Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘“We had no idea!”

Today’s post is a new blog page: “Lessons from Antioch” (California)

leave a comment »


The pages are full of the Dugards and the Garridos; people what answers, and collectively, it appears there’s a need to process the trauma, and put names to the “Who, What When, How and Why?” this happened.

Click on this link:

(As these posts get a little more personal, understand it’s not just for the blogger’s sake but for the bloggers’ hope that another perspective on these things might get heard.)

It triggers trauma, or perhaps it’s thoughtfulness, or perhaps it’s a desire to mention what other mothers have gone through that is different, but of some similar qualities: sudden loss of access to and contact with their sons or daughters, and lack of closure, or time to recover or heal from prior abuse(s).  One can get so acclimatized to abuse, or to repeated violations of personal integrity, that this sort of “alternate reality” becomes  “normal.”  What’ I’m concerned about in this matter is future generations, and what “normal” has become for American women, both growing up and grown-up mothers.

My own father (deceased)  I deduce was told, like many, to “man up,” shut up and step up to the plate when his (wife-beating) father abandoned the household.  Retaliation for even CRYING about the violence, let alone reporting it, was simply part of his youth.  After being locked in a closet for crying initially (so the family lore goes) he went on, and worked hard, educated himself hard, provided well, such that his own children (ALL of them) also got college educated.  I’d say did all right (that’s one adult child’s perspective only; there ARE others), but as the youngest of these, and alone in the house as his marriage disintegrated, I certainly noticed and questioned that, despite the success, he also drank hard too (bottling something else up?), married several times, and, unfortunately, never discussed or addressed any of his own family shortcomings, nor did any of our own adult family actually handle these well, other than by transmitting what I could call UNhealthy family values:  Zero dialogue on THE most important issues of life, a lifelong habit.  Scapegoating.  Tolerance of domestic violence towards, now, more than one member, and clan-like excommunication for anyone who dares to report any of the worst family secrets (and I shudder to think of the ones that haven’t yet come to surface).

My father died suddenly and under circumstances that were not explained to me.  I learned more about him after his death from the Internet than from anyone I was related to.   He has been described alternately as a genius, and modest (a side of him we didn’t know!), and creative.  His mother was devout, and he rejected the concept and existence of God, another family value I myself later rejected, and paid dearly for over the years.  I like to think that, had he realized one of his daughters would go on to marry and be exposed to what his own mother was, I like to think he’d be turning over in his grave, but fact is, I don’t know.  I do know there was a certain sexism, not uncommon for the day and time.  And I do thank him for not following the utterly insane policy that the HHS is nowadays, deciding and enforcing that children need contact with wife-beating fathers, for the good of, I guess, the country (???) and their little lives.

I consider refusal to address violence endorsing it.  They consider it “dwelling on the past,” even when the ostensible past was as recent as last week or last month.  They got that one down, and in order that my children should not know the truth about this family, have endorsed further criminal behavior towards them, and me, and this state, again in the name of “Family.”

It appears that the family law venue is also in the business of telling people to shut up about both their own family secrets (retaliation on custodial parents for reporting abuse in the form of switching the kid to the accused parent!) as well as ITS own secrets, which (as family secrets tend to) includes the financial business deal driving the steamship that’s steamrolling over (well, I could go on and on with that analogy, it’s an apt one) – — that’s steamrolling over the years that SOME families might have otherwise had in peace to recover from the initial trauma, and rebuild a few lives.  Big Brother had a supposedly Better Idea for the country, you know, and so we are to sacrifice the duration of our children’s — well, til they are legally adults — and stay in the system until all the proper tolls have been paid, and “Therapeutic Jurisprudence” has run its course, replacing the former language of right, wrong, crime & punishment, and deterrents for doing it again.  

Which deterrents Phillip Garrido had, but in the words of one of his several kidnapped for the purpose of raping women, (the 1976 woman that got him the 50 year jail sentence, that he served a few years of), it just made him a smarter and wiser criminal.


However it’s not the men’s doing this so much as the institutions they create doing this, which frightens me the most, for at least my own children’s futures.  Put against this, is their spirit and, I hope, smarts.  

And the VOLUNTARY donation of the national resources and sort of “conscience” to the federal government.  Kind of like the cycle of rain, rivers flow to the ocean, evaporation, clouds, rain, etc.  The concept is that justice and a better society will somehow rain down on us.

I’m not holding my breath.  


However, sometimes this happens when the parents may even know where they are; this happens in the “family court venue.”  

Recent articles talk about how the girls are recovering from trauma, and that’s partly where I started in this new page.  I note a difference of perspective from the experts quoted and what i know about the trauma thing from experience.

I end up talking about the importance of the declaration of independence, and personal defense of boundaries.  And how it MIGHT help if the public were a little less self-delusional, compartmentalized, and dissociative when it comes to US vs THEM and the role of government in kissing all our “ow-ies,” settling our squabbles, raising our young, monitoring our marriages, determining our public visions, and protecting our boundaries.

NO, let’s get back to the foundational principles.  And add women and girls in the mix as citizens, not as items to be devoured or dominated.

If overall, we ALL had less tolerance for unreasonable dominance, I think a lot of partnerships and society would be healthier.  You can force compliance, but you can’t force love, and when force gets into the family business, then we are REALLY in trouble.  And we are.  

I don’t think the culprit is god or godlessness. I don’t think the culprit is men OR women.  I think the loss is of a sense of selves as individuals (socially) and a loss of language — transformational ideology throughout the internet, and our institutions.  

As imperfect, or OK< sexist racist classist (etc.) as those colonists were in the latter 1700s, the three “charters of freedom” still shed light and common sense:

  • Declaration of Independence
  • Constitution
  • Bill of Rights.


If we don’t like the middle one, we should change the oath Presidents take on assuming office.  Barring that, we should hold them and every one else in any form of government to the same standard of these 3.  “Consent of the governed” still counts.

So I recommend we start thinking in those terms again, starting with putting some of the terms back into our heads and coming out of our mouths.  Expect a fight, in that matter, though!

That’s all for now.  If you want  straighter talk and fewer words, get it from the street:


On God (Dec. 2006)

3. If God is, whence come evil things? If He is not, whence come good?
BOETHIUS (Roman philosopher 480?-524 A.D.) The Consolation of Philosophy, translated by W.V. Cooper, 1981

4. I still believe that standing up for the truth of God is the greatest thing in the world. This is the end of life. The end of life is not to be happy. The end of life is not to achieve pleasure and avoid pain. The end of life is to do the will of God, come what may.  
MARTIN LUTHER KING JR., (U.S. clergyman and human rights activist, 1929-1968), “The Most Durable Power,” sermon, Montgomery, Alabama, 6 November 1956

(LIFE LIBERTy and PURSUIT of HAPP(y)NESS, and in that order.  Physical, mental, or spiritual Welfare =/= happiness, but the first can sustain life.    Moral proclamations by government about how to live, how free to be, and what happiness consists of is not the government’s province, it’s ours).


On poverty, who are you going to believe? A Harvard Ph.D. or a poor person?

Poor Magazine


This stereotype is that poor people can lift themselves out of poverty because, it assumes, they are responsible for their own poverty.   Linda Burnham explained in her opening, the myth in America is that “everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps.” This myth allows the public to discard “a whole layer of society” who can’t pull themselves up.

Linda spoke of the American economy as both an engine of incredible wealth and an engine of poverty. This engine “creates and recreates poverty everyday in the US and all over the world.” During the war, discussions of poverty have been swept off the table. It is important to connect the war against the poor to the war abroad. Burnham mentioned that Lockheed Martin, the world’s largest weapons manufacturer, has just been awarded a contract to run the welfare system in Florida. The company, who makes huge profits off of war, will now be making huge profits off of managing Florida’s poor.** In order for a country to subjugate and dominate another population, it has to first dominate its population at home. All you have to do is look at the streets of your city to see that this is being done on an everyday basis.

**This is why I don’t think much about the conversations on solving domestic violence.  IF it were solved, there’d be less cash flow all round, less poverty, and poverty IS an industry!


Or Ask the Beat Within


Violence And Material Madness
by Speedy, posted May 18, 2009I think violence comes from people who has a bad life style. They don’t get the good things in life and so they get angry, so they look to robbing and stealing. That’s what gets them in here. So then, when they get in here, their whole life is starting to mess up. And when that happens, they’re in the system. Then they get even more madder because they’re missing out on a lot, so they get to more stealing.

Some people grow up with anger, and some are taught to be mad and act bad. Like some parents say, when somebody hits you, you supposed to hit them back. But sometimes that’s not the right thing to do, so than they get in trouble for what they parents taught them. But when they get home, he or her mom says, “That a’right.” So than they keep getting’ in trouble.

But some violent stuff mostly come from material madness, so they try to steal and stealing ain’t the right thing. You should just get a job, have some money in yo’ pocket and that’s go be you. And if that material thing is really expensive, so that’s when you save up and get that thing for yourself, so than that’s when you see you don’t have to look to stealing. When you don’t have to steal and you see that you don’t have to do that no more.

OR:  (This issue had several letters to President Obama….)

A Letter To The President-
by TAE, posted May 18, 2009Dear Mr. Obama,

I think you should make certain things that keep young black men busy for the weekends, so we could stop killing ourselves. I also think that you should start building new colleges for people who cannot afford that type of money, so they could be something in life to take care of their family, and get the majority of the tax money every year.

I think there should be less education about African-American people and more about other cultures so people wouldn’t have to feel down all the time by hearing the word “Nigger” a lot.

People who’s getting abused in their family should be taken care of in a shelter that provides a little bit of discipline, so they could grow up and succeed in life, and keep innocent people out of the pen.


Dear President
by Richard, posted May 19, 2009How are you Mr. President? I am writing from Santa Clara juvenile hall. My name is Richard. I am facing a life sentence for kidnapping, attempted murder, carjacking, and 2nd degree robbery. I am 17 years old.

I would like to congratulate you for becoming the 44th President of the United States of America. You inspire me to do many things. It gives me hope to become something I thought I couldn’t be in life no matter what it is. I believe in you, that you are going to make things right in this world. I know when I go to prison I can try my hardest to get my education and other things. I didn’t think I could at first, but with you as President, I have faith.

I know I am in here and might not get out soon, but I know you will be there for those on the outside of these walls. I know you will make a change. I hope the best for you, Mr. President. Thank you for reading this, and I apologize for taking your time.


Our Mission

The Beat Within’s mission is to provide incarcerated youth with consistent opportunity to share their ideas and life experiences in a safe space that encourages literacy, self-expression, some critical thinking skills, and healthy, supportive relationships with adults and their community. Outside of the juvenile justice system, The Beat Within partners with community organizations and individuals to bring resources to youth both inside and outside of detention. We are committed to being an effective bridge between youth who are locked up and the community that aims to support their progress towards a healthy, non-violent, and productive life.


Regarding recovery from violence (WHICH the Antioch/Dugard articles from today dealt with),

from http://www.Lundy Bancroft.com:

  • Addressing the healing needs of children: There is a wide consensus that children’s recovery from exposure to domestic violence (and from divorce) depends largely on the quality of their relationship with the non-battering parent and with their siblings.20 

Of course this statement runs entirely contrary to the bulk of the “fatherhood” premises and the entire family court venue basically doesn’t validate or practice.

  • Therefore, in addition to safety consideration, court determinations should take into account whether the batterer is likely, based on his past and current behavior, to continue to undermine the mother’s authority, interfere with mother-child relationships, or cause tensions between siblings.

This becomes kind of irrelevant when the court itself does the same things.  My experience is that the past was considered to be a totally blank slate, and therefore any fallout was attributed to whoever it “fell” on.  Extended family influence (which I tried to bring up, and was significant) was ignored.  It was an unbelievably stereotyped reaction.  Possibly the reason I’m writing so much is from the impact of the years of being told POST-separation not to talk about this, or any other subsequent criminal behavior(s).  Oh well . . . 

  • Because children need a sense of safety in order to heal,21 juvenile and family court decisions may not want to include leaving the children in the unsupervised care of a man whose violent tendencies they have witnessed, even if they feel a strong bond of affection for him.


