Garcia and son Wyatt Garcia dead in a vehicle on a rural dirt road in the Twin Peaks area early Sunday.
The release says the Hesperia Sheriff’s Station had received a report Saturday night that Garcia took his son during a court-ordered visitation and threatened to kill the child and himself. The department did not say how the pair died, only that they “sustained traumatic injuries.” The county coroner will conduct an autopsy on both father and son this week.
Stephen Garcia was from the Pinon (pin-YONE) Hills area and his son was from Yucca Valley.
- 02/01/2010 Someone requests a Court Transcript.
I had not meant to spend so long on this case, After all, EVERY WEEK, even in my own Golden State, it seems someone ground up by this system, dies. If not a child also. I can’t keep up.
But it does illustrate the futility of (I think– make your own decision, and this is NOT legal advice) seeking a civil restraining order, versus criminal, versus, better yet, some kind of safety plan. Then again, for women with kids leaving abuse in the family law, there does not appear to be any safety. Congressmen (Danny Davis was active in a case) will help fathers haul kids back from overseas (China, Brazil, come to mind recently), but good luck getting yours back from your own state, or a next door state.
And again, a word to the wse — not that it’s an excuse — but cool it on the rebound relationships, if this was one.
AND — whoever posted on Facebook, and whoever SAW what was posted on facebook (i.e., a cry to have his threats taken seriously, as they should’ve been), YOU are responsible if you knew this couple, and did nothing. Sorry, but you are.
AND all of us need to get on the stick about this family law system. The AFCC and all their experts that PROFIT from these situations leading to, basically, more deaths, is convening in February — this month. Do research, people! It’s not rocket science, just an investment of time!
I think that if marriage, and relationships are continuing to be this dangerous to have, and leave, it is a testament to the strength of testosterone (and other hormones) that people continue to engage in sex, let alone ongoing relationships. Good grief!
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
A task force or a committee is not going to stop this stuff. A good audit, ongoing, by someone with courage (and other source of income) MIGHT make a dent….
Wish I had time to say more, but I don’t.
Linus, MN — derailing the DV conversation, again. How dare they!
It was misfortune, it fell down from the sky, accidentally, 2 days after an irate man with a fourteen-year history of violence was released from jail after the 48th DV call. Now, let’s not talk about that bail, let’s talk about HER losing the battle, oh well.
Perhaps because restraining orders aren’t bullet-proof, I just have a hunch. They equipped her with PAPER, and let him out of jail. Now, oh dear, she lost the batttle. . . . . . PERHAPS we should look at the strategists this time, not the foot soldiers.
Police: Murder-suicide victim did ‘everything she could’ to protect herself
LINO LAKES, Minn. — It seems there’s never a typical neighborhood, and there’s never a typical victim when it comes to domestic violence.
TRUE, but there are typical policies when dealing with it. See if you catch one, below….
Friends say that’s definitely true of 48-year-old Pamela Taschuk, a woman they say was “vibrant.”
“She was upbeat. She was moving forward with her life, whatever the circumstances. And that was consistent with the way she did everything. She always had a sort of upbeat, vibrant attitude and just brought a spark of life whereever she was at,” said Jeffrey Schulz, who worked with Taschuk at BlueSky Online Charter School.
On Thursday night, Taschuk was killed (*) in her Lino Lakes home in what police believe was the final act of a long history of domestic abuse(**).
(**) Did police call it domestic “abuse” or domestic “violence,” which is more accurate?…. “Violence” sounds like “vile” which it is. “Abuse” well, it’s just a little softer sounding.
I have an idea why it’s called “abuse” in Minnesota (as well as other places). One is called Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs and the other is called the Domestic Abuse Project.
(*) (2nd in order becuase I didn’t notice this first time through) . . . . Taschuk was killed. Well, ain’t THAT a little evasive. What happened to the whoDUNit? Of course, the story then gets to it:
Police say Pam’s husband, 51-year-old Allen Taschuk, dropped their 16-year-old son off at a nearby gas station. Taschuk then returned home, police said, and killed Pam with a single gunshot wound. He called 911 to request someone pick up his son before turning the gun onto himself.