So when it typically does, often right after the filing of a civil restraining order, or when divorce is started almost immediately after someone files a protective order, resulting in the “joint custody” “Shared parenting” mindset, then we have a serious values conflict, as I did, in the past, now almost ten years.  A move was made (locally) to extend the initial restraining order time to 5 years from 3. I know I would’ve made it had this happened.  Certain agencies, and entities, made sure this was defeated.  Now that I have time (called unemployment!), I did find out who they were in that case.  


If you want straight talk on some poverty, justice, and crime policy issues, again, (although I try, there’s the verbiage issue!), try:  Street Spirit, Poor Magazine, the Beat Within (although that’s getting slicker and slicker since I first saw it),


Thanks.  Happy Labor Day (USA).  Unemployment rate _ _ _ _ _???

Labor (or rest) well, we have one more day off in America.  I gave up the concept of seeing a daughter at this time in favor of not fighting that fight until I have some income.  The lack of closure is a constant source of stress.  Closing has to be done right to be safe.  Go figure.  This is one reason I think if women leaving abuse could get a bit of space and time, they could run some great businesses.  It appears that Jaycee/Alyssa both helped her captorS S S S Ss s s s s run a business (not including any horrors she endured IF the brothel rumor was true) and educated her also-imprisoned daughters, the product of her rapes, but nonetheless her DAUGHTERS,  the best she could.  I wish her well and the family that’s now reunited with her.

Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California

leave a comment »

After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:














(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: 









(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:  


Supervised visitation and exchange services; 


Education about protecting children during family disruption; and  


Group counseling services for parents and children






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)





 (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). 








Ireland’s CPS Woes — Convicted Sex Offender Training Young People for Child Protection Workers??

leave a comment »

Warning:  My post today starts in Ireland, but ends up back in the USA.

This is a little more complicated than “Who’s Policing the Police?”

Who’s Watching the People Training the Trainers to Watch the People?

This was prompted by an article that came to my attention called

Moral of This Grim Tale is Lesson in Passing Buck

As best as I can decipher the T&C of the Copyright here, I must only point to the home page, not the actual page of the article in question.  So if you want the whole thing, I have given you title of article, and home page of “http://www.independent.ie

This appears to be a universal, and world-wide problem.  The  more the agencies, the less the accountability, and SOME agencies attract inappropriate sorts.  Unfortunately some agencies and institutions (including schools of many sorts, not just one “sort”) attract unscrupulous sorts because that’s a clear and steady place CHILDREN are found.

It seems to me that the wholesale dismantling of the family unit, in the name of protecting and educating children, needs to be addressed.  The mass failures need to be addressed.  I do not believe it is possible to stop every crime from happening.  But if I DID want crime stopped, based on my personal, and extensive experience, I would rather (next time) see what I can personally do, when it hits me in the face (pun intentional) than, as we WOMEN are taught to do, call out for someone to intervene and help.  Yeah, right.  

The report into how Niall McElwee, a well-known child protection expert, was able to remain in his post at Athlone Institute of Technology for two years after having been convicted of indecent assault of two young women makes for grim reading.

Yet, in the first of a series of shameful lacks of adherence to child protection procedures, no restrictions were put on the lecturer’s behaviour.

 Yet a convicted sex offender was still appearing regularly in the media and at conferences and academic gatherings the world over.  

It is clear no referral system exists between our two largest social care authorities. McElwee will probably argue that, as far as he was concerned, if the gardai and the HSE knew of his conduct, and both saw fit to continue working with him, then he was surely in the clear. Yet common sense dictates that a call should also have been made to his employers in the Athlone Institute of Technology, where he was charged with training young people to become child protection workers. Having a sex offender in that important role seems ironic, to say the very least.

(The original has hyperlinks in the text, and related articles to the side.)


I noticed visitors from other countries (no comments so far, eh?), including Belgium, Bucharest, Egypt, Saudia Arabia, Canada, Australia, Trinidad, and a few places I had to look up on the map.  This site gets some views.  Well, welcome Ireland, I guess you have similar issues here.  

Kind of reminds me of the sketch of the Max Escher hands I was familiar with, growing up.  Metaphorically, this is basically what I think America at least is turning into.  It has become a nation of pronouncers and declarers (all in the best interests of the kids, and to protect them).

It is absolutely essential that we ALL begin studying the ‘studiers’ and researching the researchers.  Unless we LIKE dropping off our tax dollars in order to hire people to execute policies promoted, many times, by a wealthy foundation driving institutions, initiatives and Congress on a vision of the wealthy about what to do with the poor, mostly, how to manage them.  (And keep them poor).  

I personally want answers for the language degradation that has drenched the brains of people wishing to tell me how to:  leave abuse, raise children, what lifestyle to work, what personal priorities to espouse, what is and is not “OK” when I can read laws that already exist and say this.  There is practically not one word which can be taken at face value, yet we are supposed to do this.  I don’t.  As I said, no wonder “mental health professionals” abound in certain circles — and once established a profession has to continue.  Where to find more clients?  Produce them

I didn’t know that Ireland, also, had similar issues.  Perhaps if worldwide, we people who are being studied and protected (or our kids are) by these institutions in such a manner that, as adults, they see fit to address what happened to them in class action lawsuits, we might communicate about alternative theories than Farming Out Our Thinking, Letting Our Own Self-Suffiency Exit [Stage Right]

That acronym is “FOOTLOOSE” and was just made up.  It makes about as much sense as “Health and Human Services” (HHS, the major U.S. Federal grant-making agency) in charge of doing so.  Maybe I should delete an “O” in the 2nd syllable, because somewhere, footing (“grasp on reality”) has indeed been Lost.  

Remember that old science fiction film (with alien invaders, only recognizable if you had special glasses), called


This was accurate.  Not til the end of the movie does it become clear that this refers to a menu, and people were the food.  Yes, they were “serving humanity,” for sure.

WHEN STUDIED< STUDY BACK.  WHEN REPORTED ON, REPORT BACK! WHEN PROPHESIED OVER (in essence, that’s what a lot of these studies are in concept — simple proclamations.    (Well, not quite as simple or well-written, as the Declaration  of Independence, true).

I declare this based on my recent (internet-based) scrutiny of programs that have been scrutinizing the huddled masses, and sorting them by color, shape, income category, marital status, and of course, gender.  In our school system we also sort them, (within schools already sorted by several of the above statistics) by how well they perform according to their peers, and the wider public, all of which is then reported and discussed on high, and then sometimes, even personally presented by a representative from someone on high.

I declarae that this appears to have been the source of some of the puzzlement and confusion in the family law systems, where we expect “laws” already in place to protect “families” to be fairly enforced, and not (beyond our reach, and without information to us) that policy-makers entering into prisons, child support offices, and in conventions on parenting education and fatherhood, conduct random samplings  and then nationwide infrastructures to tie TIME  with Kids to MONEY for KIDS, and shift wealth around accordingly.   I do not approve of “outcome based” education. As a mother and educator, I know that if the engagement, the joy of learning and the understanding that learning is a necessary and enjoyable skill (in fact, way of life) is the principle, then the stick -and-carrot approach is not the MAIN approach.  I have a higher opinion of children than that.  

Nor, do I wish to enter into a courtroom and find out years later that agencies working in the background — but driven by governmental POLICIES — have determined (Big-Brother, In Loco Parentis, “JUST-us” theories — to, for its own ends, use a “carrot and stick” approach with noncustodial fathers (including incarcerated ones and middle and higher class ones as well), particularly to fathers /spouses who have used the same approach on the wives, particularly when it comes to the stick (hands, implement, weapons, etc.)  That philosophy is going to infantilize a nation, PERMANENTLY.  

Recently, in California, a six foot tall Dept. of Education Head (Federal), Arne Duncan, was seen towering over some youngsters (this is called “PR”) and then proclaiming on TV that California Schools have “lost their way,” and no, they will not be considered individually, but will sink or swim together.  This is called, “No Child Left Behind,” and Big Brother stepping in to scold and fix what (er, Big Brother designed and forced on the general public to start with).  

My gut response to having a 40+ male appointee (and I”m 50+) hailing from a city I used to live and work (in the schools) in, Chicago, come to California and lecture us about having lost our way — was, “ON WHAT BASIS HAS AN ENTIRE STATE BECOME YOUR AUDIENCE, TO BE SCOLDED LIKE A BAD CHILD?” And within this state are thousands of parents whose children are not even in the public school system.  What hypocrisy.!

Meanwhile, in one Northern California school, a (female, naturally) middle school (think “puberty” and you have the general age range if you’re not from this country)music teacher was surrounded by a group of children and stoned.  Not to death, but rocks werre thrown at her, there was injury, and her escape was prevented.  She was punished for attempting to set a limit on some of their behavior.  Thankfully, and children were arrested.  The District brought in more law enforcement through the end of the year.

And in another school district, a superintendent being brought in (to clean up a mess, naturally — it’s why the come in, right?), in a noble move, said that HIS seven year old would attend a local elementary school.

That’s noble.  At least he’s willing to sacrifice his own child, as well as others.  

I have a separate blog on education (infantile in size, so far), and another one (pre-natal in state) on the topic of Administering Families and Serving Humanity, and yes, that was sarcastic.  Prepare to be shocked.

But these are related topics.

Meanwhile, any public discussion of any type of schooling NOT federally-mandated, budgeted, and NOT doing less for its dollars than almost any existing business I can think of, will not make the evening news.  


The cartoonist to the left has inserted hands writing checks.  

The Declaration of Independence

Read, and understand.  What was this Declaration of Independence FROM — from what?

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson between June 11 and June 28, 1776, the Declaration of Independence is at once the nation’s most cherished symbol of liberty and Jefferson’s most enduring monument. Here, in exalted and unforgettable phrases, Jefferson expressed the convictions in the minds and hearts of the American people. The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in “self-evident truths” and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country. We invite you to read a transcription of the complete text of the Declaration.



IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.–Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

IF these facts had shown up in, say, “Family Court,” the response would be, “you are blaming us!  Stop blaming us!  You are stuck in the past,” (etc.).  Yet, if a people within a nation can peaceably assemble to seek redress of grievances — and other countries have followed this example (Republic of Philippines, 2004), why cannot an individually, peaceably do so in a courtroom?

And how is it possible to seek redress, when the act of listing the grievances is then itself new sort of speech-crime, called, remembering them and speaking up?  (Parental Alienation, etc.)  We do not all live in the “eternal now of the spotless mind,” but are affected by a chain of events (see above), particular when said events cause suffering.  

It has to be acknowledged that the phrase referring to the merciless Indian savages later led to intentional genocide, a reversal.  In an irony to the HHS structure (which you may read on their FY2008 self-description) there is an IHS which has more discretion over how to use its funds than the other agencies.  That is a separate post.  

It has to be acknowledged that the signers of this declaration (and authors) did not, most likely, envision either Indians or African Americans (to them, slaves) voting.  It has to ALSO be acknowledged, and should be publically, that WOMEN having this power to vote also was not on the horizon at this time.  However, the words stand and express a declaration of independence against tyranny.

I could make a good case for the family law system falling under “inciting domestic insurrections,” and the conflict between the standards in the compulsory education system (LGBT sensitivity, no prayer, political correctness, not to mention the many fads and phases which simply teaching:  reading, writing, and math have been subjected to) with the standards held by many conservatives who then go, with their connections, through Congress to “promote fatherhood” on the basis that is has somehow disappeared is another one.  

Anyone who intentionally wastes my time and goes about to slow down, dumb down, indoctrinate, and/or traumatize MY and their father’s) OFFSPRING (children, in our case, daughters), is pretending to act, not acting, in their best interests.  This IS being done, on a national basis, and I am tired of it.  However, I have done nothing here, but report, and in the spirit of the above Declaration of Independence.  

When I took a stand against the above, I became instant enemies with some forces I didn’t know existed (to this day).  When I went to law for help, innocently, I then found a hornet’s nests of personalities I would never have, knowing this, freely associated with.  Preventing anyone from exiting dangerous and oppressive situation when alternatives to that situation exists, IS a form of tyranny (a.k.a. “abuse.”)  

Do YOU have time to take out (from life) to watch the people training the trainers to protect your children? (OR, educate them?)  I don’t.  I’d rather do it myself.  I believe that quite possibly if the economic structure were not so dependent on dismantled families, we might have “healthier marriages” and more funds with which  to feed, clothe, educate, and set our children on a healthy passage in life.

We cannot do this by chasing myths and accepting every foollish fallacy handed down from on high!

I hope in future posts to compare some of the language behind this one, and the multiple FACTUAL allegations presented in this declaration with the simple-minded assertions that jump start some of the proclamations put out  by the United States Congress to solve problems IT declares existed, and starting SWEEPING reforms and policy changes, at our expense and to our detriment many times.

The rhetoric — and format — of these proclamations is not even in the same league with the one above, yet have effected a sea-change in the basic judicial processes, balance of powers, in transgression of several passages in the Bill of Rights.  These have not been announced openly nationwide.  They have been conferenced, but not voted on in general elections properly.  And they produce strange fruit.

Congressional Task Force on Father Promotion” (Google result)

Today’s post, however is long enough.

I am going to post it next.

In 1998, the House of Representatives, and in 1999, the Congress, resolved as you are about to see.

For a reference point, the “Violence Against Women Act” had only passed in 1994.

One wonders why the unanimity on fatherlessness so soon after this one, which gave women a way out of violence, and primarily in the home.



“Greater Emphasis on Shared Parental Responsibility” (Australian Family 2006 Law Amendment) “in the best interest of kids” gets them killed, again.

leave a comment »

In this post, I am reacting to a story which will be posted separately, although excerpts are in my post, and a link at the bottom.  


I do not know “Jen Jewel Brown,” but the writing is compassionate and detailed, not a polemic, or a dry newspaper report.  

This type of writing  — about this international problem — engaging attention, mind, and emotions, prompted me to respond, at length.  Because of the length, the post itself is separate.  

Thank you, “Jen Jewel Brown” for the coverage of this matter, in  tone that engages the emotions, which these should, but doesn’t I feel manipulate them. This is good writing.  Thanks also to the Mom who brought this to my attention on-line.  I do compare notes with women in other countries at time, in hopes that we can do something to stem the tide of child-sacrifices on the altar of “Family.”  

My “target audience” is those “puzzled” by the failures of family law and disturbed, but perhaps not enough so, by why the experts trusted with fixing these things aren’t succeeding.  I do not speak from the “puzzled” perspective, at all.  My recommendations, and appeals are at the end of the post.  

I don’t know whether 3 whole posts should be dedicated to one incident, but there is a “to the contrary” response, blaming the family law system for the casualties (i.e., deaths) because it’s “brutal” to men.  This post has been a half day’s (volunteer, incidentally) work, and the other will have to wait, but I will post the link blaming these children’s deaths (and others) on family law’s “brutal” anti-father bias, and those damn domestic violence folk.  

(This hails from “WATODAY.com” — Breaking News from Perth and West Australia (and was published the week before “Mothers’ Day” in the USA).

Jen Jewel Brown

  • May 2, 2009

Suffer the Little Children:



But first, a quiz:  did you notice, too?

Does anything seem amiss in the following description?

Try and picture it before reading further….

Dalton was left in a state of intense fear. As he drove to his mother’s with the kids, Fehring gave chase.   She rang his mobile 76 times in that 90-minute drive.

When she hit his mother on arrival, she broke her latest domestic violence order for the second time. Arrested and jailed overnight, and released at midday the next day, Fehring was in a savage mental state.

A.  Does this scenario seem believable, and consistent with other accounts you may have read in the MSM (mainstream media), or statistics you may have studied, about women’s violence towards men (being comparable).

B.  Have you ever heard a case reported where a woman chased down a man in anger, calling him nonstop for one and a half hours (as he was fleeing with his kids), breaking a court restraining order, and still being angry enough to punch his mother in the face?  Or one that fits this pattern? (picture it….)

? ? ? 


To “A.”  The correct answer should be “yes.”  This does not seem to fit the pattern.  And in this case, it shouldn’t —

To “B.”  My answer, which may vary with personal experience, for me, is NO.  I haven’t.  (Groups such as “Mens Rights Agency” etc. would say, it could go either way.  But this is the description I read.  Where is the description of a woman doing this?  AND — —  getting away with being released after arrest to go and do it again?)

Above, I just switched the names, genders, and parties on another (yet another) blunder of Family Law Amended in 2006 to reflect greater empahsis on shared parental responsibility.”  This blunder wasn’t just one single blunder, but a whole series of them resulting in the eventual death of two innocent.  Infants.  In their best interests, of course. He chased her, she didn’t chase him.  He punched HER mother’s nose, and not vice versa.  HE, even after this terrorizing incident, was released from jail the next morning.

She then (it seems) endured a five-hour-long flight, with her mother, from this man, only six days after one infant was born, and couldn’t handle it.  She had a breakdown and was hospitalized en rte.  I can see why her mother might have fled, too.

This is how the family courts responded to that knowledge:

On March 17, 2004, in a 14-minute hearing, the Brisbane Family Court gave interim custody of the infant Patrick and his sister Jessie to Jayson Dalton, former One Nation candidate and long-term batterer.”

Fehring’s solicitor, Ros Byrne, had less than 24 hours warning of Dalton’s bid for custody. She told the judge: “There are domestic violence issues.” That was it.

Fehring, ill, could not be there. “I have no idea why they gave him custody,” she says. “And I don’t think I’ll ever understand it. They were in no danger, they’d been with mum, she was taking care of them with my sister.

“My solicitor knew I was petrified. She told the court there were domestic violence issues and yet the children were handed over to a violent man.”


I don’t know what to do, just me alone, about the nonstop, nonsensical, and unnecessary murder of little kids as a logical consequences of illogical thinking dominating the family courts — not just in my home country (which is not Australia, as below), but around the world.  But I am doing some things (including reporting), and have some suggestions below of what doesn’t work, and possible different approach to take, when going about to “help,” other than picking a side to believe and joining it, or staying “neutral” or remaining “puzzled.”   

I can only assert, and I have some experiential basis to compare these two on, religion, and family law, that the family courts worldwide have become a religion to themselves, and have all the characteristics of a VERY cruel one.  

~ ~ ~ ~ ~


In wondering who took leave of whose senses when, (i.e., in trying to analyze this), I think we need to also take a more honest look at whether we really want nation-wide educational systems that take kids away from families in order to protect them from the ignorance, supposedly in their families.  Both of these systems are based on similar premises of helping in competent parents and rescuing children from ignorance and illiteracy.  In the U.S., the outcome of this premise, apart from an ever-increasing budget demanded, factionalism within the ranks, and this region also, education, becoming both an industry and a political endorsement or virtual “death-warrant” depending on one’s constituency — it ALSO has resulted in a literacy rate (the very thing it proposed to fix) trailing the developed world, a populace of people that, on graduating from 8th grade school (around 13/14 years old), still can’t read, but CAN get pregnant, or get someone else pregnant.  They can also get shot at, sexually abused by teachers, or locked down if a rumor of someone with a gun (or someone with a real gun) comes on or near the campus.  They are the target of pharmaceutical corporations and text book corporations, and all kinds of political factions.  Currently, in California, they are again arguing over whether a parent can “opt out” for their kids of “LGBT” training — in the same region where, in the family law, another paradigm reigns, that each child needs both parents, and supposedly mothers have an unfair advantage.  (Was that same-sex parents, or not??).  These school graduates, then class-sorted, and intelligence-tested, are coming out, and some of them making it to college (others not), and now we have family law systems teaching adults (both middle-aged adult AND young adults) “parenting.”  Well, what where they doing for the first eight years of government help?  

So I do tend to look, both as to cost and results, at both of these systems as related.  I am wondering, how have we somehow gotten politicians who can’t think straight, or a general public who can’t discern what’s going on with the politicians?  There are indeed many questions. I also note that the U.S. is already one of the highest per capital prison nations around (I heard this, anyhow, as to “developed” nations. If this is development, let’s under-develop for a while, eh?)  The effect being that prison is not exactly a deterrent to batterers because the places are crowded already!  


 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I have spent close to two decades dealing with abuse, up front first (at home) and thereafter, trying to be female and leave it, with children. Once Internet became accessible, and I regained a bit more freedom to choose who I associated with, I have also been researching and connecting with other men and women both, while also seeing how my personal case progressed through attempting to retain a standing restraining order (i.e., renew it), and how someone coached the person I needed to restrain to dodge it into Family Court, which I can only describe as like “Alice in Wonderland and Through the Looking Glass.”  (I read this book often during my childhood).  It is as though all the people in there are on psychotropic medicines, but being a world unto themselves, are looking at you as the oddball.  

One of the most serious mistakes a family law innocent can take is to take ANY of its denizens seriously.  To take them at their words, which are many-syllabic and I say, infantile in rationale.  (That includes innocent observers, too….)

Another serious mistake is failure to realize how seriously they take themselves (meaning, each other)(not your laws, or their rules of court, or their professional code of ethics, for the most part), and their inherent authority and what tools are at their disposal to make sure you do, or else! (See recent post, where I discuss “kneeling” in august reverence here).

The SOONER you seriously divest yourself of assuming that terms used bear any relationship to common usage (outside this venue), the better chances of success you will have.   I am a literary sort of person, and invested a lot of time (after successive failures to win a point in this venue) in reading the laws and rules of court.  My opponent didn’t piddle around with this — at all — but went straight for the emotional heartbeat of whatever authority (he) was in front of, and adjusted his story to accommodate.  AND WAS RESPECTED FOR THIS!  He didn’t bother with piddling matters like consistency, truth, or even evidence.  He figured out what resonated and ad-libbed an court order violated himself into being rewarded with total custody of our daughters, no meaningful contact with their mother, and no child support obligations for him — in effect, none of the past due, and the current one promptly stopped.  This dysfunctional system rewarded criminal behavior.  Welcome to “la-la-land,” quite similar to what I had hoped to leave, many years ago, and peaceably rebuild separate lives.  (Oh well!)  

I don’t think or operate like this, in general as a teacher, a mother, or a professional.  Every profession I’ve been involved in to date has some set of principles which, if repeatedly violated, results in failure of the endeavor.  There ARE operational principles in family law too.  The thing is, understanding what they are.  

One clue is to understand as quickly as possible what Family Law Courts are NOT.  ONE “what they are not” is clearly “in the best interests of the children” or the general public, as far as I can tell.  Get comfortable with Upside Down World (as did Alice in WOnderland) or get out.  As fast as possible.  I believe the same thing applies for an abusive relationship — the LESS invested said abuser is in the relationship, the safer everyone SHOULD be.  Family Law, is being amended, however, to tip that scale backwards.


Not just “seeing through a glass, darkly” but literally in reverse — ‘THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS’:


For those who don’t know the book, here’s three references (all to URLs), the first (only) with the classic illustrations of Alice unnaturally elongated, and then squished into a small box.  The message is altered perspectives.  I read this book through repeatedly as  girl (we were not a TV family…), often in one sitting on a weekend.   My legs would fall asleep,  an odd sensation I thought interesting, and I knew that polishing off the book would do result in a numb leg.  That’s how fascinating it was, with its characters, and Alice’s dialogues with herself, and them, getting her bearings, and finally getting out of this dream (or altered state).

The difference between “Alice’s” adventures and entering the world of “family law” (in practically any country, I’m coming to believe) is that it is unbelievably different from inside than outside.  The other difference is, some people do not emerge outside triumphant as this heroine did.  Some children never “age out of the system” because someone kills them first.  Or one (or both) of their parents.  (Are the killers of the other parent half men and half women?   Look it up yourself, not from a mother’s group or a father’s group, but from a more authoritative source!)  

Others become sexual objects, property, or weapons of revenge for others, or money for third parties, although eventually they do reach age 18, forever changed.

The characters, standards, and self-referential dogma of these circles exacerbates prior situations, or maybe incites a few more, while continuing to enunciate, evaluate, proclaim, and judge situations as if the characters judging were the standard, and the intruders, the alien oddballs that needed a sharp lesson in which way is up.