Officials say the case is both tragic and ironic — prosecutors say Pamela had met with them the very day she was killed. {{See later in story — she ALSO, the same day, attended a DV support group. I’ll get to this (one thing at a time. . . . but here it is: “Moore says Pam was even at a support group just minutes before her murder.”}}
ONE thing that seems obvious to me — her support group was near the home — “just minutes” away. She hadn’t left the family home. Maybe the support group, in light of this, might speak to their organizers and consider recommending that women take an IMMEDIATE precautionary and SWIFT location-change. And then let the prosecutors communicate with her, via fax, phone, mail, or from another prosecutor’s office, if necessary, perhaps?
“She was doing everything she could do to help us have a successful case,” said Paul Young with the Anoka County Attorney’s Office.
(Although 14 years after the assaults had begun — and I’m not faulting the woman, but I think perhaps this is a word to the wise for those women who may have access to internet and not wish the same fate….There is an element of gambling in these processes…. I don’t like gambling with the stakes being human lives, especially Mom/Dad parent lives . . . Anyhow . . . . .}}
Someone pressed charges after he beat her:
Pam’s battle against her domestic abuse spanned more than a decade.
Wow, A husband beating a wife just got gender-neutraled. For that, see this: The Grammar of Male Violence
{{I’m quoting a radical feminist publication, so therefore by association I must be a radical feminazi and lesbian, right?}}
Well, is that relevant to whether or not there is more than one way to describe a situation on which the details were known? For example, where is the culprit in that decade? Who was hitting WHOM just got deleted. If she’d been hitting him, do you think the news media would have omitted this? (and the answer is probably No. On the 2nd part, but it’s going more towards the feminazi, if this will help save lives, than away from it, if moderation will not. I don’t think violence towards women is a moderate act that should elicit a moderate response on the part of friends, neighbors, clergy, or law enforcement. And friends should examine themselves, as should immediate family, in these matters. Which, admittedly, ain’t always easy or comfortable.
Finally, BOTH of them are now permanently deleted, by bullets. And yet the descriptors remains (as reported by police, or at least these reporters), when HE assaulted HER, it comes out as HER battling “domestic abuse.” Because it takes two to tango, and she’s tangleed up in this sentence, I will presume that an aggressive male who eventually shot his 2nd wife, leaving his children fatherless, and stepmotherless (where is previous wife, or their mother?)
In a press conference on Friday, Lino Lakes Police Chief Dave Pecchia said police had responded to 48 calls to the Taschuk home in the last 14 years (neither of the couple being available for comment, we’ll have to take this at his word, unless someone on-line wants to look the records up))
In August, police arrested Allen after he beat Pam and wouldn’t let her leave.
What about the other 48 calls — did THEY result in any arrests? Why did THIS one — because it was beating AND false imprisonment? Or because they have a limit of 4 dozen per decade per couple? Or because the first 47 were just domestic disputes, and now that two people are dead, the polic want to emphasize that they DID arrest this dude?
I’ll tell you something. MOST beatings have an element of false imprisonment in them. Unless you buy that women like it, most won’t stick around voluntarily. If we could see something beyond the short time, generally, at shelters, for us, and/or our kids, and/or how to work after or in a shelter. “Hi. I’m going to beat you. Could you hold still for a while? Please?”
But two days later, he posted bail and was released.
You know what? Perhaps this should be the headline and not “murder/suicide victim…” First of all, the second word came second, and by then she wasn’t alive enough to be a victim of it. First all, she wasn’t. Sometimes I HATE the deletion of active verbs, condensed into adjectives to make room for a sentence spreading a sense of futility and helplessness — “she did everything she could to protect herself.”
>>>
{{What about exercising her 2nd Amendment rights to meet potential escalated violence (it’d been escalating, right?) with more than externalized paperwork and meetings? I believe abusers are cowards at heart. ESPECIALLY of women. Picking on someone helpless, and resorting to this to dominate, is a sign of weakness, and need to feel superior, but not the guts to face someone equal in stature and with equal means. Who knows what a batterer might do if he (or she) ever had to face and armed VICTIM, as opposed to armed responding officers after they’d already shot (or whatever the means) their unarmed, often female (or male), victim? For starters, they’d probably go target someone else, unarmed, which may not solve the problem they carry with them — but it MIGHT solve the problem for that one person being targeted..}}
{{You know what? When I read a report about two people shot that shouldn’t have been shot, I don’t like PASSIVE tense and I don’t like “generic nouns” to describe something that obviously had a person, acting, involved. “Generic nouns” are good places for things like rain, clouds, tides, and so forth. Sun rising, and whatnot. I don’t think murder-suicides following someone incarcerated for only 2 days when the history of violence dates back 10 years……should be packaged in as commonplace language as events we take for granted. Even so-called “acts of God” {{meaning, in insurance terms, “natural” disasters}} have a scientific causality.
That he “was released” is not an act of God or a happening, it was MATERIAL to two deaths, and it had a human agent. If that human’s hands were tied by policy, then the thing is to untie the policy noose. On the other hand, did that human in this case VIOLATE an existing policy? We’ll never know, and this article is CERTAINLy not interested in asking WHY he “was released.”}}
The door just opened. It just happened.
QUIZ: Do arresting officers set bail? (I think not). Judges do. DO judges have guidelines, and if so, do they follow them? So then (“Cast, Characters, Script, Action” in the repeat performance of a domestic violence murder/suicide after a man who’d just been confronted on it was inexplicably given a bail low enough to meet, posted it, and went for his gun…. This is, I repeat, a REPEAT performance in the same old script..not to mention a repeat review. Do they have boilerplates for this type of reporting? “Ask the police, ask the prosecutors, as a friend or so and commerorate her, comment on how unavoidable it was, and promote the local domestic violence shelter, which she wasn’t in, or program, or support groups,..which she was. Or batterer’s intervention groups which he was, passing with flying colors, right up til that 2nd shot… Spin the tale, frame the conversation…….)
Can we try a variation on this?
who just got deleted from this account of what happened? Answer — the JUDGE. Who deleted it, or didn’t report it? The author (or editor), probably Karla Hult of KARE11.com news. She was doing her job, I know. Typical report. He posted bail (HOW MUCH? DID ANYONE BRING UP, ON SETTING BAIL, THAT HE HAD A DECADE LONG HISTORY OF ABUSE, 48 CALLS IN 10 YEARS, AND REPRESENTED A DANGER? NOW THAT MIGHT BE A STORY. REMINDS ME OF THE OCEAN CITY (TOMS RIVER NJ) ACCOUNT. See my blogroll — it’s usually one of top 5 posts visited. And I asked that question: WHY was the dude released then?
But prosecutors, friends and domestic abuse advocates say Pam kept fighting. Earlier this month, she got an order of protection against her husband. She was also getting a divorce.
.
I’d like to review these two sentences again. My mind can’t just quite wrap around the verbal equating of “Pam kept fighting” with (14 years after he began assault & battery behavior against her (that’s what it is) with two activities: Getting a protection order, and getting a divorce. One more time, in blue, the 3 categories of Monday Night Quarterbackers, post-game analysts who ARE still alive (and probably still employed too) have this summary, and trick of language metaphor:
But prosecutors, friends and domestic abuse advocates say Pam kept fighting. {{HOW did she fight? With what weapons? Possibly as advised:) (1) Earlier this month, she got an order of protection against her husband {{actually that’s not fight, that’s closeer to flight, only not really for it, because no change of location was involved for HER}} (2) She was also getting a divorce.
How did her husband fight? The last time, with a gun. How did she fight? with a protection order and a divorce.