So, Get a Flavor of “Alice,” for Reference (Curiouser and Curiouser).  This figure will help your understanding of the domain of family law and associated realms driven by social sciences (and the funding thereof) more, I feel, than a glossary of words, which taken out of context, might be misinterpreted to actually mean what they say:

From a New York Times blog on migraines (apparently the author of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland) had these:


“The man who gave us “Alice in Wonderland” suffered from migraine. He was also a mathematician, a clergyman, a photographer, and a wit. He was self conscious about a stammer and may have had sexual proclivities for young girls. It is impossible to know exactly what role migraine played in his creative work.”  (itself a commentary that skill in various professions is not an indicator of innocence or guilt in other areas)


And another, with an excerpt, shows a few of the characters, and Alice answering back.  She tries to retain some of her former judgment, common sense, and attempts to make the others adhere to a few rules, but each time has her words twisted.  Perhaps this novel is a more accurate relation of what it’s like to deal with people who have something else on their brains, when yours is safety/solvency/justice (and all the usual things one tends to associate with justice venues).  Alice is the newcomer here to the Mad  Tea Party.  THIS is as close a description of what it’s like in these Family Law Venues as anything else.  Note:  when she emerges, no one else knew what she went through.  

and, from Salon.com, someone’s commentary on it, recalled from her childhood: 


the “children’s tale” was in brilliant ways coded to be read by adults and was in fact an English classic, a universally acclaimed intellectual tour de force and what might be described as a psychological/anthropological dissection of Victorian England. It seems not to have occurred to me that the child-Alice of drawing rooms, servants, tea and crumpets and chess, was of a distinctly different background than my own. I must have been the ideal reader: credulous, unjudging, eager, thrilled. I knew only that I believed in Alice, absolutely.


(AUSTRALIAN) Family Law Act amended in 2006.   


In 2006, the Family Law Act was substantially amended to reflect a greater emphasis on shared parental responsibility. One of the changes required the court to look at two primary considerations when deciding what is in the child’s best interests. The first is the desire for children to have a meaningful relationship with both parents; the second the need to protect them.


WHY?  The story below dates back to 2004!  (Again, two little kids were killed by a man who had violence and punishment of his wife on his mind already, had been acting it, had been demonstrating already his disregard of court orders — i.e., placing himself above the law – and had been arrested for doing so, which only made him still madder, and less in compliance.  This upside down-a-rabbit-hole and Through the Looking Glass logic (itself detached from threats of being murdered, or having one’s kids murdered, or having to live with — and AROUND — that fear, somehow) is NOT “evidence-based” or “In the child’s best interests.”

This fear of also trespassing on an idenfitied batterer’s civil rights overrode the innocent party’s ones.

 The court order making this possible happened because the mindset that prompted the 2006 amendment was already in play, obviously, that even if a man chases down his wife punches her mother, and does things that would put him in jail, and staying there longer, if done to a man, or where a previous relationship had not existed) 


Child abuse expert emeritus professor Freda Briggs, of the education, arts and social sciences division of the University of South Australia, has firm views about changes needed to family law.

“The level of ignorance by judges and (Family Court) staff about child development, domestic violence and sexual abuse is inexcusable,” she says.

Judges ignore DV (domestic violence) because (a) some psychologists tell them that men who bash their wives don’t necessarily bash their children and (b) they don’t seem to know that witnessing violence is as damaging to children as being a victim of it. Education is so badly needed.”





There are number of wise courses of action (hard choices, all of them) which will help those enacting and judging poorly in situations that result in family deaths (unnecessarily) to understand the FIRST priority is to preserve physical life of individuals (that’s what criminal laws, in part, are for), and SECOND, if then, to MAKE DAD HAPPIER BY MORE TIME WITH THE CHILDREN — BUT ONLY IF HE CAN BEHAVE LIKE IN AN ADULT FIRST.  

Another option, which was proposed over a decade ago by a writer on NOMAS (National Organization of Men Against Sexism — which, FYI, this family law act as amended seems to be, as it was addressed primarily to giver fathers (not mothers) more contact with their kids after divorce).  One might be a rigid and STRICT sorting system to discourage violence against women, which when kids are present, is a horrible role model:  (A)  Case Flow.  You commit violence, you lose access to your kids — PERMANENTLY.  This is called “deterrent.”  

Then there would be nothing much to discuss in family law except distribution of any property.  And I personally don’t care if anyone who assaults an intimate partner even TWICE, let alone in such awful manners, is financially penalized either.  Why shouldn’t he be?  The devil didn’t make him do it.  His unemployment didn’t make him do it.  SHE didn’t make him do it.  Abuse, like ignorance, is a choice.  It’s a two year old in a grown up body trying to make the world fit his (or her) own definition of how the world should be, and making sure he is the center of attention (via tantrum, throwing things, etc.), until the world IS changed to accommodate.

Maybe it’s time, and maybe there is a way (in our respective countries) we can get the conversation away from sick social science theories (which many participants, FYI, may not agree with) AND bribery (job -referrals, cronyism, or whatever it took to amend Australia’s Family Law in 2006 to better reflect what’s happening in America, which, FYI, we cannot here keep up with the incidents that are quite similar to the one below, where “Dalton” kills his own offspring because he’s mad.  Or can’t get his own way, even AFTER he gets custody.  “It’s about control, dude.”

The alternative is to penalize the rest of society, and especially the target.  The alternative is NOT to, as we do in the US, “promote healthy marriage” and then leave doing so up to characters that think like this!  (See “Mad Hatter Tea Party.”).  The alternative is a nonstop, constant drain of time, and transfer of wealth — from the general public, and also from one parent to another, or from both parents to attorneys (and psychologists, etc.).  The alternative is a total drain on public funds that are needed for more noble causes.

But speaking in public and anywhere else as though judges really are uninformed on the fact that domestic violence occurs, and that disturbed parents sometimes kill their wives, themselves, bystanders, relatives, and responding police officers in the context of a woman — that is called “enabling” talk.  It makes excuses.  Take my word, or ask someone else.  Good grief, get real!  Like Alice in Wonderland, who found herself there, and conversed with the various characters, and emerged with her self-respect intact back into the real world, it is necessary after frequenting such discussions, to get back to reality.  This is NOT about justice!

(I know of only ONE  single high-profile case reported in my area where the killer was a woman except ONE, in the many years I have been watching and noticing this, since I left my own situation.  That case has some very unique circumstances to both the marriage, and the custody hearings, and I also know the judge involved).  She tried to defend herself, and went to jail.  It sold a lot of newspapers. I have also seen the countenance, attitudes, and behaviors of family court personnel in the context of some extremely high-profile, headline making murders, one of them a triple murder, in the context of a woman leaving a batterer.  We had a man who killed his wife on a weekend exchange, with kids present, buried her body, and was eventually convicted without the body!, but plea-bargained himself down by promising to show the police the body.  Not until he was actually convicted did he change his “I didn’t do it!” story for a minute.)

We had another one where a man shot the cousin (in the face) because he couldn’t find the wife, who he was after.  In the process, he also tore up a business front and threatened his (brave) adult daughter, who tried to get the gun from him.  We had a woman who had been cautious and attempting to keep a low profile, but she went to church on a weekday morning, apparently before work.  Her ex ambushed her, gunned her down in front of witnesses.  There IS no safe place, it seems, when a mad “ex” is intent on getting even, and obeying laws is the LAST thing at certain times on the brain.  I referred to that last case in my court hearing (same city), loud, and clearly.  My comment was deleted from (never made) the court transcript.  In this hearing (if I have which one right), I had PTSD triggered in recounting the last time I had to interact with my ex, which itself had so frightened me, I swore internally that I would never, the rest of my life, put myself in a position where I had to see this man in person, I could not handle it.  I only had to see him a few more times (THAT year), and stalking has been an issue, and caused me to reframe my livelihood and daily lifestyle ever since, negatively so.  It has also put a severe damper on my plans to assert any future legal rights, as safety is now a definite issue.  

How’d you like to make those choices?  Leave your kids with a known batterer who won’t obey court orders (any of them, basically) and has not been held accountable by any authority.  And do this after many years in court hearings, and after many years in domestic violence.  

My case was nowhere near as awful as this woman Fehring, who in 2004 lost her kids after trying to save them (but family law orders curtailed her ability to do so), and I’m struggling.  She is speaking out, and so are many others, in various countries.    We are definitely struggling on many fronts, and we don’t want domestic violence to go down another generation!

We also (I deal with enough mothers to say I speak for at least many of them) cannot afford the luxury of believing these things persist because of lack of judicial EDUCATION.  It’s more a lack of judicial BACKBONE and ETHICS.  And it’s not only the judges (although they as the ones signing orders, command the most obivous authority).  We hope that people who are not traumatized themselves, or still have some source of income to sustain themselves, and whose children are NOT at risk for speaking out, to FIRST divest themselves of a few myths:

The judicial and legal and custody evaluator (etc.) circles are indeed capable of being educated, and they ARE.  If you want to know “by whom” (rather than continue to wonder, after the next incident, “why can’t we get it through?” to these circles), see other pages on my cite, or a few other links I’ve recommended.  Study the organizations, grants, funding, and legal structure in YOUR system.  Study also who is pre-empting (it happens, trust me) organizations that once existed to help battered women, or protect them, or advocate, and see who is funding them.  For a dialogue on this, see “justicewomen.org.”  It’s the best explanation I’ve run across.  See also California NOW (CANOW.org) web page on the family court system — it has a history of organizations that is a clue.  See National Alliance for Family Court Justice, which connects the dots better than most places I’ve seen (there is a lot of text to process, but DO SO!).  

Dedicate a time to becoming an expert yourself.  Then learn to distinguish between experts.

And follow the money trail.  Money talks.

WHo was this Dalton man, that murdered kids?  It appears he had a high profile.  Maybe we should, as a public, restrict our adulation to people whose personal lives measure up.  If people hold a public profile, then their personal lives count.  Why shouldn’t they?  These are means by which someone who has been voted into an office or appointed to one, can be judged.  

You cannot have justice when the doors are closed.  It is not going to happen.

You cannot have justice when you don’t know who’s funding and appointing the judges.

it is very difficult in our current lifestyles (I speak for my acquaintance with the US, and I know a good deal of it, particularly as an educator and arts professional) to find time to study and know what our government is doing.  I found (personally) the educational system here to be the greatest timesoaker for my own children and myself, and I also witnessed this same system in poor and in rich neighborhoods.  My perception of the justice in the richer community is that it was far harder on women.  The general level of violent crime appears to be kept down more by the affluence, but this does not reflect, that I can tell, a drop in the domestic violence crime, or even femicides.  This is a different type of crime than street crime.  

Even the Bible has an entire Book called “Judges” and directly ties the welfare of the nation to the ethics (in the context, of Israel’s religion, which for them was a theocracy).  When the judges screwedup, the whole nation suffered.  It’s no different today..

I do not know of any other way than enough of the public — or well-positioned public — coming out of what I call the collective “trance” that “government” means “good guys” and that our job in life is to just go about our business and hope that they are going about theirs properly.  My faith says we are to pray for these people, but with prayer comes a duty to watchfulness.  This will help you become a more fully alert — and helpful to your neighbors, next time they go “through it” — citizen.  It is, really, more important than how successful you are in your profession, I’d say.  How successful is it necessary to be to have “made” it?

We also need to listen to older generations talk about the transitions they have been through, and resist institutions that separate old from child-raising from young, except in highly mediated situations.

Well, this has become a post, so the story I am blogging about will be in the next one. . . . 

Please wake up, and help join men and women who are studying these topics. LISTEN to the stories of mothers who have lost their kids to violence, or to no-contact or supervised orders only with as much interest as you LISTEN to the stories and blogs of men complaining about the shoe being on their foot.  LISTEN also (I posted yesterday) the parallel stories about the “state” removing children from competent parents.   The social “science” paradigm is a dangerously presumptive one.  It applies general principles, often arrived at without proper input from the people they affect, does so whimsically and unevenly.  

The instrument itself is too blunt and too powerful.  We need more stories like Alice In Wonderland, and more symbolic reference points to tell the truth about the family courts, and cut through the “therapeutic jurisprudence” to recognize where jurisprudence is itself iatrogenic.

We need to start looking back and talking back.  It’s a commitment, for sure, but look at what’s at stake.

It will require losing some of one’s time, and probably personal peace, unless you are carrying it on the inside.

I hope some of this post sank in, as I wrote it in one sitting and entirely in response to a single, tragic, story (among many) that family law apparatus in Australia chose to ignore.  Someone has to address the conflict of interest between criminal and civil and family law in your country.