Filing for both the protection order AND the divorce, we ALL should know by now, the temperature is escalating — this woman is attempting to change the dynamics, and is getting help with it, too. The “I rule THIS neck of the woods” dynamic is being shaken up. She is in more danger now (if this be possible) when she was at home taking it on the chin, so to speak (wherever it landed). if those were NOT life-threatening, although intolerable, illegal, and an indicator that her life WAS in danger, whatever it was then, it is now even moreso unless she gets ALL the way to safe FAST, because she is saying “STOP!”
So let’s look at this logic. Things are going to heat up. She is attempting to re-assert control, even defense. Now ALL parties involved should know this by now, or they simply are illiterate and do not get on-line about DV, at all. You can’t read too far before running across that truth. “The most dangerous time is when a woman tries to separate….” So let’s assess the survival tools this report just credited her (post-mortem, literally) with:
- Man just out of jail with Gun v. court rulings (paper, theory).
- Man just out of jail, and history of DV, with Gun v. court rulings. Let me see, which is likely to win? Gun, or court rulings? Place your bets, after all, it’s not YOUR life.
Which will win? Well, that depends on the context and some variables. Court rulings (“paper” or electronic) restrain in THEORY.
Guns can restrain in PRACTICE, and for good. They are heart-stopping (case in point)
QUESTION: If it was someone you cared about, would you gamble on someone’s psychological or lethality assessment of a 14-year batterer, and logically, then wish the person attacked to have to live in a constant state of gauging that assessment, OR would you recommend something which would err on the side of SAFETY, for example, immediate and significant SEPARATION (distance wise, etc.) or DETERRENT-wise?
Where’s your love at? Where’s OUR love at?
Is it moral or practical to play “paper, scissors, rock” with other people’s lives, at public expense?? After they have come to a public entity (or nonprofit) for help and safety? If unclear what this game is, see next section. it’s a simple, context-sensitive game of wit, or odds, and only requires hands to play. The losers may be humiliated, but aren’t hurt by the game, per se. . . Kids play it, grown-ups sometimes, too….
“Paper, Scissors, Stone.“
Reminds me of that kids’ game, “paper, scissors, stone.” The key is context, and the thrill is not knowing what your choice will be met with from the other player’s. For those who don’t know, I’ll let Wikipedia and Youtube illustrate:
Now, let’s reconsider Pam kept fighting: She got a protection order and was getting a divorce.
Her weapons: court orders.
His, Previous times:- ?? only those two, and any witnesses know for sure. (Maybe the previous 48 calls to the home revealed). This last time, a gun. Who had the better odds, given that this guy wasn’t the most law-abiding sort, evidently. . . . ?? The odds were stacked against her. Her weapons were metaphors, his were tangible and had projectiles. Moreover, whoever kept encouraging her to get these obviously doesn’t read the newspapers that often, or at least, the policies are at odds with the evidence.
Now, let’s consider. Let’s analyze (again): Who’s alive, who’s dead, and whose advice did the dead woman follow? Perhaps if she’d had and been able to follow better advice, SHE’d still be alive.
I suspect (though I may be wrong, but I bet) had she not been murdered by her husband, her husband MIGHT not have felt it necessary to make a quick end to THAT process (rather than stay in jail — remember, he’d just spent 2 days in jail, and was probably VERY committeed not to going back again…)
Homicide in the U.S. — Plenary Panel from the 2009 NIJ Conference
(references something tried in Baltimore, based on in part the J. Campbell assessment)
In Maryland, you can see that our partner homicide averages about 1,200 per year. Sixty.nine men, women and children in Maryland. Our goal was to use this instrument, directed by this committee, to look at what an officer can do on the scene to deal with the danger of death at the scene at the time that they’re there. Sort of the golden hour that the health care industry uses, or the golden 24 hours, to get intervention into that home.
A lot of the committee members included DSS, which are critical; the prosecutors of course; law enforcement; and domestic violence advocates, our nonprofit providers. Dr. Campbell found some key things in her research, and she helped us to identify the things that many law enforcement officers know by instinct. What is the victim’s perception of what’s going on here? What is their fear level? What is the access to weapons? What happens with the threats of violence at the scene? What’s the suspect’s employment status, et cetera? You can read the rest…
…
What were the leadership issues we experienced as an agency? Of course, our relationship with external partners was critical. If you don’t have them, it’s a little hard to build this base. We were really blessed to have a lot of that infrastructure in place.