If you want to know where a lot of this came from, it is, I believe, from an organization in the US, which has been proselytizing like Jehovah’s Witness, only knocking on different doors.  They have money, they have (self-referential, but still it has an impact) prestige, they have technical superiority to MOST women’s websites, or DV websites I’ve seen.  You cannot judge the truth or falsehood of a viewpoint by how glitzy its website is.  The one I most respect, currently, has the least “glitz,” but I have spoken personally with the owner and checked out the facts.  This blog is not glitzy, but show me where else on the web someone is posting the links to the funding, AND the organizations behind the funding, AND some of the key Presidential (US) letters driving this.  And I’m not done yet.

Look at the “AFCC”  Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, a group that was run initially out of the Los Angeles County Courthouse address, but illegally so, and not incorporated as an entity (according to my single reading of this) for many, many years, until they were caught, and finally did.  This means that they cheated the American taxpayers by failing to pay taxes.  Money laundering appears to have been involved.  Initially custody evaluators got free tuition (to seminars) and attorneys did not.  Judges taught some of them.   This group has CONSISTENTLY ignored that “PAS” is junk science, and ignored the published criminal prosecutors reading of it, too.  If they had been operating in the case of Fehring v. Dalton, they would have recommended ordered Ms. Fehring into a parenting plan to adjust her unreasonable fear of her exhusband, and if she didn’t fork over her kids for visitation, they woudl have jailed HER, not him.  They are highly influential.  Their PAS man was a known pedophile who eventually committed suicide.  We are STILL in our courtrooms having male judges caught with their pants down or their hands up their secretary’s blouse, making her life hell, or judges taking kickbacks to send innocent juveniles away (I just recited only:  NJ, TX, PA examples.  The NJ judge had a porno collection that I couldn’t even stand to read about, when I heard.  He flew to Russia to have sex with a boy, and as I recall, had it filmed).  Women judges are/can be just as dishonest, cruel, and callous in their decisions.  I have sat under some of them.  It’s not JUST about gender, it’s about the system of family law, and the class, and information, and associations, gap between this system and the general public.

Then go read their history.

Then go look at their pamphlets and some of the personnel.  (I did).  This group is international in scope.  It appears that different countries have similar type groups with other names.  

Other issues include retaliation by groups and associations upon ethical and honest judges and professionals.  This retaliation can be as severe as it is upon a parent leaving abuse, or a parent reporting child abuse.  

MOST OF US do not want to think that people who THINK like this could be running not only our local, but also some of our national policies.  However, the fact is, that any position of power is going to attract people with noble purpose, and corrupt people.  It is also going to attract people who THINK their purpose is noble, but will commit crime, do secret deals, and ride roughshod over anyone who gets in their way.  This is what I would call a “godless” perspective — if you can get away with something, so much the better.  It also views certain classes of people as inferior BECAUSE of their class.  (This attitude is also common religious circles too, obviously).  



Any group that claims it is going to eradicate violence, crime, murder, kidnappings, theft, and similar awful behaviors, from the face of the planet is narcissistic.  This ain’t likely to happen.  I would not follow anyone piping that tune.  Newflash:  Obama ain’t going to.

I would similar not follow any crew that promises it’s going to raise the national total educational level to competitive (on my dollar) until it’s already shown some significant successes.  SHOWN them, not just proclaimed them to exist where they don’t, and out of context.

I have some perspective to say this:   I was a top performer at a top suburban public high school, according to its standards, and KNOW that I was bored in school.  I have worked in a variety of schools and attended school in another country.  I have also (unfortunately) hung around a lot of educators in my time (not my first choice of associates, I’d rather hang out with someone passionate about WHAT they teach rather than HOW (everyone else) should be teaching).   I then raised my own daughters in tough c ircumstances to a level of all-round excellence, and watched an educator who had never been a parent come after me, having mentally deleted both my own personal history (which was known to include violence and professional-level teaching ability, and performance) at the time.  There was no way a rational person could have considered me under-educated or incompetent to raise my own kids.  Only an Alice in Wondcrland character, who had his brain filled of theory and belief such that there was no room for input (from the eyes, ears, and neighborhood schools, etc.) would have come to this conclusion.  

I was faced with an anomaly and had to make up my mind how to view this.  In understanding a few more facts (which I didn’t have at the time) and continuing to listen to the changes of tone, language (and a fast “flip”) in behavior from this person, and put this into the larger contextt, I came to the conclusion that ONE thing that allowed such a person to come up with such an idea was the educational theories he’d (just recently) been exposed to, without sufficient humbling experience to challenge them — such as becoming a parent, or dealing with enough of them personally, to get some insight). 

Which comes to another thing to be studied in family law:  Australia’s system has a history.  If you’re local, keep posting it!  Talk it up.  Send a clear message that it is being looked at and expected to hold to a standard.  It is best, I think, to get this information OUT before there are gag orders on it.  

There are organizations and associations that screen, teach and certify people to practice in MOST professions.  These need to be looked at.  I have.  I have seen what it takes tobecome a “family law specialist” in my state, and this explains to me where the “gap” is, and why, and why when I go into court again, should this be required, I will not, I am sure tolerate any family law attorney to represent me.  Why?  They are not self-aware enough of personal biases.  I am not sure whether I would even want such input in preparing information, because to date, the few attorneys I’ve been in front of (or hired) have all encouraged me to downplay and sign away, compromise, and bargain things that were non-negotiable in my case. This is how we get sold down the river at times — lack of information.

Even then, I’d say, “well, you can experiment on someone else’s children, thank you — and pay for it yourself, or they can pay.”  These are simply Pied Pipers.  Don’t dance to that tune.  The fairy tale (if you know it) exists for a reason, and we’ve come to an age when I think those old fairy tales are a lot more reliable indicators of truth than, say:

“Evidence of Adapation of Parenting Programs to Father Engagement” (or whatever the forgettable phrase was on THAT grant opportunity)

This post has not been proofread (and probably will not), you just got a piece of my mind and heart.  I appeal to people who say they are concerned and want to help, to do so in an intelligent, and experience-informed manner.  

If a fire is burning that is destroying homes, building, and costing lives, talk to some firefighters!  Find out what’s feeding it, and how to smother the principle needs of any fire.

Fuel, Oxygen, Heat (as the type of fire may be or may not, or a “chemical” burn).  

And figure out, if you have a faith in a supernatural being, your relationship with Him, Her, It, or Them.  

Buckle down and get ready for the ride.  You will need a seat belt for sure.

The subject matter that prompted this post is in the next one, although this is the link:

Suffer the Little Children– to reach Adulthood!

“On March 17, 2004, in a 14-minute hearing, the Brisbane Family Court gave interim custody of the infant Patrick and his sister Jessie to Jayson Dalton, former One Nation candidate and long-term batterer.”

My next post will post this.






Who is the “loco” in “In Loco Parentis” courts, again, this time?

with 2 comments

I saw the article.  I want to say…  loudly …



Father, two boys found dead (video)

Who is the “loco” in “In Loco Parentis” courts, again, this time?


March 30, 2009 (WLS) — McLean County authorities say Michael Connolly and his two young sons have been found dead in rural Putnam County.

Nine-year-old Duncan and 7-year-old Jack were the focus of an Amber Alert issued earlier this month.”


My commentary.  9 yr old and 7 yr old Jack did NOTHING in this case but submit to court-ordered visitation with their already violent father (see restraining order), after which someone killed them and stuffed them in their father’s car.  They are (er, WERE), minors. Putting them as the subject of a sentence in this reporting just sounds dishonest.  The Subject is grammatically responsible for the action of the verb.  In this case, the dramatic “verb” is “were found.”  See “The Grammar of Male Violence” (and reporting on it).  

Yes, they “were.”  They were #1 born.  #2 into violent family #3 became the subject of a restraining order, I bet, along with their mother, who they probably witnessed being assaulted by their Dad, or the effects of it.  Bad boys.  They WERE, obviously, the sons of a woman who complied with court orders, because their Dad got them for that weekend.  Bad boys.  Next, they WERE kidnapped (in most states this is a felony crime).  Then they WERE found, dead.  

I’ve taught lots of children of this age range, and by and large, I would not call most of the little boys passive.  Typically, they are quite active.  Sometimes, I hear, enough so to require Ritalin, etc.  

OK, Suppose we don’t know WHO killed them yet.  Let’s Get Honest about REPORTING, folks.  Maybe after that, something might happen to address the dishonesty of “family court” or “restraining orders” in combination with Visitation, PERIOD.  

I am so sick of hearing stories like this.  Should I just never read the news again, and hope it’s not my kids?

My kids were stolen on an overnight visitation too. I warned the police too, and not just once.  I warned everyone that was involved.   That includes police, friends, family members (4 of whom I later learned were endorsing and approving this; there WERE no legal grounds to switch custody suddenly, so the hired thug (my ex) just did it (with help from woman#2) and not in a vacuum.  My written documentation of concern about this goes back two years before it happened.  My daughter diaried, one year in advance, and left it out plainly, in my own journal, that she’d feel more comfortable if she knew a code language.  Stupid me, I focused more on the preventing the event than the developing of such a code language).  I placed her in front of counselor experienced in DV, for a safe confidante (as the entire family was already split along the fault line of “but he’s a nice guy?” analogy, primarily). (Nice guys don’t assault pregnant wives, folks.  Not repeatedly. The action means you lost the appellation “nice” or should).  

FOLKS, IN LOCO PARENTIS IS NUTS!  The key to knowing is CARING. More about the life of the children, physical lives, physical safety, than the “rights” of the perpetrator.  That is what someone committing violence against an intimate should be called, until the behavior, attitude is changed and reparations made.  This almost never happens, so let the name STICK, and stop trying to ice over the cracks in the family cake; it shows through. 

I would like to remind the general public of something.  We have a serious problem in the Family Courts of the United States. KNOWING is driven by CARING.  Pronouncing one cares is not an indicator.  LISTENING is.

I have so experienced this I do not know myself anymore, some days.  I know that my (absent, FYI), daughters do not know me any more, and the very little I’ve seen them, they are changed, absent the buffering I provided to the shut-down of their lives.  There are so many verbal/mental/land mines they (and I, now als0) must avoid that, someone, one is really tempted to adjust personality to accommodate.

I will yell, jump, do circus tricks, if it will make a difference.  Speaking in a reasonable tone, complying with all court orders, and telling the truth as a mother’s instinct reported, did not save:  Connolly, Castillo, Freeman (Australia), or many many others.  

The courts are punishing Moms for caring.  THIS is partly now.  Damn!  !!!


The three-week-old search ended in tragedy about 100 miles south of Chicago.

[As I point out elsewhere on my blog, generic non-person, irrelevant detail nouns take on a life of their own, distracting from the central matter.  A judge, somewhere, probably listened to a mediator or custody evaluator, SOMEwhere, follow their prescriptions, per policies set in place in the late 1980s / early 1990s and funded to this day, to enforce the theology that a child without a father is a fish without water.

It is up to the larger public NOT in these courts –either as litigants or married to one, or employed by them, or having a profession sustained by them (now WHAT % of the populace does this leave unaffected?) to make itself actually not only larger (which it is), but VOCAL, and INVOLVED, and LEARNED in the vocabulary principals and players.  AND then do something appropriate.  At some point, the “at least that’s not My neighborhood, family, kids, wife, police officer, lawsuit, judicial district, etc. ”  the “it’s not my business” theology needs to be confronted.  Please help, I say.  Stop picking up the broken souls floating downstream in “social programs” and stop the breaking which is starting FAR, far closer to the top than imaginable.  


Michael Connolly, 40, failed to return the boys to their mother – his ex-wife – on Sunday, March 8.

Initially, investigators thought Connolly might be in the Chicago area where his relatives live in southwest suburban Oak Lawn.  But now, authorities say they found bodies matching the descriptions of the two missing Leroy, Illinois, brothers and cancelled the Amber Alert.

Authorities say the children’s bodies were found Sunday inside a car registered to Michael Connolly. Police happened upon the 1991 Dodge Dynasty after receiving a call about a suspicious vehicle in a secluded area. At around 6 p.m. Sunday, investigators examined the vehicle and found two deceased boys in the back seat area. The body of a man matching Michael Connolly’s description was found about 60 feet west of the car. Autopsies have been scheduled.

The sheriff has not said if there were any obvious signs of trauma or if a weapon was recovered.

On the day that the boys disappeared, there was a restraining order in place against Michael Connolly because authorities say he continued to harass his ex-wife. The two had divorced in 2007 after 13 years of marriage.

Let’s talk about this.  The restraining order folk is ONE foot of a large, virtual, giant marching across the land.  The “but kids need their Dads” (symbolized primarily by family courts) is the other large, stomping foot.  Clunk, Clunk Clunk across the land, and in circles, gradually clearing the territory of live, untraumatized people. Stomp, Stomp, Stomp down the decades.  These feet are connected at the Head.  The Head believes itself to know what’s best for the people below (who are relatively speaking, ants).  The legs above the feet are unequal, moreover one foot faces  forward, and the other backward.  This is why it is so HARD to get free from abuse.  The restraining order purports to confront, protect, and separate.  The family court purports to, and presumes this is advisable and possible, reunite, supervise, reform, and modify a relationship that JUST SPLIT.  

It’s mowing down families.  As we speak, this appears to be another one (details unclear yet)(2 adult males & 2 handguns inside, I DNK if this was DV related or not.  DK it was not the kids’ fault…..):


6 Killed In California Home Shooting

At Least 3 Of Victims Children In Murder-Suicide In Silicon Valley

Santa Clara home shooting

Santa Clara police officer stand watch outside the crime scene where six people, including at least three children, were killed and one was critically injured late Sunday night in an apparent murder-suicide at a townhome development in Santa Clara, Calif., on Monday, March 30, 2009.  (AP Photo/Tony Avelar)

Passive tense.  The spin, obviously is on the guns, and the body count, not the criminal behavior:

Investigators are looking into whether Stewart may have targeted the facility because his estranged wife worked there, police said Monday.  [Why doesn’t this surprise me?]

McKenzie said investigators are looking at whether what he called domestic issues may have been the motive for Stewart to open fire on his defenseless victims. Investigators said multiple weapons were recovered at the scene.   [HEY!  I have and had “domestic issues.”  I never yet took up a gun to solve them. It ain’t the “domestic issues”].   

McKenzie said the woman – whom he did not name – worked at the nursing home. He said he believed that the couple was recently separated but that he did not have any other details. He was not sure if the woman was at the nursing home at the time of the shootings. “

Incidentally, re:  Heroic Nurse, yes, the nurse WAS heroic.  Not mentioned in THIS title is that a gunman was going after his ex-wife, and she happened to work in a nursing home.  It “bled” so it “led,” but a choice was made to discuss the hero rather than the “villain” in this one.  

Maybe we should just outlaw divorce (which appears to be dangerous).  Knowing this, many women would probably just not marry, or even attempt to fully intimately bond with a partner, or for that matter, their kids.  We ARE headed that way, right?  

  • “Sue Griffin … said she was an ex-wife of Stewart’s who hadn’t spoken with him since their 2001 divorce, told reporters that in the past Stewart had exhibited “violent tendencies” from time to time. 
  • “He’d get mad because of things that didn’t go his way. He never really hurt me, but he would get mad and blow up,” she said. 
  • Griffin, who divorced Stewart after 15 years of marriage, said he had been trying to reach her during the past week through family members. 
  • She said Stewart claimed to have cancer and needed to go away. But he gave no hint of the violence he had planned for this quiet Carolina town. “


Joint custody with a batterer is unsafe and impossible.  It hurts the kids.  They will sooner or later HAVE to pick a side.  It also hurts the communities surrounding these two people.  They’re SPLIT, dammit!    Make a fair judgment based on whatever brought them into court to start with, based on any criminal behaviors.  Apart from criminal behaviors, leave them alone.

Stop hiring more experts to create more names to reframe existing, graphically uncomfortable to describe behavior that, done by a stranger, would be cause for arrest.  STOP the thought crime, the behavior crimes, the NOT being dependent on social services crime (among which is  homeschooling, or being a successful single parent, I found out), and the other such like.

I think the 10 commandments are JUST fine, including not only the one the Catholics tend to omit (#2), the one the Protestants and the Catholics, generally speaking violate weekly (#4, as I recall, it’s the sabbath), and the one the state habitually violates (Honor your mother and father), along with the don’t commit adultery, perjury (“bear false witness”) and #s 1 & 10 which, if one does NOT violate, it’s hard to live a reasonable life in this republic.  The first relates to not having other Gods before this one (which is generally looked on askance around these parts) and “thou shalt not covet,” which is related.  Accordingly, we have to consume, be consumers, and raise  our children to be good little materialistic consumers, because of the economy.  This is more likelyo what (I feel) the womb to tomb concept of “public education” (etc.) is about.  How complex is that, really?

The Chicago-area family of the two missing brothers had pleaded with the boys’ father to bring them home.  

(Well — see below– the father had already made it clear his intent was to punish his ex-wife.  FYI, pleading with some in on the position to extort you (i.e.,hostages taken) doesn’t generally work.  Trust me.)

“We love the boys so much. We want them back. We want everybody back. We want our family back together,” said Joyce Connolly, Michael Connolly’s aunt.

The boys’ mother, Amy Leichtenberg, said she warned a judge her ex-husband might take off with the children.

I told him he was a flight risk. My attorney told him he was a flight risk. Nobody believed me,” said Leichtenberg.

[That was the Amber alert, coming from someone who was paying attention.]

Police had said there was reason to be worried about the boys.

“We are concerned because we’ve had some incidents in the past with Mr. Connolly that indicate he is not a stable individual and that he makes verbal threats towards himself, the children and his ex-wife,” Chief Gordon Beck, LeRoy Police Department, said during the search.

ALL of this behavior is self-explanatory in a “Conduit System” frozen in its rigidity.  Major players in the situation KNEW that this man was a risk for kid-snatching.  The fact a domestic violence restraining order was actually necessary (presumed in that it was granted), is itself a danger sign. I feel that not to jump, shout, make a stink and in short react in a Non-Numb manner is necessary at times to counter then Numb-Dumb responses of the “that’s just waht you said” mentality, driven by “children need their fathers, we are a fatherless nation, Dads Count too, and so forth” grants system driving the mentality of the court system which is driving families into the ground, sometimes more than literally, as in this case.  I happen to listen to and know women who have lost their children to batterers, and we repeat this experience so often — kids being abused, children being stolen by the father on an overnight, sometimes out of state, or in my case, in-state (meaning Amber Alert didn’t even squeak, police wouldn’t act, and judge, thereafter, refused to give a factual and legal basis for (her) decision.))  

If I’m run-on, it’s intentional, maybe to counter the Shut-Up system that continues to function in it’s blunderbuss manner to smack at families, emotionally, after someone has filed a “restraining order,” and generally after plenty of previous smacking around, intimately-speaking (“IPV”).  I am about to blow the calm and light-hearted demeanor of this blog with the severity of what’s up.  I have spent decades (two, so far) with this issue, and attempted to live my life around it, leave with my heart in my mouth, raise our daughters and work around it.  In the process, and I’m not at all the only one, I have been after abuse exposed to the worst of the worst of the system, it seems, in the highest reaches of its authority, and sometimes within my own family.


He has always told me,

cause I took the kids from him,

that I would suffer just like he did,” said Leichtenberg (Mother).

Well, he was a man of his word.

Does IPV, DV talk stop it? 2 Australians Talk about this.

leave a comment »

Actually, “speak” would be more accurate than”talk.”  I have put together two links on this topic.  The 2nd was a referral, the 1st inspired today’s blog to which I, a U.S. Citizen, respond.

“Shining a light into the murky depths of partner violence”

An update on IPV in Australia that came to my attention.  The article is posted in full below.

My next blog is my viewpoint on the migration of ideas from afar, also pointing out that foggy vocabulary can be intentional, or careless, but either way, transmigration of bad ideas “happens.”  


Katie Dunlop [credits below article] talks like me, which is why I posted her whole article here.  With feedback interspersed.  I do not share her optimism in the general public’s will to do something about it, if only they realized what IPV really was, if only the media would get it straight.

BUT She notices the discrepancy between what “IPV” represents, visually, in real-time injuries and deaths.  She is THINKING about the topic with a view to addressing it.  

When “IPV” (yes, that’s a euphemism) becomes “IV” (intravenously injected into your life, either directly or vicariously association) there are only two options:  ACTING or NOT ACTING.  The only way I can guess how people choose NOT ACT is that they have become adept at NOT THINKING, possibly as a survival skill.


When a known batterer not only has, but has been given, one’s children (case in point) (was I “gender-neutral enough” in that statement?) this not thinking about it is somewhat harder.  I have also watched my family figure out (with apparent grace & ease) how to “not think about it.”  They refuse to interact with me (probably because in most contacts, I focus on some version of “where are my daughters?” or “Why are you continuing to support someone who refuses to comply with any court order, give any account of seeking work, let alone who used to smack me around in front of them?“).  These are not pleasant topics for any of us, naturally, and I feel that polite small talk is inappropriate for what are to me heinous (and insulting) crimes. In my family circle, any interaction using the words properly (legally) identifying the situation are tabu.  This was how I determined my particular family of origin’s religion (if its secret, whatever belief sustains this practice of “we won’t talk about it.”), by tabulating the tabus, and taking note of who was sacrificed for what cause.  Like many other religions, the sacrificees include women, elderly, and small children.

Another analogy that came to my mind in this matter, and in these societies, are simple packs of dogs.  Once pecking order** is established, fighting and posturing are reduced.  And face it, laws against domestic violence (IPV), or “hitting [primarily women] in the home” challenged the pecking order (**YES, I realize I have mixed-animal metaphors here; like any good bird dog, I cast about for words that smell right).

I have all along had irreconciliable differences with being hit in my home, and since then, irreconciliable differences with historical revisionism on the same.  It’s also occurred to me that batterer fathers sometimes snatch the kids partly in order just to retain an stray female in the extended circle of influence, which certainly must be gratifying to the ego, I suppose.  She’s not going to run TOO far if he has her kids.

Transcontinental Evolution of Ideas?  

I feel for Ms. Dunlop, a certain innocence in thinking that the process of reporting and assuming that all parties, or the majority of the populace WANTS it to stop.  Perhaps Australia has not yet gone through the shut-up or lose-your-kids process as thoroughly as here in the USA, where it is a war for proprietary use of the words Parent, Family, Child, and Abuse.  I know the process happens, I have been reading.

This post on talking about IPV seems an appropriate time to reference “offourbacks.org,” and its classic “The Grammar of Male Violence.”  Grammatic preference for indefinite concept nouns over actual actors shifts the focus from what happened to the theoretical air.  For example: 

“Domestic dispute costs 5 lives, again.”  

Oh, really?  No it didn’t.  “Domestic dispute” is a word-label, and words do not directly shoot, stab, kill, behead its 3rd wife, or drop a 4 year old (female) child off a bridge to her death.  A dispute doesn’t stalk.  A dispute doesn’t cause one parent to adhere to court orders and another to break them.  Or to issue orders that ignore safety issues.  As hate-talk can incite violence, generic-noun descriptors for awful, graphically bloody or emotionally devastating, cash-flow-freezing, household switching, community-disrupting, taxpayer funds wasting events.  

Generic nouns are the crime scene cleanup crew, on air.  Now, a lot of us use words carelessly, but I DOUBT this is the case with either politicians, major news media [many of which are monopolies in the U.S.], or policymakers — i.e., anyone who has something that must sell.

So, Let’s Get Honest:  Do not get caught with your pants down depersonalizing domestic violence or shielding an offence with the language of mutuality, at least when conversing with me, or within range of my blogs.   

Thank you Ms. Dunlop, for speaking up, though.  

[My comments inside brackets]

“Shining a light into the murky depths of partner violence”

Katie Dunlop

March 20, 2009

DOMESTIC violence, family violence, violence against women, intimate partner violence: we definitely have a range of phrases for the abuse men inflict on women and children within what ought to be relationships of trust and love. [Indeed, that is the real travesty, and very disturbing  and disorienting once it begins] Pity we don’t use them to describe the murders we often see on our front pages — the kids driven into the dam or gassed in the car, the wife or girlfriend stabbed in her kitchen, thrown off a cliff or shot in scrubland.

[Well, I do!  But yes, these terms are much more graphic, vivid and telling.  And this is one reason I posted your article…It tells this.]