Culture. What is the attitude of your officers in the area of domestic violence? Is there emotional intelligence, or is it an immature culture about the issue? And how do you, as leaders, attend to that? What is the attitude in general with your county of the role of the state’s attorney, prosecutors, judges, et cetera?
(AHA!!)
. . . . So, I would err EVERY time on the side of safety, caution, and take NO risks, rather than unacceptable risks. We have gotten to the point in some situations were restraining “orders” are instead red flags, instigating further escalations. When people are in an “intimate” relationship, it’s part of this to let down their guard somewhat. People who take advantage of this by REPEATED physical assaults have made a MAJOR transggression, and this needs to be addressed as such. ONE call to the police is unacceptable, and a huge red flag.
I have 3 short proverbs, or “gifts” (of information) to the next women (or men) hoping to restrain and out of control intimate partner, or one that has been ejected from the home by them already. Or, if they are considering it. AGAIN, I’m not an attorney and every one is to judge her situation and LISTEN to her instinct, and do NOT listen to people who say, listen to US, not your instinct; we aree the experts.
In the field of survival we have God-given instincts (or, if you prefer, natural) for this. Appreciate them! Do not sign them over the closest entity saying “let us help you.” Help is needed, but as you had that guard up with the aggressor, also be alert from people that are taking your confidences and advising you how to get out. It may be a way out, or it may be a dead end, such as this one. Then afterwards, you will
OH — closer to the bottom of the article about the VICTIM, here’s actually something about the SHOOTER.
Allen Taschuk served on the Centennial Fire Department as a paid, on-call firefighter for the last 20 years, accoridng to Chief Jerry Streich. He was put on administrative leave within the last year for undisclosed reasons.
“Pamela did all the things she could do in terms of protecting herself,” said Connie Moore with the Alexandra House Domestic Abuse Shelter in Blaine.
WELL, HERE’S ANOTHER COMMENTATOR, NOT THE JUDGE WHO ENABLED THIS WIFE-BEATER TO GET FREE BY WHATEVER BAIL WAS POSTED. And I bet he wasn’t too happy about even those 2 days in jail, either, I mean the husband. Future women in trouble should call this shelter. (Free plug — come to us!) You too, might end up like Pam.
Moore says Pam was even at a support group just minutes before her murder.
So much for support groups! I rest my case! Safety FIRST, support, SECOND.
and this is why (post-restraining order) I stopped attending, because I wished to devote my time instead to something which might stop the trouble, and it was escalating — and not learn how to endure it. I already knew how to endure it, from practice, years of it, but the more freedom I tasted the less taste I had for returning to abuse. This is when things OD escalate, when this is sensed by the other person.
Given her long battle, Moore says . . .
This tells you who, perhaps, Ms. Moore has been hanging out with. i recommend she carefully review “The Grammar of Male Violence” and change her talk. Stop talking about the women that lost, and analyze the case in terms of who did what.
Ms. Moore, if you’re reading this, could you get a copy back to PRAXIS and BATTERED WOMEN’S JUSTICE PROJECT AND ANY OTHER TRAINING CONFERENCES YOU ATTEND AS A SHELTER WORKER? I know they have organizations up in Minnesota that teach cultural sensitivity as to subgroups of people being assaulted by their partners. There’s funding for Rural, for Native American, and I know there’s IAADV for African-American issues, with Dr. Johnson. Would you relate, from me, that it’s not “her long battle” but (seems to me, at least this case) someone’s incompetence, that let this one “suddenly spiral out of control.” after a guy just got released from another beating on bail. Stop deflecting blame onto the woman. Sounds to me like she was doing HER part, but others weren’t doing THEIRS. Maybe that why “she lost ” “her battle.”
Where were the analysts? They were collaborating on how to train all the folks that weren’s supposed to set that low a bail, but give her time to get the heck out of there, and TELL her to!
Please show grammar sensitivity for the sub-group of WOMEN and stop blaming them when their prime shortcoming was simply bad advisors, who didn’t say GET OUT and STAY AWAY!
Pam’s death highlights what else needs to be done in the court system and community to protect domestic abuse victims.
Not it doesn’t, it’ OBFUSCATES what else needs to be done in the sentencing procedure. Chalk it up to another mess-up. It was just a few dozen or so domestic disputes, that’s all.
I’m going to rewrite that: “to empower battered women.” or “to STOP or RESTRAIN men who batter women.” And stop calling it “abuse!” Stop giving the standard post-murder/suicide spin, and start quoting from court pleadings and police reports, if you can. The next time a reporter contacts you after an “event” tell them some graphic truth and be blunt about it. You might lose your job, though, but maybe a better calling might ben investigating these bail orders handed out. . . . If they force traffic violators (speeders, drunk drivers, etc.) to sit through accident footage, why is this less?
“If a victim is saying ‘he’s threatened me, he says he’s going to kill me,’ we need to take that seriously,” Moore said.
We who? How many (more) women, boys & girls, and/or men are going to die before the full panoply of that “we” starts to try something different? Can something be diverted from, say, abstinence education, to helping families in danger MOVE while he’s incarcerated?
Moore said the court system should consider following a “lethal assessment” policy that requires officials to gauge exactly how great a threat a suspect poses to his potential victim. She said officials could then choose a more aggressive response with those suspects who pose a greater risk. {{they COULD do this now, and aren’t. It’s not really rocket science...}}
You know what? The court systems is considering its own behind, associates and paychecks. The sooner DV victims realize this, the better. I say that from the perspective of the fatherhood movement, superrvised visitation movement, access visitation movements, and the inane acting like a lethal incident just “dropped out of the sky” and was the dead people’s (or fortune’s) fault.
THIS lethality assessment stuff is maybe one of the latest “lines” (myths) going through the training advocates loop. Lethality assessments go back to 1985, as does the habit of ignoring this in favor of “Designer Families.” It presumes officials don’t have a clue that someone is going to get killed next time, just like they say in the post crime scene cleanup press conferences. MOreover, these are used to promote organizations that don’t seem to check long-term follow-up — when that thing goes into the family law system, which doesn’t LIKE calling a crime a crime (see AFCC.com, “about” & history pages), then what?
Ms. Moore, please seek outside opinions. Is this what women tell YOU, or is it what you are to tell the women?
It presumes the experts know BETTER than the women themselves where safety is and what a danger is. That is a lethality risk in itself, they don’t! Why not? It’s NOT THEIR KDIS and THEIR LIVES or THEIR WIVES.
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)….
Alternate Takes on Abstinence-Only Education
leave a comment »
I felt we needed a comic break. Or course, good satire often hits close to home.
I also felt that I should take a break from mocking Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage Education.
(1 of 4)
(2 of 4)
You should also read THIS site to better understand WHY HHS “just happens” to be so happily forcing happily ever after or else down our throats. And we are paying for it, too!
http://old.mediatransparency.org/personprofile.php?personID=89
(3 & 4)
Propaganda of The Police State -Bush Orders an End to Hiring …
www.infowars.com/…/propaganda_bush_orders_end_hiring_columnists.htm
Writer Backing Bush Plan Had Gotten Federal Contract …
http://www.washingtonpost.com › Politics › Bush Administration – Similar
WELL, OK, here’s part of that 4th site:
And these same folks are still up and running strong. Did I mention that Wade Horn, as I THINK, I recall, is among those highly involved in the origins of the AFCC?
Although this is a fast “intro,” some of this info shows the IN-BREEDING involved in these programs and who promotes them. In other words, those sites are worth studying in more depth. What we probably need nationally is a few more Wynona Wards to work on the abuse of — power — and money — in these matters. Or, a lot more Erin Brockoviches.
But enough of that on Marriage, Fatherhood, etc.. . . . It’s getting “old.”
Accordingly this post is going after “Abstinence Education” instead.
The whole concept of continuous funding on almost ANYTHING pertaining to marriage, sex, fatherhood (motherhood), let alone how to balance a checkbook — from a federal government which has Congressional members like “Hot Mike Duvall,” and a country whose governors include both former Presidents AND Governors who can’t keep their pants zipped or their own marriages together. I mean, where does one start? Bill Clinton? John F. Kennedy? FDR?
And so what if they could? Are they moral in other areas of life also?
That said, I think that we should expect of our leaders TOTAL ethics in these two primary categories: Money and Sex. In their personal lives.
The government has NO business in my pocketbook except for the most nominal of functions of government, and it absoLUTEly should stay out of my pants, or skirts, and of my kids’, too. Good grief.
Again, let me go “religious” on this one (before quoting the next site, which is going to do its own take on religious conservatives) and quote the Bible, Romans, and all that.
Note: If I have inadvertently missed offending a particular group in this post, I will try to catch up next one. The “PC” gene is crawling up the back of my brain here.
Also please maintain a healthy perspective and realize that 2,000 years, gender, religion and culture separate me from this quote! On the other hand, I think it nails the hypocrisy thing just fine…
Romans 2: (the hyperlinks are to which Greek word it comes from….)
{{**case in point, where this reads “Jew,” we might as well read, here, “mental health expert” or “licensed marriage and family therapist” or almost any other functional description which carries with it the ATTITUDE that adults who can’t get along are somehow now children that need to be taught.
In our country, legally, adulthood is at age 18 or 21. For some women, this is suddenly reversed when marrying the wrong person. For BOTH divorcing parents who weren’t smart and savvy enough to work it out apart from this system entirely, (in which case wouldn’t they have been smart and savvy enough to stay together), suddenly they are become as little kids needing instruction from Der Vaterland….}}
This quote from Romans 2, written by the apostle Paul (“Saul”) is already volatile enough — other portions of his writings have been used (AB-used?) to justify plenty of violence towards women, and Romans 1 would of course offend anyone in favor of same-sex, well, sex.
Anyhow, I’m not this author, who was beheaded in a Roman Prison about 2000 years ago; he paid for insulting the wrong people in power already.
I’m just me. I’m female, Christian, a domestic violence SURVIVOR, and have enough respect that have finally figured out to steer clear of church buildings and those who frequent them. Except for a good concert or so, when I’m able or in the mood.
The best of us on a good day have some hypocrisy, and are not thoroughly honest. However, is it REALLY necessary to take — forcibly, through the IRS — wages from employees, funnel them through the Feds, and then force-feed back, focusing on LOW-income populations who can’t get around this (gee, how’d they become so low-income to start with? Possibly through this system?), things like parental education, how NOT to leave a marriage, how to have a double standard of behavior based on gender, and how, when, and with whom to have sex — when the people preaching this aren’t UNIFORMLY systematically faithful to their smart, typically intelligent if not trophy, and such wives that helped them get elected, gave them children, and so forth? ???
I mean, if there weren’t all this preaching, it’d be one thing. But when there is, then I’d rather see a sermon than hear one. ANYHOW, back to this:
“Abstinence Education /
George Bush”
Abstinence Education – Let’s talk about sex
irregulartimes.com/abstinenceed.html – Cached – Similar
Talk about total confusion! I’ve looked at the grant system, and Catholic Charities is prominent in many of these programs.
Easy: We are to “Take it on Faith.” . . . . . .
Abstinence-only Education | Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.ucsusa.org › Scientific Integrity › Abuses of Science – Cached – Similar
Well, on to more worthy endeavors, I was just having some fun here.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
January 13, 2010 at 3:20 pm
Posted in AFCC, Designer Families, Funding Fathers - literally, History of Family Court, Who's Who (bio snapshots)
Tagged with "We had no idea!", Education, fatherhood, social commentary, Social Issues from Religious Viewpoints, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..