Aberrations? Love gone wrong? No. These instances of violence are just the tip of the iceberg. Intimate partner violence (IPV) is everywhere, even if you don’t know it. It seems the subject of IPV is taboo, so those who experience it assume the abuse is their problem [I’m glad you have qualified “it seems.”  Speaking personally, I never assumed I caused “the abuse” (my ex to assault me), but because I lived with it, it became “my” problem.] and not the social and public health issue it really is. We need to start talking about IPV and we need to do it now. [Who, exactly is the “we”?  These people already are.  I just googled “Intimate Partner Violence in Australia” and 38,500 results arose, 3 of them scholarly articles.]  I have long known that relationships could be abusive, but it had never occurred to me that IPV was a common experience for so many Australian women. […”until I – – – – – .”  Thank you for the refreshing honesty.  But I’m curious what pivotal factor got you involved? Was it a friend?  Was it you?  A relative?  A poster somewhere?  A news article.  I would have liked to see the end of that sentence, giving more detail.]

Well, I didn’t know either, til it hit me, in the face.  Not even until after I got out, years almost later, and read, and networked, did I realize the extent of it.  This is because (#1) one facet of abuse is isolation.  Like mold, it grows in the damp & dark privacy. It is NOT unnamed, it is simply called something else:  “obedience,” “submission” “leadership” etc..  A true dilemma exists, because generally speaking homes SHOULD be private, but still this happens.  Another reason (#2) may be that it’s simply not pleasant cocktail conversation.  

Therefore, people who get involved are usually intensely personally involved.  These typically fall into one of about three campaigns:  (1) Like you, stopping IPV, and discussing how to, or (2) Stopping the Discussion of IPV.  This cat is already out of the bag internationally; talk [more like clamor, debate, accusation and cross-accusation] IS happening, the general tactics of group#2, with whom I am unfortunately familiar, are to rename it, or divert the conversations on it into something less offensive and personal [to the abusers}, as in Richard Gardner, high-conflict (vs’ “violent’) and “alternate dispute resolution.”  In MY book, me flat on the floor, or that family just slaughtered is NOT a “dispute,” nor was it before it happened, either.  It was not a dispute, it was a battle.   FYI, (1)s don’t talk with (2)s, they flood each other’s blogs, report about each other’s activities and try to stop each other’s forward progress, as in any good (?) political campaign.  

And the (3)rd camp, alas, is simply opportunistic and recognizes a market niche when it sees one.  The hallmarks of this general camp are pride on “not taking a side” (while doing exactly like that).  Ships of state are indeed large, and although rudder sWILL steer a large ship, that rudder has to be properly placed.  The rudders involve such things as words, money, and political connections / policy.  Policy in the USA has to supposedly be based on something to help “the people” (that’s, for example, us poor suckers than need intervention of some sort from abuse, or homelessness in order to help fund these ships).  As such, studies MUST be done to justify the policies.  Here is where universities (Harvard et al), foundations, and nonprofits producing reports for the same come in.  This is far more complex than saying “IPV is wrong  and costs lives.”].  More than a third of Australian women who have had a boyfriend or husband experience abuse. Most shockingly, IPV is the leading contributor to death, disability and illness in women aged between 15 and 44.

[Where’s the citation?  Mine is http://www.acestudy.org (to the right on this blog) and many, many other sources confirm.] 

Since I began working with women who have experienced abuse, the reality of IPV has become even starker. Rather than numbers on a page, these are real women with faces and histories. Each of them has a unique but common story: of living with control, fear and abuse, and courageously doing all they can to look after themselves and their children who, as IPV witnesses and victims, also suffer devastating effects.

[The operative word here is “them.”  Please produce their stories — and perhaps pay them something for it as well, once facts are checked.  Now that would indeed help directly, as well as crisis intervention.]

If you are surprised at the extent of IPV, you are not alone. Our awareness of IPV in Australia is very poor. According to a recent Victorian study, many [many who? many women, many men?] think that women abuse their partners as much as men (false: men are the perpetrators 98 per cent of the time) or that IPV is excusable if it represents a “temporary loss of control”, or if the abuser subsequently apologises (false: many IPV incidents, especially murders, are premeditated).

How can we work together to solve a national crisis if a significant portion of the nation is unaware of the crisis in the first place? [According to your report, assuming women are perhaps half the population (DNK about Down Under), approximately 1/6th of them, not including children, already are, by virtue of experiencing it.  However, to name it is one step, to leave it quite another.] In an atmosphere where IPV is shrouded in silence and myth, asking for help involves the risk of being judged or misunderstood.

We must aim for a society in which women can ask for help, secure in the knowledge they will be supported and respected.  [I would like to change this paradigm and  address the absent noun — the men who hit (not all men do).  Why “women”?  ????? [hint — the question marks are a link, also see blogroll…”The Grammar of Male Violence” has been on this “offourbacks.org” site since 2004.  It still applies.  Let’s help keep each other honest.  Get off MY back and, in the discussions, grammatically, REFUSE to use generic nouns, passive verbs and an abundance of references to women followed by the verbs such as “need, are, become,” and other things which are reminiscent of panhandling which is what we get reduced for when we must go too many rounds asking for ‘intervention,” without the full data on who is doing this and with what agenda.]

Why not aim instead for a society in which such men fear and hate to beat a woman, because there are SOCIAL consequences, and/or possibly PHYSICAL, including that he might suddenly find himself on the receiving end of a return defensive volley?  or FINANCIAL — institute and enforce IMMEDIATE financial penalties. upon conviction.**]  [I know a lot of women (I’m 50+) and barely a one of them qualifies as helpless and waiting for it.  The term “women can ask for help” is not specific enough.]  [**This may not be wise, as we have seen that some abusers will die rather than stick around to take the consequences of an escalation in abuse, especially when it goes lethal.] 

Re:  this phrase:

We must aim for a society in which women can ask for help, secure in the knowledge they will be supported and respected.  [This one phrase stood out as the most inappropriate, though it sounds great.  Who is “we”?  Do you not realize that what may appear to be a “we” actually includes a great many individuals in high authority who don’t necessarily agree that violence against women IS unacceptable (in private). ??   These exist in the exact same quarters that didn’t talk about it (when knowing it happened) to start with.  Is there a way in Australia to hold THOSE authorities accountable also?  How about the religious institutions, the courts, the schools, the law enforcement — there are many areas where men who batter women live.  Are they all going to undergo a housecleaning process?  

When I filed my restraining order (it took time and wasn’t easy), yes, temporarily, I was a women receiving respect and help.  There was a lot of repair and rebuilding, principally (but not only) profession!  BUT, when I then proceeded to go about my life peaceably, and at a safe distance– setting boundaries and refusing to take orders (after a point) that weren’t in backed up by a court order, the father of my daughters (who was seeing them weekly, when he chose to, a very generous arrangement granted to him via mediation) other entities came in, advised my husband to bounce the case to family court, and as I speak, I have been unemployed for over a year, and not seen my daughters, basically, for almost three ( glimpse here and there)  Seeing them is held in abeyance by two factors:  1.  STILL, a concern for physical safety, and 2.  STILL, economic duress. This is now close to 20 years of my adult, prime-time life when people are attempting to establish a livelihood that may support them now AND later, if not for children.  I had to stop and duke it out in a court system.  In retrospect, it MIGHT’ve been better to stay and duke it out with him in a different matter .]

Being equipped with the information and ability to talk about IPV also allows us to recognise and respond to the signs of abuse in our own relationships and in those of our friends and family. By transforming our silence — which implicitly accepts and condones IPV — into a loud and clear conversation, [Beautiful phrase, thank you.  One of the most telling books I read was called “Transforming Abuse” and it addressed this silence.] we create a society where IPV has few places to hide. We create a society that expresses zero tolerance for violence against women.

[I am so sorry.  This sounds great, but you LOST me at “create a society.”  No thank you.  I am not in that “we” and I wouldn’t be in the US either.  If you are going to “Create a society,” first you have to define who is the “creator”[and as I’m a Christian you just lost me] and who is the substance being created.  This kind of elitist thinking that started the compulsory school system in the US to counteract, it appears, influxes of Catholics from Europe.  President Obama declares this can be turned around if “we” just try harder and spend more, especially on pre-school education.  I have been looking for a way to tell him (and my local representative) that in my opinion, we need LESS school not MORE .  That any institution that is over 100 years old and has basically drained the populace of time and money, resulting in trailing the industrial nations in results does NOT need to expand.  That children’ don’t learn as well in herds as they do in smaller units, and those smaller units are FAMILIES that have time to network with each other, and so become integrated into their communities.  That, plus internet, plus taking them OUT of more school and INTO more arts, dance, science projects, and so forth, will get the job done IF the job you are actually intent on doing is “Education” (in its true sense), not behavioral modification.  I am an educator, and feel I have a right to say this.  

I believe as to THAT organization, the flaw is inherent in the design, and that intent to recreate a society instead of take care of your own folks, locally, is part of the problem.  

This would be off-topic were there not so many similarities in attitude, execution, and processes between our educational systems and our court systems, primary of which are who runs them and who funds them, as opposed to who they “serve.”

SO, [no offence taken, the terminology is in the air, so if you inhaled some, or envisioned a great society, I understand.]

FYI, I have been tracking these things, and yes, people are in some world views (and circles) viewed as substances to be manipulated, means-tested, and randomly sampled.  In others, they have God-given inalienable rights they will FIGHT for, one of them is NOT to be someone else’s creation, but their own.  If you want to “create” become and artist, architect, or maybe a mother, and please obtain prior permission from the subjects manipulated.]

[Question:  Is this possibly the paradigm such abusive men are also fighting against?  The concept of being formed and fashioned into something not of their choosing?  Or, was this just how they learned it growing up?]

The reality is that the creation of this type of society is within our capacity. [In other words, you’re a progressive who does not believe there are flaws inherent in human nature, for which laws exist and — I say — a Redeemer was needed…I realize this is thin ice publically, but even so, I find that the “our” almost never includes the primary stakeholders — the women leaving abue, the women going through the court system, and beyond that, children who MOST need protection and help and are being sexually abused by their fathers after divorce, AFTER reporting it, too.  Do you want to address the overlap between domestic violence and child molestation in the major media?  Good luck!]  Often the media contribute to the silence on IPV by failing to discuss it constructively or not discussing it at all. Rather than leaving us at an impasse, this points us to a valuable opportunity. Imagine the possibilities for socially responsible reporting that would arise out of a collaborative relationship between IPV experts, survivors and volunteers and journalists.

[The IPV experts ARE the survivors and volunteers.  Some of the survivors and volunteers also journal.  The experts making a nice living off this subscribe to journals I myself cannot afford.  i do get abstracts of many of them from 

The IPV service community should provide journalists with training on IPV issues and support the media’s coverage of IPV incidents. It should offer information about IPV, advice on sensitive and educational reporting, and the opportunity for journalists to personalise each story by drawing on the perspectives of IPV survivors [DO they lack that opportunity?  They’re journalists.  They can ask questions, right?  They have access to Internet, and have likely heard of the term IPV before.  EVERY story has a spin.  The question is, which one?]  . Media collectives of this type would help smash the silence on intimate partner violence by ensuring that, where it is present in the fabric of society, IPV is also present on the pages of our newspapers. This is one small idea, one small step, but one that might make us a bit more aware of IPV and with that, a bit more eager to act on a phenomenon that is destroying the hearts and bodies of so many Australian women and children. No idea is a silver bullet: solutions happen when small ideas act in concert. If we take this idea of IPV media collectives, add some national, ongoing, school-based healthy relationships education and opportunities for adults to engage with the issue of IPV in a constructive and personal way, I have great faith that we will be taking our first steps in a society where IPV is taken out of the hiding place that to date has afforded it protection.

[Again, Ms. Dunlop, thank you for your outreach work in the Eastern DV Crisis Center.  Please LISTEN to the women not only in that crisis center, but also women like the one who designed “Anonymums” and many more.  Think about the family law issues.  I have been been, and my studies repeatedly show that damaging standards and paradigms in the US also exist and are thriving in Canada and also Australia.  Please learn from our mistakes and struggles, and maybe save some bloodshed down under, or simply reduce the trauma.

I will say it again, and I hope loudly enough.  I am NOT part of someone’s great society, or a willing participant in this dream.  I long for the day when I have the wherewithal to tell quite a few re-creators (of my lives and relationships) to take a hike, get a life, get real, and let me get back (with what’s left of my years, strength, stamina and nerve) to my own.  Perhaps after the crisis centers, you can speak with women a decade or two out of domestic violence and incorporate their wisdom into your ideas.  We are SICK, I believe, of being someone else’s market niche, professional career, and while I’m at it, publishing credentials.]

[Thank you for noting IPV, doing something about it, and envisioning a zero tolerance for Domestic violence.  I was just wondering where were the people who thought about self-defense for women as part of basic marriage counseling, or perhaps catching them further upstream — financial independence as a part and parcel of marriage.  Those TWO factors — can’t protect herself, and can’t support herself while fleeing the guy — are crucial.  I told people who didn’t want me to live separate from this man to Go Take  a Hike, and I went back to my business. They ignored me, went behind my back, and through (as it happens) the child support system in this country, helped him cut back on his support before I was in one place.  It was a multi-faceted attack on independence.  Right now, my mother (elderly & frail) is also involved, unwillingly, but she has no choice. I still don’t have (yet) a safe choice for her when i do not myself have this.  Many, many times, I have looked back on my marriage and wondered if I’d been stronger earlier, or taught as a woman that’ it’s OK and feminine to fight back; If I had NOT sought help from outside the home (at all), but made damn sure that there would not be a second assault.  

Instead, female-like, Christian-like, I went to someone in authority — consistently, for years — and asked for intervention.  This did not come, and about 7-8 years later, my teeth were knocked loose in an assault, by which time I’d stopped reporting and was focusing on exiting.   What DID help me out and survive was simply reading stories of other women who did and HOW they did.]

Katie Dunlop is an outreach worker with the Eastern Domestic Violence Crisis Service and is a contributing author of The Future by Us, published this week by Hardie Grant. If you are experiencing abuse, the Women’s Domestic Violence Crisis Service is a 24 hour/7 days a week telephone service providing support, information and accommodation. Call 9373 0123, or Country toll free 1800 015 188

NEXT TOPIC:  When there are kids:


The issue of IPV naturally entails the obvious fact that “intimacy” (a.k.a. sex) sometimes leads to pregnancy sometimes leads to children.  The links below, also from Australia, addresses the “mums” aspect of trying to LEAVE domestic violence, or worse (worse?), protect one’s children from it, or from (worse, although it overlaps), child sexual abuse.  Darn, another “tabu.”  Well, folks . . . . . 

On Anonymums links page, See “Leave them alone:  she is protecting her children.”

In the U.S. this can be cause for imprisonment.  Committing the acts which occasioned her to seek protection may or may NOT be cause for imprisonment. Again, enforcement is a gendered issue when it comes to child-stealing. If you don’t believe me, post a comment, and I’ll respond.  Here’s the “background” to the article.  The link (above) has a link to more background

Background (Preamble):
Swedish mother Ann-Louise Valette and her two sons Frank Oliver Valette, 11, and Andre Nicholas Valette, 9 have been plastered all over the newspapers as being “abducted”. A revealing article states that she was concerned about child sexual abuse that had not been substantiated.                

Anyone who has gone through the courts and worked in this area knows that most cases of child sexual abuse are underreported and the chances of getting help to substantiate it in the middle of a family court battle are minimal – The police won’t even go near it and child protection passes the buck saying that its family courts area. 

Lawyers filter these things because they know legal aid finds protecting children “expensive”. The facts are:

False Allegations of child abuse in the family court are as low as 5%

For years the Family Court has been systematically ignoring substantiated child abuse and domestic violence.

Family Violence and Child Sexual abuse are underreported.

Australia is one of the highest rate male dominated police force in the world. Since the “No Fault divorce”, it is mainly mothers who are running with their children, Since the shared parenting bill, homicides increased by 14% in 2006.


There is no domestic violence homicide review team in Australia. Most mothers run with their children because of family violence and child abuse.















In the US, there are, and have been for years.  Lethality indicators have been studied.  Laws have been passed.  Rebuttable presumptions against custodies going to the abuser exist in many states.  Custody still goes to abusers, and new categories of life-crime have been created to enable this:  Not wanting to hang out with your ex-abuser, and not being able to co-parent with him.  
This has nothing to do with the parenting and a lot more to do with bottom lines — $$ lines — of people in the court systems.  I created this blog in part to help expose and address (to the general public, and hopefully some Moms who are still naive like I was) by what means you became an object of study in a random sampling about how to make more marriages, good bad or ugly, a single mother is a threat to the value system (moreso than to her children, I believe).  By “you” I mean young fathers, older fathers, young mothers, older mothers, and kids.  
90% of the time, what it’s “about” is not what it’s really “about.”  It was hard for me to shift my values, or at least understanding, because I highly value being about what I SAY I’m about — both professionally, as a person, and as a mother.  It’s not about your court case.  It’s about policies.  
And it’s about money.  


USA’s bad policies go worldwide FAST. Those who can fly abroad to run conferences on how to run families (back to the abusers they left, which can be into the ground, either literally or financially). Women attempting to keep a low profile (not antagonize abuser), or flee violence, are not present en masse in these conferences: Either we are not asked, we can’t afford to attend, or they are membership-only, closed-corporation processes (see “AFCC” for one) and intended NOT to have our input.

When she “Shows and Tells” — take it seriously. It takes courage.

leave a comment »

We tell young people to speak up about abuse.
This one did.”

Our global village — it seems to me that approximately one a week, at least nationwide, is occurring.  The police WILL respond, and will sometimes prevent or minimize the fall-out, but more likely (they are only human, they are not omnipresent) they will count and identify the bodies, and speak to reporters, and neighbors.  This is too late for those speaking up.    This can be true when it comes to domestic violence also.

Before you read this post — if you read fast, if you skim well, and if you could commit to read THREE (3) pages of single-spaced, narrative, print, you will understand more: Do NOT pass go.  Click on the centered title “Brave Children Speak Up” Read the first page “intro”, to the bottom, hit “next” or “continued,” then the next page to the bottom, click on “next” and then the 3rd page, to the bottom (individual stories).

Brave Children Speak Up

Alanna’s story is well-known — she finally fled from Northern California to Southern (Los Angeles) and was able to get help.

How I Process (present tense) My Experience (past)

I did not experience abuse as a child. Mine didn’t start til I was almost 40 years old. Yet I will affirm — you are not the same afterwards — your understanding of the world is not the same either, and never will be. You can function, but you sprout antenna, learn to “deal,” test your systems of meaning (all, for the most part, remain suspect), and are much, much, MUCH more alert to the various signals and possible interpretations of almost every one. This is rough on people you wish to maintain friendships, let alone a romantic connection, with. I know that I “tested.’ When my friend passed the test, didn’t blow up, didn’t run away, it frightened me more. I lost so many job situations that (for a period), I began to self-sabotage work rather than experience the forced-out situation again. (Economic control is a primary means of control). I felt like I was another species for a while, and finally accepted that, in some respects, I was. And I was NOT sexually abused as a child. . . . Or beaten. . . . Or deprived.

Negotiating what for others is often an Average situation:

[Leaving home.  Coming back home.   Possibly reporting what happened at home — to be continued. . . ]


One dilemma still up for grabs is a difficult one. I have faith, but I do not trust churches. This affects support systems and for sure sociability. But, I will affirm — there ARE people (both genders) who target these areas, and this IS one area a vulnerable (to being dominated to excess) women can be found. They also take in divorced and needy women, at times, hence, a charming unscrupulous man will find ample fields there.

One has to constantly renegotiate meaning in life. I have come to believe this is an asset. Intuition comes in handy in many fields (particularly artistic ones or ones that deal with group dynamics).

When abuse happens mid-way, or later in life, it is difficult to know what goals to set, in exiting it. It is also VERY difficult to exit it, as by middle age, so many professions, communities, and connections have come. More schooling is not always the answer. What about relationships?

I cannot imagine being a child who has betrayed by an adult.
Mine were (I will testify and do). But I cannot imagine it still, how to callous onesself and just go deal with it.

Brave Children Speak Up

I cannot think too hard on this one today.  I refuse to abuse substances to turn my mind away.  Each day’s internal parasympathetic (?) wiring stands alone, how much it can handle, but because I know what it’s like to have people “unable to stomach” my truths, I try to process and stomach others’ I read about.  Can you handle this one?  Perhaps you can.  Children in the situation HAVE to.  

I would like to say: It’s  not the gun, but the attitude in the person carrying the gun.  If it was not a gun, it could be a knife, an ax, or as happened recently a sword.  

It’s also another, more communal problem called “denial.”  

February 25, 2009

Police respond to “shots fired” and find family dead in murder-suicide

Editor’s note: This tragic incident is one of several like it that have surfaced recently. Although the exact details are not yet known, the mass violence it reflects needs to be noted.  

. . .  “It’s important to remember that one of the most dangerous persons an officer can face is someone who feels they’ve got nothing to live for and nothing to lose. There are a growing number of those people and that’s a very real threat to officer safety and survival. Now, more than ever, officers need to be highly trained, highly focused and thoroughly prepared to deal with the threats and challenges of doing their jobs in a time of crisis.”

Stay alert, be trained—even if it means taking steps to seek your own training—and remember that even “regular people” who would otherwise seem harmless and unlikely to pose a deadly threat, like the man in this incident, may in fact be extremely dangerous.

— Scott Buhrmaster, PoliceOne Managing Editor


RE:  “ someone who feels they’ve got nothing to live for “

My recommended reading:  Viktor Frankl, “Man’s Search for Meaning.”

There are choices, even in a concentration camp.

Another link that is not always explored, but should be, is the pharmaceutical connection.  I speak as someone whose father in law was on medication (and committed suicide).   Not smart to tinker too much with this chemistry.  My policy is, don’t!  Your body was designed smart:  handle with care.  

By Matt Sedensky 
Associated Press 

MIAMI — A 53-year-old man fatally shot his wife and two daughters Wednesday before turning the gun on himself, and a 16-year-old son who survived the attack managed to call 911 as he escaped uninjured from the Miami home, authorities said. . . .

Sarit Betancourt, a 44-year-old school bus driver who lives near the family, said the father is a Cuban immigrant who gave piano lessons at a guitar shop and at his home. Betancourt’s two sons, ages 9 and 10, had been taking piano lessons from him once a week since 2006.

“He was a marvelous person and a tremendous professor,” she said. “People would enter the house, and you just breathed peace.”

[WELL, not for a little girl….]



14 year old Priscilla Amador did not want to have sex or interact sexually with a man 40 years her senior.
Especially her father. About 8 years of this was too much. Finally she worked up courage to tell:
The Miami Herald, 2-27-09
It cost her -- and her sister -- and her mother - their lives. I speculate that HE could not stand the shame
or public exposure -- that task had been assigned (by him) for HER to carry. I'll say, assuming the
charges were valid. One way to cut short THAT conversation, well, see headlines.
"Be Prepared!" How? I don't know, but I know I must find out. So should you.
I cannot editorialize much today. I am processing this one... I have teens.
I also know that the issue is NOT primarily sex. It's about character, values,
and entitlements. I do not think we should be suspecting all our neighbors of this
(though clearly it's underreported). Perhaps we should all make sure that our kids
have at least ONE other NON-family member they can confide in, and who know them.
And we should all be informed of the overlap between wife abuse and child abuse.
And that our young women are to value, and be able to hold, boundaries. Unfortunately,
these boundaries are daily violated in so many contexts (including schools), that I'm at
some loss to, as I posted elsewhere, safety a "place." I think that self-sufficiency has
to be a THING you carry with you.  
As I said, today, there are limits to what can be processed. But I will not drop the topic.
Are you, reader, aware that in Family Courts across the nation, custody of children, when
contested, it being given to batterers in retaliation for reporting abuse of one form or another.
If you don't believe me, believe the children who reported, and lived to tell:

Jennifer Collins’ Family Fled the U.S. for Safey! From Court-Ordered Child Abuse. She aged out and spoke up. And others.

Related Articles:

 Six die in L.A. family murder-suicide 

 Police: L.A. man kills wife, 5 children, himself over job troubles

 Officials: Financial crisis can lead to violence 

 Police survey links crime spike to economy

 As economy dives, crime fears spike


%d bloggers like this: