Posts Tagged ‘women’s rights’
That’s my USA: 1770s-Founding Fathers design a nation, including “Congress,” 1990s-Congress redesigns “Fatherhood,” [Omitting “motherhood”] while slaves and women try to fit in somewhere along the way
And inbetween (1863, 1963), two major civil rights leaders (one white, one black, both male), remind the nation about the original proposition of Justice.
Meanwhile, before and after the Civil War, women ask to be included in the nouns referring to “citizens” and “persons.” Somewhere around World War I, Congress passes this; with Maryland waiting til 1958 to send its acknowledgement in…
Yep, that’s what I love about this country, the “USA”:
1770s, let’s say 1776. . . .
Some forefathers held a number of meetings (summits) and designed, among other things Declared Independence from Longstanding and Egregious Pattern of Oppressions, declared certain unalienable rights including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, protested and enumerated (specifically) some nasty things the Mother Country (England) and its King had done, and in an attempt to make sure the people had a voice in their own government. They designed two houses of Congress to meet and make laws; an EXECUTIVE Branch to enforce & execute them (NOT write them) and a JUDICIAL Branch to judge fairly as to the enforcement of these laws.
This all based on the premise that no one individual or entity should have too much power over the people.
The concept of a national definition of “Happiness” I don’t think was set in concrete; but that life and liberty would enable men to pursue it, at least.
Keywords: “Forefathers Design Congress”
For “oppression,” compare “abuse.”
SAMPLE:
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
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 shown 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 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 harass our people and eat out their substance.
- He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures. ((NB: The standing armies of our day & time may have other names, but are backed up by police force….))
- 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:
Hmmm. . . . . Interesting . . . . .
1848 — 72 years later, women say, “Us, too!”
Some women, referring to the Declaration of Independence meet in NY to demand equal rights, including the vote.
Fighting for the Vote
The first women’s rights convention took place in Seneca Falls, N.Y., in July 1848. The declaration that emerged was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, it claimed that “all men and women are created equal” and that “the history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman.” Following a long list of grievances were resolutions for equitable laws, equal educational and job opportunities, and the right to vote.
1863 (87 years later….)
President Lincoln remembers what 1776 was about
Growing pains — some discrepancies of interpretation of the word “men” arise, and more discrepancies about the balance of powers between Federal and States.
President Lincoln — following a 2-hour speech, gives a memorable 2- MINUTE speech referring to the above:
| Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth, upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that “all men are created equal”
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived, and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of it, as a final resting place for those who died here, that the nation might live. This we may, in all propriety do. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow, this ground — The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have hallowed it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here; while it can never forget what they did here. It is rather for us, the living, we here be dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that, from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here, gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve these dead shall not have died in vain; that the nation, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people by the people for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
|
“With the Union victory in the Civil War, women abolitionists hoped their hard work would result in suffrage for women as well as for blacks. But the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively, granted citizenship and suffrage to blacks but not to women.”
1866-1868 –
13th, 14th, & 15th, Amendments still not thought to include women:
Constitutional Grants of Powers to Congress under the Civil War Amendments
AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2-4 [omitted].
Section 5.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
AMENDMENT XV
Passed by Congress February 26, 1869. Ratified February 3, 1870.
Section 1.
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
Section 2.
The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
========
1871 (95 years later) Congress has yet to acknowledge women as citizens or persons, in re: voting
Petition to Congress, December 1871
In the year following the ratification of the 15th amendment, a voting rights petition sent to the Senate and House of Representatives requested that suffrage rights be extended to women and that women be granted the privilege of being heard on the floor of Congress. It was signed by Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and other suffragists. Well known in the United States suffrage movement, Anthony and Stanton organized the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) in 1869.
(http://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/woman-suffrage/petition-to-congress.html)
1920 — US. Constitution 19th Amendment, gives
women suffrage.
Nineteenth Amendment
Passed by Congress June 4, 1919.
Ratified August 18, 1920.Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Which countries granted women the vote first? Do you see USA on here?
1958
Maryland finally sends its acknowledgement that women can vote (now 38 yrs old) to Congress.
1963 (187 years later). . ..
This man, speaking at the “Lincoln Memorial” remembers both Lincoln and the Declaration of Independence.
Because of copyright (image is public domain), please review at link (title) for audio and transcription:
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languished in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. And so we’ve come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we’ve come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.
1966 – N.O.W. formed, and says:
We, men and women, who hereby constitute ourselves as the National Organization for Women, believe that the time has come for a new movement toward true equality for all women in America, and toward a fully equal partnership of the sexes, as part of the world-wide revolution of human rights now taking place within and beyond our national borders.
The purpose of NOW is to take action to bring women into full participation in the mainstream of American society now, exercising all the privileges and responsibilities thereof in truly equal partnership with men.
We believe the time has come to move beyond the abstract argument, discussion and symposia over the status and special nature of women which has raged in America in recent years; the time has come to confront, with concrete action, the conditions that now prevent women from enjoying the equality of opportunity and freedom of which is their right, as individual Americans, and as human beings.
NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women, first and foremost, are human beings, who, like all other people in our society, must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential. We believe that women can achieve such equality only by accepting to the full the challenges and responsibilities they share with all other people in our society, as part of the decision-making mainstream of American political, economic and social life.
We organize to initiate or support action, nationally, or in any part of this nation, by individuals or organizations, to break through the silken curtain of prejudice and discrimination against women in government, industry, the professions, the churches, the political parties, the judiciary, the labor unions, in education, science, medicine, law, religion and every other field of importance in American society. Enormous changes taking place in our society make it both possible and urgently necessary to advance the unfinished revolution of women toward true equality, now. With a life span lengthened to nearly 75 years it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing; yet childbearing and rearing which continues to be a most important part of most women’s lives-still is used to justify barring women from equal professional and economic participation and advance.
AND:
NOW we have Congress Designing Fatherhood, trying to “equalize” the progress since, say, women got the right to vote, own property, sue their husbands in divorce situations, and become increasingly educated:
1990s, before women’s right to vote turns 100, Fatherhood Fights Back . . .
The Fatherhood Industry – initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood, stigmatize absentee fathers
Progressive, The , Nov, 1999 by Judith Davidoff
Created in 1994 to “counter the growing problem of fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore responsible fatherhood as a national priority,” the National Fatherhood Initiative believes that “fathers make unique and irreplaceable contributions to the lives of their children.”
In its first year, the group convened a National Summit on Fatherhood in Dallas. The purpose, according to the group’s literature, was to gather the nation’s “civic, business, and philanthropic leaders” together to “build a national consensus on the need to quickly reduce father absence.” The National Fatherhood Initiative provides technical assistance to the Governors’ Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion, whose goal is to help “rebuild the institution of fatherhood” in the twenty-first century. And the group works with the bipartisan Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion,formed in 1997 to promote leadership in combating “fatherlessness.”
1992/1993, Jack Straton writes about “what’s Fair to Children of Abusive Men?
1994 – VAWA act passed. Losing no time,
1994 — NFI Formed
JUNE 1995? — Clinton, Fatherhood Executive Memo (see my blogroll), directing ALL Federal Depts & Agencies to review and revise their policies to include fathers.
June 1998 — House of Reps passes a resolution (see below; I also posted the 1999 Congressional resolution earlier).
AND SO ON, AND SO FORTH…
The Declaration of Independence AND The Gettysburg Address AND the “I Have a Dream” speech contain complete sentences: subject, object, verb. They reference specific time and place and identified principles.
- Several of the doctrines I find so damaging and hurtful to families in this nation, USA, today, do not even have a verb! They are buzzwords, sound-bytes, with no nutrients inside. They are enzymes, not protein, not fiber, not a healthy balance of nutrients. When even the SUBJECTs (agents of the missing verbs) are missing, then we have no open accountability for either precipating the action leading up to the desired state:
- “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.”
- “Healthy Families”
- “No Child Left Behind”
- “Personal Work and Responsibility Act” (i.e., get off welfare)
- “Violence Against Women Act”
- “Parental Alienation Syndrome”
- “Equal Parenting” (a made-up word, attempting to eradicate the difference between “mother” and “father” and in essence, delete the word “mother” from public discourse, reducing us instead to “female.”), and, as I said yesterday,
- “Explicating Domestic Violence in the Context of Custody.”
- “Best Interests of the Child.” (anyone have a DEFINITION of that??)
We would be better off promoting justice, rather than “fatherhood” (but not motherhood”), to promote which requires UNDERmining the justice process, outside of plain view of the participants.
That’s enough for today. More of the same can be found at the HHS website.
I will share some of the “funding” of the fatherhood movement (some, only) in a separate post.
1998 H. Res 417 s
Next thing you know, about 222 hundred years later
DOCID: f:hr417ih.txt]
105th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 417
Regarding the importance of fathers in the raising and development of
their children.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 30, 1998
Mr. Pitts (for himself, Mr. Turner, Mr. Rogan, Mr. McIntyre, Mr.
Gingrich, Mr. Armey, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Boehner, Mr. Gephardt, and Mr.
Bonior) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the
Committee on Education and the Workforce
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Regarding the importance of fathers in the raising and development of
their children.
Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well
over 90 percent of children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not
become delinquents;
Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant
development, and father-child interaction has been shown to promote a
http://frwebgate1.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/TEXTgate.cgi?WAISdocID=9851889234+2+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
1998_H04249.pdf (application/pdf Object).
The vote (Roll No. 212) was yeas 415, nays 0, not voting 18.
REGARDING IMPORTANCE OF FATHERS IN RAISING
AND DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR CHILDREN
(House of Representatives – June 09, 1998)
H. Res. 417
Whereas studies reveal that even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of
children from safe, stable, two-parent homes do not become delinquents;
Whereas researchers have linked father presence with improved fetal and infant development, and
father-child interaction has been shown to promote a child’s physical well-being, perceptual
abilities, and competency for relatedness with other persons, even at a young age;
Whereas premature infants whose fathers spend ample time playing with them have better cognitive
outcomes, and children who have higher than average self-esteem and lower than average
depression report having a close relationship with their father;
Whereas both boys and girls demonstrate a greater ability to take initiative and evidence
self-control when they are reared with fathers who are actively involved in their upbringing;
Whereas, although mothers often work tremendously hard to rear their children in a nurturing
environment, a mother can benefit from the positive support of the father of her children;
Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 79.1 percent of Americans believe the most significant
family or social problem facing America is the physical absence of the father from the home and the
resulting lack of involvement of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;
Whereas, according to the Bureau of the Census, in 1994, 19,500,000 children in the United
States (nearly one-fourth of all children in the United States) lived in families in which the father was
absent;
Whereas, according to a 1996 Gallup Poll, 90.9 percent of Americans believe it is important for
children to live in a home with both their mother and their father’;
Whereas it is estimated that half of all United States children born today will spend at least half their
childhood in a family in which a father figure is absent;
Whereas estimates of the likelihood that marriages will end in divorce range from 40 percent to 50
percent, and approximately three out of every five divorcing couples have at least one child;
Whereas almost half of all 11- through 16-year-old children who live in mother-headed homes
have not seen their father in the last twelve months;
Whereas the likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is reared
without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent
families;
Whereas children of single-parents are less likely to complete high school and more likely to have
low earnings and low employment stability as adults than children reared in two-parent families;
Whereas a 1990 Los Angeles Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all
mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children;
Whereas almost 20 percent of 6th through 12th graders report that they have not had a good
conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month;
Whereas, according to a Gallup poll, over 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend
less time with their children than their fathers spent with them;
Whereas President Clinton has stated that `the single biggest social problem in our society may be
the growing absence of fathers from their children’s homes because it contributes to so many other
social problems’ and that ‘the real source of the [welfare] problem is the inordinate number of out
of wedlock births in this country’;
Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion and the Senate Task Force on
Fatherhood Promotion were both formed in 1997, and the Governors Fatherhood Task Force was
formed in February 1998;
Whereas the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion is exploring the social changes
that are required to ensure that every child is reared with a father who is committed to be actively
involved in the rearing and development of his children;
Whereas the 36 members of the Congressional Task Force on Fatherhood Promotion are
promoting fatherhood in their congressional districts;
Whereas the National Fatherhood Initiative is holding a National Summit on Fatherhood in
Washington, D.C., with the purpose of mobilizing a response to father absence in several of the
most powerful sectors of society, including public policy, public and private social services,
education, religion, entertainment, the media, and the civic community;
Whereas both Republican and Democrat leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate
will be participating in this event; and
Whereas the promotion of fatherhood is a bipartisan issue: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives–
(1) recognizes that the creation of a better America depends in large part on the active involvement
of fathers in the rearing and development of their children;
(2) urges each father in America to accept his full share of responsibility for the lives of his children,
to be actively involved in rearing his children, and to encourage the academic, moral, and spiritual
development of his children and urges the States to aggressively prosecute those fathers who fail to
fulfill their legal responsibility to pay child support;
(3) encourages each father to devote time, energy, and resources to his children, recognizing that
children need not only material support, but more importantly a secure, affectionate, family
environment; and
(4) expresses its support for a national summit on fatherhood
SHARE THIS POST on...
USA: “Fathers, Return!” UK: “Mothers, Give us your Children!”
Some posts virtually write themselves from the news articles. These two from the TIMES UK reflect the current dismissive attitude towards women in particular, and non-court-experts in general.
Another insane event in the serial, unfortunately NON-fiction, documentary of
Designer-Families by Family Court Fiat:
What are we human beings, giving birth, being biologically related to each other, an affront to the state on that basis? Are we clay to be manipulated emotionally, psychologically, and geographically — particularly if we don’t fit a certain IQ limit, household construction, or actually, as MOMs, want to see & hug our own children, and not get governmental permission to do so after producing them through conception, 9 months or so gestation, labor (which IS work!), and delivery?
There was an older book in the US for women called “Our Bodies, Our Selves”
It must be obsolete, I guess. Now, ladies, you are channels for the adoption industry, your religion (or his), you are surrogate mothers, and fatherhood enablers. Unless you maintain rigorous adherence to stipulations that are, well, not exactly published openly, by your local government, apparently whatever your country of origin. Or, remain off the radar by staying married (no matter what the cost), and not complaining if your offspring is strip-searched at the local school (Samantha Redding), and not getting cancer and hoping for an alternative treatment (many parents), by not openly declining a public education system known to be inferior (me), and not reporting domestic violence, child abuse, or attempting to collect child support when Dad don’t want to pay. In short, if we lay down FLAT after giving birth to children, perhaps no one will notice, and our maternal bond may survive — however, this may not be the best role model for sons or daughters.
These articles would be entertaining if they were, in fact, fictional. Allegedly, they are not.
“Mother too “stupid” to keep child” and “Court takes child of “stupid” mother, were mis-filed under women & families in the Times, and should be, I believe either under politics or under:
“Totalitarianism: A User’s Manual”
How to Promote Responsible Fatherhood?
The man in Tennessee (last night’s post) has 21 children to choose from, none of which he plans to support, and he will be hard put to comply with “national fathers’ return” policy without violating other laws against polygamy. As a low-income father, he would be for whom the child-support arrears abatement programs (as run through the family law system via the US Dept. of Health & Human Services), he would be a prime candidate.
How to Eliminate Loving Motherhood:
This 24-year-old woman in England was stamped, judged, labeled, and ordered to give up a 3- year old daughter she loves because she’s not “smart” enough, despite having been found smart enough to understand the court process!
(note: When I first heard the article, I thought I might have found a legal standing for getting my kids back, until I remembered which genders were involved….)
Apparently the adoption market is slow?, and so this woman was simply declared unable, and thus, forbidden to represent herself (with her choice of solicitor) in court in this matter, given a government solicitor who then ignored her instructions to protest the forced adoption.
Later, a psychiatrist declared her competent enough, but the (family) court still replied “we are not impressed.”
She couldn’t be too stupid, because this case is going up a notch to the international level.
Nor were her parents (too old) or her 27 year old brother allowed to assist her with her own daughter, on which he comments:
Rachel’s brother Andrew and their parents all offered their services but were rejected for reasons varying from being too old to having played truant from school.
Andrew, an articulate 27-year-old, said: “The guardian that the court appointed for K even said that I have learning difficulties, although she had never met me. These people are ridiculous. What’s worse, the judges overlook it and still think they are credible professionals.”
I am concerned about copyright compliance and hope readers will themselves check out these two articles.
And in the related article:
Court takes child of “stupid” mother
Rachel protested and secured a solicitor to give her a voice in the family court. But by the time of the crucial placement hearing her pleas had been silenced. This was because her “stupidity” had been used as a means to deny her something else: the right to instruct a lawyer.
Instead, the official solicitor was brought in to speak for Rachel. Alastair Pitblado, the government-funded official, is appointed by the courts to represent the interests of those who cannot make their own case, such as mentally incapacitated people.
. . . .
Rachel’s protests over her treatment were dismissed. The official solicitor had acted “entirely properly” in capitulating to the council since Rachel’s case was “unarguable”, the Court of Appeal ruled.
The decisions of the family court and the appeal court relied upon reports drawn up by a psychologist
However, according to a new report by a leading psychiatrist, Rachel is far from deficient. He said she had “demonstrated that she has more than an adequate knowledge of court proceedings”.
“She has good literacy and numeracy and her general intellectual abilities appear to be within normal range,” he wrote in a report.
“She has no previous history of learning disability or mental illness and did not receive special or remedial education.
“Rachel fully understands the nature of the current court proceedings, can retain them, weigh the information and can communicate both verbally and in writing.”
Actions Concerned Women (potential mothers) might take:
I have been considering this for a while, as a woman who did education and professional work first, and had something to offer our children as well as husband, I had children around 40 years old. The abuse began almost immediately, and lasted about 10 years, til I finally figured out where was the legal advocate to help it stop. Apart from two daughters, intentional, not accidental, those years were a nightmare, a danger, and an eye-opener. They also just about trashed my ability to work in this profession, and DID close down my credit. I kept, energetically, reforming and resourcefully creating myself in work to survive — while negotiating down and working off arts and other classes for growing daughters, keeping at least THEM in music, languages, art, etc., and from this point, meeting a variety of interesting professionals and other intact families, including some professional women, some stay-at-home Moms, and others. I was allowed to do this “for the children,” but attempts to engage myself were strongly resisted, and sometimes punished for, or threatened out of.
Two years off Food Stamps post-marriage, the case was re-directed into Family Court. Not knowing, I didn’t protest and seek how to get it back into the point at hand: Renewing a standing restraining order.
After Five Years of that, and escalations, I have become unemployed, lost both kids, dis-illusioned, alienated, still without credit (and now, car) and back on Food Stamps — I again, hope, temporarily. My attempt to separate from abuse (without separating the children from my abuser, who was their father) in effect separated me 100% from my family of origin, profession, faith communities (for the most part) and very much alienated from the institutions I formerly took for granted.
I encouraged the non-alienated mainstream to also no longer take these for granted in ANY aspect.
I became more and more radical feminist in views, understanding more fully now how this was simply a response to insulting degradation of women throughout the world. ln the USA, women went to work to replace men who went to war. Then they came back and we were to go back also and become the idealized “nuclear” family, warm, fuzzy, nostalgic, and prosperous (see Norman Rockwell). The GI Bill and other government initiativesi (plus some of our parents’ hard work) made possible college educations.
We got our college educations and did the logical thing with them — went to work. Some of us also sought meaning in other communities, including religion (propserity is not a ‘religion’) and/or service within our fields of study. Others I know did Peace Corps. I conversed regularly and on many topics and in many venues, with men and women from other continents, and who had been raised in them. Zaire, Ethiopia, Belize, Nigeria, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Spain, Mexico, Kenya. USA: East Coast, Midwest, Southerners, West Coast. Educational levels: GED through Ph.D. Faiths: Christian (several brands), Catholic, Atheist/Agnostic, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Unitarian, undeclared. For the most part, these were not problematic. We worked or studied and hung out, period.
Then I married someone who looked like me and whose family appeared to have a similar background. I loved him and married in good faith and with honest intents, expecting that our marriage would be a mutual work in progress, not that I would become this person’s “project” as soon as vows were exchanged. I did not do a criminal background check, and probably might have explored medical family history as well. No one was mentoring or watching in these matters. I married someone who came from similar religious background, and seemed articulate. My family of origin were not Christians or significant points of reference, and never really had been, the majority of my life. We all just went and did what we did, period, in different parts of the country and for different reasons. Asking advice and sharing insight was never really on the family menu, and communication was scant in general.
And shortly after marriage, all hell broke loose. The main theme of the marriage became “domination,” “reformation” and “assume the position!, (doormat)” particularly after I was pregnant with second daughter. This theme was carried out in front of many of the similar types of associates, as I was able to reach them by either employment, or daughters’ school contacts, or within reason family.
We spiraled through a series of pastors and churches, most if not all of who knew that physical abuse was happening in the home, and did not know or refer me to law, and did not intervene, though plenty of strong young men were associated and, had that been in their vocabulary, certainly could’ve. It was also commonly known that my husband was attempting to keep me without transportation or access to a bank account, that I had to beg for necessities and struggle at times for clothes. No one felt it appropriate to transgress the castle in the home as to, how we were doing things within it.
It was known that we were often uninsured by choice, after which an accident happened at his work, requiring surgery. I dashed from my home job (a rare music lesson) at his phone call, to help, literally, pick up the pieces, followed him to the hospital (DNR exact location) to have a slice of his bone put into another place for health. For a month, I helped this injured man use the restroom and dress [[wrists being hurt]] after this accident, and thereafter, when the people that had operated on him called, wanting their cash, I negotiated with them a reduction in the bills, which was accepted, and but not respected by the same father who had at this time control of our cash flow. . . . . As I had small children, and other responsibilities at home, it was becoming irritating interrupting my business to handle his, but without follow-through, and in the context when I’d already urged that actual health/accident insurance be gotten for him, AND us, an idea rejected like many others. An expensive “cost-savings” it turned out to be, too.
I helped him through tax season and we all helped with tools, sometimes the extensive laundry, and occasionally on the job (construction).
I also worked, trying not to provoke anger by being too highly recognized at any particular type of work, and for several years sought permission (!) to enroll in a University extension to learn a different skill, as mine was “tabu.” Finally, I asked a relative to provide the first tuition, took the emotional retaliation for this, and proceded to complete three courses in this field, with a good grade average, and get job referrals from the professor. Attempts were made to sabotage my participation (through withholding transportation, or delaying child care even in the home). The same techniques that worked earlier getting me out of my chosen profession worked also in jeopardizing other types of work. Mail was intercepted and some of it tossed; I got a private PO box: not acceptable. I started a business from home on a dime: not acceptable. Finally I was ordered to work FT nights, and write in my salary on his applicatino for credit (not to be shared). By this time, I was in compliance mode, and thereafter attempted to separately contact the credit company as to the “coercion” factor in my signaure they’d just seen. It was too late, and one of the major mistakes of this marriage.
Things continued to escalate, including weapons, physical injury and in general, I was getting more and more frightened, and the house more and more dysfunctional (utilities-wise). The safest place for my children and me to be appeared to be NOT at home, which is a crazy half-lifestyle. I couldn’t fully “exhale” at home, for the most part, except while engaged in acivities with the girls. Routines were not respected, or schedules, and the constant interruptions kept one off-balance.
Due to attempts to keep me carless we spent lots of time on public transportation, which is great for teaching children to read (so many signs with large letters, all CAPS: Stop, Door, Exit, Open, and so forth), but lousy for efficiency, and very frustrating. Little distances, such as even as few as 3-4 miles, sometimes took hours to go, with stroller and bags and two toddlers.
After such difficulty for those years, it was important and unbelievably empowering to have operational control over my own life. Results began to be tied again to effort, and not consistently sabotaged to create failures. Even moderate successes provided their own incentive and energies. Some momentum was built up during these years while the restraining order was on.
To be institutionally forced and emotionally blackmailed into a state of taking arbitrary orders again grates on the soul. The concept of moving forward in life and expecting to take 5 steps in a row has basically left my thinking — at some point, the psyche won’t stick its neck out again. I am currently working on this, and on ways to remove my exposure to sudden sabotage again, because by now the stakes (and debt) seem higher, there is less reservoir of good will in the general community (based on work performed for them) and there is this energy/age factor.
It’s been a good exercise, but my brain is tired indeed, and what I had been working for — children, and profession – are out of the picture for now, and I can’t see yet that progress or results even happened. This is how it goes trying to leave a controlling personality who is able to locate other controlling personalities to work with him, and find institutions to support the same premise. Many things get sloughed off in the process, and lots of “idols” bite the dust (which is good, obviously). Hope gets detached from the immediate and hinged onto the more philosophical. If that explanation is helpful.
Trying to put some themes to all of this, and in the larger historical (last few decades in my country) context, the clearest one I can see is male backlash to feminism, as expressed through a variety of male-designed institutions. Women are quite as much involved in hating and oppressing themselves, or others, and this is hard to take and see.
We get this situation where a woman is too “stupid,” supposedly, to raise her own child that she loves, and where family members who also love her and would like to support the situation (handling the “safety” concern) were automatically discredited. However, in cases (USA, Sheila Riggs) where a separating mother seeks to protect her four children from TWO generations of abusers who ARE relatives, she is jailed, and an inter-state battle develops (California/Texas) on the issue. Another woman has to flee the U.S. to protect her children. Yet in the UK, a woman with supportive family is still going to have her daughter forced out for adoption, unless she can win in court.
It appears, on networking and reading, that my situation is common after abuse in marriage:
IN the marriage, we were suddenly hated for being too independent, too educated, and too “uppity.” Our bodies, including sensitive parts of them, including neck, nipples, womb, face, teeth, buttocks, are targeted for assault as well as many times personal property (symbolic destruction of valued things), relationships with outsiders, and engagement with the world outside the home. If we try to lie down flat enough, we are hated for being too passive. If we stand up tall, we are hated for standing up tall. Finding no safe way to “be,” let alone be ourSELVES, fully human, we then get help and evict the batterer to protect our bodies and (many women, this becomes the thing that saved THEM, because after a point, they don’t care about themselves so much), we wanted to protect our CHILDREN.
So we go to court, becoming single, and separate, getting a restraining order.
For a while, this functions, sort of, and lives are stabilized and rebuilt. Perhaps we seek child support, perhaps we seek a 2nd relationship, perhaps we simply seek to grow more independent — and we are then in family court fighting AGAIN for independence. We again seek help and sanctuary elsewhere.
In many faith communities, we are again hated or treated suspiciously for being SINGLE, having divorced our man. Sometimes the families that didn’t protect (or teach boundaries to start with) dismiss us again for being single (this was my case), which is translated in the communal mind as “reverting to infantile,” when the fact of th ematter is, we had a fast course in growing up, and wise to the evils and dangers in this world, AND doing something mature — fight back, seek protection, or flee. Those are adult-level survival skills, and no sign of being infantile.
Nonprofits direct such women here, there, and so and so. Not knowing the full scope of the politics, the courts, or our legal rights yet, we sometimes sign away portions of them. We compromise the Full Stop NO!! unintentionally. We still thing that the basic institutions represent us and will help, and, mentally, do not suspect THEM of being as dishonest, volatile, and abusive as our ex (or, extended family, Or, extended community) was. Surely he was the abnormality and the exception.
We go instead of to nonprofits, to law, to law enforcement, and to refusing to bargain away any more rights, and find THAT system hostile to women.
Researching, in stunned distress (and many years later), WHY, we (I speak for myself and others I have dealt with), manage to get infrastructure enough going, process a LOT of dialogue, and find out that it’s coming from our FEderal government, and has been going on for over a decade, Presidents Republican and Democrat alike and fueled in great part by some of our own religions.
We follow the news, noticing what indicators preceded the latest family wipeout, foster care disgrace, or failed situation. We follow (I have) research institutes dedicated to “violence against women” and absorb adn believe their statistics, only to learn that equally powerful and widespread associations, well-positioned, are spreading doctrines, year after year, and with far more funding than we have, that DIRECTLY oppose what we just read in a reputable source (I refer to NCJRS justice database in the US, and other sites listed on my blogroll). The truth is out, but few are interested.
I also strategically examined WHY is it that each time I go to court, I lose something significant, no matter how ridiculous the accusation, and how easily available evidence to the contrary is. I learned a strategic principle: It seems the courts / judges don’t like women who appear to be informed; and they DO apparently sense a kinship with men who commit crimes. They do not respect compliance with their own court orders, or see it as a character indicator, although disobedience by a woman can be severely and quickly punished.
I analyze the fact that I have been in analysis mode too much, although that happens to be still safer for me than in action mode, which typically provokes a retaliation. In this Dizzy DMZ manner of life, time moves on.
I hope that that “stupid” British woman can outsmart the court that labeled her, hire a psychologist to evaluate their behavior(s), and get them to give up more kids trapped in spheres of influence. A spiderweb comes to mind.
Other means I have considered: A female moratorium of about six months (worldwide if possible) not just on sex, but also on child-bearing. It’s clear that to enforce the moratorium on sex, we’d have to find a safe place for all the minor children, boys and girls. We would inform the gentlemen that (for a change) if THEY would be good boys, they will be rewarded, physically and emotionally.
That is, of course, the message women have been given, century after century.
This of course is impossible, but it would seem that if auto workers can strike, or other laborers, well, why not US? Why should we as a gender be colonized? That “sucks,” if you pardon the colloquialism.
I’m sure this would be gladly espoused by the healthy marriage folks (like the pun?), and probably resisted with open “arms.” Yes, this is obviously hypothetical, temporary in nature, and probably not possible.
But at least it might be a break from Designer Family by Court Decree, which is a recipe for women, as well as now men, becoming emotionally detached from the “Fruit of the Womb”
With the word “Islam” meaning submission, and the other religions placing a premium on this, and with the federal governments, courts, schools, etc., across the world also demanding submission in the name of (whatever the current greater good is), I am not hopeful for any worldwide solution.
It’s not the pay, it’s the ability to retain a relationship with the fruits of our labor, that is at stake here.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Irresponsible Behavior in Promoting Responsible Fatherhood
I was ALMOST done for today, when I saw again another site of a man protesting the DV laws.
Being the snoop that I have become (bloodhound when I smell a rat?), I went from this link back through “Equal Justice Foundation” (which has automatic contributions from Federal Employees, but promotes known fatherhood shucksters, hucksters, lawyers, and media experts, including this one):
Barack Obama on the Jeffrey Leving Radio Show
It even has captions for the audio-impaired, which my PC currently is.
Here’s another resounding promotion of FATHERHOOD a few days before MOTHER’s Days, from these same two. At first I thought it was related directly to the “fatherhood woes” MSNBC article I recently commented on.
“Obama and Leving To Endorse Responsible Fatherhood on Soul 106”
Chicago May 9. PR/Newswire: Attorney Jeff Leving’s Exclusive interview with Presidential Hopeful Senator Barack Obama will appear on the Jeffrey Leving Father’s Legal Rights Radio Show on (what appears to be close to Mother’s Day 2008, again……).
The Focus of the Inteview will be on Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act that he re-introduced. As President, Obama will sign this family-strengthening act into law. (after him here comes Senator Evan Bayh, same deal). Fatherhood woes, MY EYE!
Less than a year later, in the same Land of Lincoln, a Governor was arrested for attempting to sell Obama’s Senate seat.
(Link is the 12/08/08 Times online.UK report,)
The Governor of Illinois was arrested yesterday for allegedly trying to sell Barack Obama’s vacated US Senate seat to the highest bidder.
The arrest of Rod Blagojevich and John Harris, his chief of staff, cast a light on the home state of the President-elect, which has a history of endemic corruption.
The charges include allegations that the Democratic governor, who has served two-terms, conspired with Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a former friend and political donor of Mr Obama, in schemes requiring individuals and companies to pay kickbacks in return for state contracts.
This appears to be business as usual. (The Oldest Profession — Salesmanship). (AND the 2nd oldest, in a sense….)
Here is the SENATE Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood (Bear in mind — this task force is at least 10 years old)
http://www.fatherhood.org/tf_senate.asp
Members are invited to speak at NFI events held throughout the country, including Congressional briefings and the annual Fatherhood Awards Gala, and are regularly updated on any developments and new research findings relevant to the fatherhood movement.
The Senate Task Force is co-chaired by Senator Evan Bayh (D – IN) and Senator John Thune (R-SD).
The Members of the Senate Task Force:
Lisa Murkowski – AK
John McCain – AZ
Christopher Dodd – CT
Michael Crapo – ID
Sam Brownback – KS
Barbara Mikulski – MD
Arlen Specter – PA
Robert Bennett – UT
Jeff Sessions – AL
Jon Kyl – AZ
Tom Harkin – IA
Pat Roberts – KS
Mitch McConnell – KY
Mary Landrieu – LA
Edward Kennedy – MA
Susan Collins – ME
Olympia Snowe – ME
James Inhofe – OK
Jim DeMint – SC
Tim Johnson – SD
Kay Bailey Hutchison – TX
Orrin Hatch – UT
Mike Enzi – WY
Here is the “Congressional” One (i..e, House of Reps, I gather):
Being a member of the Congressional Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood signifies a commitment to the responsible fatherhood movement and a devotion to supporting legislation that promotes and fosters responsible fatherhood. Members are invited to speak at NFI events that are held throughout the country, including Congressional briefings and the Annual Fatherhood Awards Gala, and are regularly updated on any developments and new research findings relevant to the fatherhood movement.
WAIT A MINUTE! AREN’T THERE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES?
ARE THEY NOT LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE TO ALSO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE MOTHERS IN THEIR CONSTITUENCIES, AND INFORM THOSE MOTHERS AS WELL AS THOSE FATHERS, WHAT’S UP? ARE NOT WOMEN APPROXIMATELY HALF THE POPULATION IN THESE STATES AND MOST LIKELY DISTRICTS? THEN WHY ARE THESE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES SIGNING ON, CARTE-BLANCHE, TO A “MOVEMENT”??
The Congressional Task Force is chaired by
Reps. Joseph Pitts (R-PA), Mike McIntyre (D-NC),
Robert Aderholt (R-AL), John Sullivan (R-OK), and Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC).
The Members of the Congressional Task Force:
Dennis Cardoza – CA-18
Bob Filner – CA-51
Jack Kingston – GA-1
David Scott – GA-13
Sanford Bishop – GA-2
Luis Gutierrez – IL-4
Donald Manzullo – IL-16
Daniel Lipinski – IL-3
Mark Souder – IN-3
Mike Pence – IN-6
John Sarbanes – MD-3
Elijah Cummings – MD-7
Chris Van Hollen – MD-8
Roy Blunt – MO-7
Bob Etheridge – NC-2
Walter Jones – NC-3
Sue Myrick – NC-9
Lee Terry – NE-2
Donald Payne – NJ-10
Peter King – NY-3
Todd Platts – PA-19
Joe Wilson – SC-2
John Duncan – TN-2
Zach Wamp – TN-3
Kay Granger – TX-12
Chet Edwards – TX-17
Solomon Ortiz – TX-27
Frank Wolf – VA-10
J. Randy Forbes – VA-4
What IS this, a perpetual motion machine, administration to administration?
http://www.responsiblefatherhood.com/aboutthecouncil.html
The Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood is a state commission established by the Illinois State Legislature to promote the positive involvement of both parents in the lives of their children.
It’s very name indicates the truth. It has assumed that women are most normally the caretakers of the children, and because of this, and ONLY because of this, has chosen to try to equal the balance by representing the interests of fathers. Across the board.
Our Mission
The mission of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood is to significantly increase the number of children in Illinois that grow up with a responsible father in their lives. We seek to do this through:1) Raising public awareness of the impact of father absence on children
2) Assisting state agencies and other service providers the resources they need to promote responsible fatherhood
3) Reforming perceptions within state agencies and other service providers regarding the role of fathers as parents
4) Advocating for programs, policies and legislation that will encourage the positive involvement of fathers
The Responsible Fatherhood Act
Signed into law – Aug. 5, 2003Judge Stuttley – February 16th, 2008 Symposium on Parental Alienation Syndrome
{{The American Prosecutors Research Institute discredited this as far back as 2003. Didn’t deter Judge Stuttley, I suppose….}}
Alex Roseborough – March 1st, 2008 Symposium on Psychology and the Law and Its Affects on Fatherhood
{{that’s “Effects,” . . .. }}
Jeffery Leving – March 1st, 2008 Symposium on Psychology and the Law and Its Affects on Fatherhood
Annual Reports
2008 – 2007 – 2006 – 2005 – 2004In ILLINOIS Dept. of Health and Human Services alone:
Administered by: Bureau of Child and Adolescent Health
The mission of the Illinois Fatherhood Initiative is to end father absence by connecting children and fathers and promoting responsible fatherhood by equipping men to be father and father figures. The Illinois Fatherhood Initiative has developed the “Boot Camp for New Dads” program to address this issue. This is a national hospital-based program for expectant and new dads to prepare them to be actively involved fathers. The Boot Camp curriculum is a half-day workshop for expectant fathers held at local hospitals or community-based organizations. Each expectant father is taught the basics of being a new dad: how to hold a baby, change a diaper, what to expect in the first months and much more. This unique community education program for first-time fathers has Boot Camp veterans (together with their two to three-month-old babies) show the ropes to soon-to-be dads. These new dads return as veterans, continuing the cycle and offering their best advice to the next class.
Its target population is “First time fathers”. Illinois Fatherhood Initiative is currently involved with 20 hospitals located in high-risk communities in Illinois. During the last year, over 1,000 men attended Boot Camp for New Dads in Illinois.
Founder’s Message
Illinois Fatherhood Initiative (IFI) was created in February 1997 (3 years after VAWA passed. 1 yr before the US Senate posted the National Return to Fathers’ day, etc….) to address the increasing problem of father absence in society. Research indicates that some 24,000,000 children – 1.1 million in Illinois alone – are growing up today in homes without their father.
David is founder of Illinois Fatherhood Initiative, the country’s first state wide non-profit fatherhood organization, whose mission is connecting children and fathers by promoting responsible fathering and helping to equip men to become better fathers and father-figures. IFI has programs in schools, hospital, and workplaces across Illinois.
Are we DONE yet? It’s been 12 years! I find the concept that this is NEW a little odd. Why are there continual re-introductions of this act, and who is monitoring its success? Are fewer families getting annihilated? Are more Dads paying child support? Are women who left their men getting back with them, with POSITIVE results? Are fewer boys sowing their wild oats, and fewer girls deciding to have babies without a man in the home?
No, I did not notice that in May 2008 (see distant reference above, on this post), Presidential Hopeful then-Senator Barack Obama was adding to my uncollectable child support woes by signing on, AGAIN, to MORE fatherhood initiatives, which were woefully unattended to, not noticed in the US Senate or House of Representatives, and woefully underfunded as well:
However THIS one was a year earlier 2008. Why I didn’t notice in 2008? I was attempting to chase down EDD after the DV order having been overturned, and the DCSS (translation: OCSE) having refused to enforce child support OR standing custody orders, I became job-less. As I worked in a NON-state-funded Nonprofit (a.k.a., the Catholic Church), I got zero unemployment. Serves me right for not having known better than to, female, work in a church that for centuries wouldn’t let young girls (only boys) sing some of the most beautiful choral music around. And had to settle out of court on child abuse cases. However, at that time I DID, until just previously. All contact with my kids had been erased under what I NOW realize to be an out-come based, federally-funded policy to reduce child support arrears for fathers by granting them more access to their kids, no matter why such access was restrained to start with (say, prison, anyone?).
While I was unaware of THIS:
OMB Control No: 0970-0204
Expiration Date: 11/30/2008
(OMB = Office of Mgmt & Budget)
State Child Access Program Survey
Program Reporting Requirements
For Participation in the
Grants to States for Access and
Visitation Program –
Description of Projects & Participant Data
Purpose
The purpose of this survey is to provide information to Congress on the progress of services
provided under the Child Access and Visitation Grant, the goal of which is to “…support and
facilitate a noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.”
As part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, states
are required to monitor, evaluate, and report on programs funded through this grant program in
accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary. A final rule delineating the program
data reporting requirements was published by the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in
the Federal Register (64 FR 15132) on March 30, 1999, and specifies the collection of data as
follows:
“Section 303.109(c) REPORTING. The state must:
(1) Report a detailed description of each program funded, providing the following
information as appropriate: service providers and administrators, service area
(rural/urban), population served (income, race, marital status{{WHY NOT GENDER??}}), program goals, application
or referral process (including referral sources), voluntary or mandatory nature of the
programs, types of activities and length and features of a completed program; and
(2) Report data including: the number of applicants/referrals for each program, the total
number of participating individuals, and the number of persons who have completed
program requirements by authorized activities (mediation—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.”
The local service provider is:
…responsible for completing the “Local Service Provider Survey” for clients served and
submitting this information to the state who, in turn, will submit it to OCSE . {{OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT}} A new
feature of the survey (see Section D: Local Service Provider Worksheet) requires that grantees report on the following:
REQUIRED OUTCOME:
#1. Increased NCP parenting time with children.
(NCP = non custodial parent)
DEFINITION of Required Outcome:
“An increase in the number of hours, days, weekends, and/or holidays as compared to
parenting time prior to the provision of access and visitation services.”
HERE is from 2006 — ALONE:
Nationwide, States Deliver a Range of Access/Visitation Services
States determine services to be provided which include those defined in authorizing legislation (i.e., mediation, counseling, parent education, development of parenting plans, and visitation enforcement, including supervised visitation and/or neutral drop-off and pick-up). All services must be related to the overall goal of the AV program which is to “…enable states to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children….”
The majority of States provide more than one service, and in many instances, parents are the recipients of more than one service. Listed below are the number of parents that received each service type and the number of States that provided these services in FY 2006.
| Service Type | Number of States | Number of Parents |
|---|---|---|
| Mediation | 40 | 17,654 |
| Counseling | 31 | 4,529 |
| Parent Education | 36 | 47,994 |
| Parenting Plans | 38 | 15,340 |
| Visitation Enforcement: Supervised Visitation | 46 | 16,089 |
| Visitation Enforcement: Neutral Drop-Off/Pick-Up | 32 | 5,025 |
EVERY ONE of these ASPECTS HAS BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION IN RE: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SITUATIONS. EVERY ONE OF THEM IS ALSO ITSELF A RICH SOURCE OF JOB-REFERRALS WITHIN THE COURT COMMUNITY AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FURTHER KICKBACKS AND ABUSE. A WOMAN IN CALIFORNIA HAD A DAUGHTER IN SUPERVISED VISITATION, AND MADE WAVES WHEN THE SUPERVISOR HAD A SLAVE/MASTER RELATIONSHIP INVOLVING BESTIALITY (ETC.) AND INFECTED HER DAUGHTER. MOM HIT THE ROOF, CALLED WASHINGTON, WHO CALLED BACK, AND ATTEMPTED TO GET THE JUDGE RECUSED. THIS DIDN’T HAPPEN, SAID JUDGE WAS MERELY SWITCHED. MOREOVER, THERE IS THE ASPECT OF DOUBLE-DIPPING OF FUNDS, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. WHO IS SUPERVISING THE SUPERVISORS, AND TRAINING THE PEOPLE TO DO SO? WHO IS DESIGNING THE PARENTING PLANS, AND ALSO PROFITING FROM WRITING AND SPEAKING ABOUT THEM? SAME COURT PERSONNEL, MANY TIMES, ASSIGNING THE PARENTS TO THEM. WHAT A JOBS BANK . . . . .
(I just added a link to the “Blogroll” for this pdf, which is recommended reading, and was found at “stopfamilyviolence.org” it is reporting troublesome matters as of 2002 regarding these programs (co. “MIINCAVA”).
I.The Growing Call for Supervised Visitation Programs
For years, judges have asked parties litigating custody cases to find “neutral third parties,” generally
a family member or close friend, to supervise visitation. {{AND NOW YOU KNOW WHY THEY HAVE BEEN ASKING THIS — FEDERAL GRANTS REQUIRE THIS}} This can be a daunting task for a volunteer,
however, given the time and energy required of a visitation supervisor. Even if a family member
or friend agrees to supervise visits, he or she may be vulnerable to the noncustodial parent’s demands
and threats, rendering the supervision ineffective.4There is also a risk that the volunteer may simply
not believe the allegations made about the visiting parent and may decide to only loosely monitor
the visit, further endangering the child.5 Supervised visitation programs6 address this problem by
providing ongoing contact between a child and his or her noncustodial7 parent in the presence of
a neutral third party in cases where physical or sexual abuse, neglect, parental dysfunction, or do-
mestic violence has been alleged.8These programs often include a variety of services9 ranging
from one-on-one supervision with a monitor continuously in the room, to visits in large rooms
monitored by several supervisors.10 Expertise of staff also varies; because of limited resources,
many programs must rely heavily on volunteers, students, and paid community members to provide
monitoring of visits.11The level of security present at programs also varies, with only some programs
offering on-site private security officers or law enforcement personnel.12
I.The Growing Call for Supervised Visitation Programs
For years, judges have asked parties litigating custody cases to find “neutral third parties,” generally
a family member or close friend, to supervise visitation. This can be a daunting task for a volunteer,
however, given the time and energy required of a visitation supervisor. Even if a family member
or friend agrees to supervise visits, he or she may be vulnerable to the noncustodial parent’s demands
and threats, rendering the supervision ineffective.4There is also a risk that the volunteer may simply
not believe the allegations made about the visiting parent and may decide to only loosely monitor
the visit, further endangering the child.5 Supervised visitation programs6 address this problem by
providing ongoing contact between a child and his or her noncustodial7 parent in the presence of
a neutral third party in cases where physical or sexual abuse, neglect, parental dysfunction, or do-
mestic violence has been alleged.8These programs often include a variety of services9 ranging
from one-on-one supervision with a monitor continuously in the room, to visits in large rooms
monitored by several supervisors.10 Expertise of staff also varies; because of limited resources,
many programs must rely heavily on volunteers, students, and paid community members to provide
monitoring of visits.11The level of security present at programs also varies, with only some programs
offering on-site private security officers or law enforcement personnel.12
FOR MORE ON THIS, SEE THE LINK TO RIGHT OF THIS PAGE. . .. NB: The word “high-conflict” is code for “we don’t really believe it was domestic violence or child abuse.”
BACK TO THE ACCESS/VISITATION GRANTS PAGE, FY 2006:
It is important to note that parents are counted once per service and that the amount of time or service hours devoted to each parent is not collected. As a result, parent education yields high numbers of parents served because it usually entails a one-time-only participation in a 2-4 hour seminar. Supervised visitation, on the other hand, is considered a time-intensive service that a noncustodial parent (NCP) utilizes over a period of time usually determined by the court. States do not report on the development of their service guidelines.
Access Services Result in Increased Parenting Time with Children
In FY 2006, approximately 34,212 fathers and 36,830 mothers received access and visitation services. In addition, 25,667 NCPs increased parenting time with their children. ((This can be misleading, because for a single exchange to take place, typically both parents are going to be involved. the point is, they need supervised visitation because someone was abusive! or, someone reported abuse, and supervised visitation was ordered in retaliation!)(see my earlier post today, Jack Straton, Ph.D. talks about this). “Supervised Visitation Time” is PAID-FOR TIME, and is a performance. It lacks the quality of the spontaneous, SAFE relationship that would otherwise exist. It is a concept that arises from a wish to overcome the sole custody, or no-contact situation requested when there has been either violence towards a parent, or abuse of a child to start with! ! !
Parent Referral Sources to Access Services
Courts continue to be the primary source of parent referrals (50%) to AV services. Child support agencies completed 22% of parent referrals in FY 2006, a slight drop from 24% in FY 2005.
Local Service Providers
In FY 2006, States contracted with 327 court and/or community-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services.
Funding by State
Access and Visitation Grants:
Federal Allocation and State Match
Total
| State | Federal Allocation | State Match | Total Funding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $142,610 | $15,846 | $158,456 |
| Alaska | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Arizona | $179,474 | $19,942 | $199,415 |
| Arkansas | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| California | $988,710 | $109,857 | $1,098,567 |
| Colorado | $130,679 | $14,520 | $145,199 |
| Connecticut | $101,505 | $11,278 | $112,783 |
| Delaware | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| District of Columbia | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Florida | $519,757 | $57,751 | $577,508 |
| Georgia | $272,041 | $30,227 | $302,267 |
| Guam | $100,000 | $0 | $100,000 |
| Hawaii | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Idaho | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Illinois | $329,141 | $36,571 | $365,712 |
| Indiana | $164,289 | $18,254 | $182,544 |
| Iowa | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Kansas | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Kentucky | $115,835 | $12,871 | $128,706 |
| Louisiana | $175,073 | $19,453 | $194,525 |
| Maine | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Maryland | $176,152 | $19,572 | $195,724 |
| Massachusetts | $171,937 | $19,104 | $191,041 |
| Michigan | $289,707 | $32,190 | $321,897 |
| Minnesota | $123,675 | $13,742 | $137,417 |
| Mississippi | $113,215 | $12,579 | $125,795 |
| Missouri | $171,130 | $19,014 | $190,144 |
| Montana | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Nebraska | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Nevada | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New Hampshire | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New Jersey | $217,628 | $24,181 | $241,809 |
| New Mexico | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New York | $605,368 | $67,263 | $672,631 |
| North Carolina | $272,566 | $30,285 | $302,851 |
| North Dakota | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Ohio | $334,160 | $37,129 | $371,288 |
| Oklahoma | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Oregon | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Pennsylvania | $341,055 | $37,895 | $378,950 |
| Puerto Rico | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Rhode Island | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| South Carolina | $142,481 | $15,831 | $158,312 |
| South Dakota | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Tennessee | $178,061 | $19,785 | $197,845 |
| Texas | $646,627 | $71,847 | $718,474 |
| Utah | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Vermont | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Virgin Islands | $100,000 | $0 | $100,000 |
| Virginia | $192,500 | $21,389 | $213,889 |
| Washington | $171,388 | $19,043 | $190,431 |
| West Virginia | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Wisconsin | $133,236 | $14,804 | $148,040 |
| Wyoming | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| $10,000,000 | $1,088,889 | $11,088,888 |
Background Information
Designated State Agencies
In 1996, governors designated the State agency responsible for administering the Access and Visitation Grant program. To date, the majority of State access and visitation programs are managed by either the State Administrative Offices of the Court or State Child Support Enforcement Agencies.
Designated Federal Agency
The Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is officially responsible for managing this grant program.
I told you above, it’s not about the kids, it’s about money — and the transfer of it.
Staff Contact:
Tracie Pogue, Program Specialist Office of Child Support Enforcement Administration for Children and Families HHS 370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W. 4th Floor Washington, DC 20447 Email: Tracie.Pogue@acf.hhs.gov
Enabling Legislation
The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
The goal of the program is to:
“…enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ {{TRANSLATION AT THAT TIME — FATHER”S!! }} access to and visitation of their children….”
States are directed to accomplish this goal through the provision of services including, but not limited to:
- mediation (mandatory and voluntary);
- counseling;
- education (e.g., parent education);
- development of parenting plans;
- visitation enforcement (including monitored supervision and neutral drop-off/pick-up); and
- development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
Important Note
This is a formula grant program. States have the discretion to decide what services to provide, organizations to be funded, geographic areas to be covered, and persons to be served.
Annual Funding
$10 million appropriated each year by Congress.
Here is a less recent link regarding VAWA, complete with a lot of tables.
I am not able to take more time today to make sense of it. I KNOW that when I went for help, and searcheed high and low for it, it was not found, to be able to protect as a single-by-choice, competent, working mother, to continue safely engaged in my work, which otherwise would’ve been able to support this household. The DAD had been contributing less and less, with little to no enforcement. Violent style incidents (including stalking) continued to escalatel adn expand in scope and quantity up to, and beyond the point my daughters were finally (and in some exasperation on their part, continuing to be unwilling participants in this), they were stolen on an overnight visitaiton. I could not get them back or prevent that action. After that, I still could not, yet, enforce child support arrears, or stop the FURTHER stalking that took place.
From my perspective, it certainlyo seems that the decks were stacked against me. I believe these two movements : “Fatherhood” (in name at least) and “Violence Against Women” are working contrary to each other, both of them soaking up tons of federal, state, local, and nonprofit community $$.
In my about 18 years of involement in the abuse (enduring, the attempting to leave), I have ONE and one ONLY positive experience of intervention by any police officer in any community in which I have lived. After our case went to family law, it appears to me that I became an “enemy” of the officers I sought help from, with a single exceptin or two of neutrality. Simulataneously, as finances got worse (and worse), the car was increasingly ticketed and cited, including once at 3am in front of my own house (where no garage was available, or off-street parking) and after I’d already been to court to get an extension on registration. Before this deadline had expired, the car was towed, and later sold, making it nearly impossible to get to work around here, certainly work that would sustain a livelihood.
Here’s a link:
http://digital.library.unt.edu/govdocs/crs/permalink/meta-crs-4130:1
You can attempt to decipher it yourself. I was Googling “2006 Funding of VAWA act.”
SHARE THIS POST on...
Obamaland: Domestic Violence Awareness pre- and post-election
SUBJECT MEMO:
Obama on Domestic Violence, in “Domestic Violence Awareness Month” (Oct. 08)
OCTOBER 2, 2008 2:18AM
“http://open.salon.com/blog/kellylark/2008/10/01/obama_on_domestic_violence
(1) About My (FamilyCourtMatters) Blog, Topic-Switching.
I see it as “Alternating Threads of Thought.” There IS a tapestry involved, imperfect and news-sensitive though it is.
Readers will find that I may skip from topic to topic among my posts. One day, it may be recent news of family annihilations (in the context of divorce and custody). Another, it may be my reaction to administrative non-reaction to this. A third day, it may be a bit of history on the courts, or the next day, I post an article from the 1990s. Yesterday, I tacked on a database (that has been lurking link-side for a long time here), about the US Federal Government, where your $$ went, and how to find out.
(On the $$, I am also working up a separate site . . . . sarcastically entitled “Administering Families, Serving Humanity.” (“http://hhs-acf-ocse-et-al.blogspot.com/“). So far, it’s not yet populated with a post.
Well, possibly that comes from having been a musician, and part of this time, a conductor. Expect different dynamics, melodies, and energy levels. It’s not just about a single tune (“Father’s Rights. Mother’s Rights. Best Interests of Children. Feminism is anti-God. God is anti-woman. Domestic Violence. Child Abuse, or “false allegations” thereof. Parental Alienation vs. Post-divorce pedophiliac behavior. Parental KIDNAPPING. Due Process Lost. Law and (dis)order. in the Courts. Forensic Psychology vs. fact-finding when it comes to child abuse (or for that matter, IPV). “Healthy Marriage” promotion vs. a single citizen’s right to protect herself/himself and her or his children. (Boy, i bet THAT order of genders caught your attention!) … Sob stories, Statistics, suicides, femicides, homicides, familycides, or – – – – is it REALLY all just about the money? Or is it social engineering from on high…))
Clamoring melodies trying to drown each other out, true. But on this blog (although I’m sure you detect to what tune my theme is generally pitched) the idea is to examine many threads, and pick up on the energy level, dynamics, and the cumulative expression. IF the cumulative expression is diminishment of CIVIL rights and due process, we have a problem, folks! If you come to this conclusion, then I have plenty of links for you to do some homework, or search terms to think about to validate / invalidate your conclusions ideas.
IF justice is being bought and sold at the federal mandate (or initiative) level, and the bottom end of the food chain, those with the most to lose in the matter of injustice, then we have a moral / spiritual / serious constitutional issue (which I think we do).
OR, is it just about the heirarchy of studiers (and funding for the studies) vs. studied (the population to be tested, randomly sampled, and have the techniques re-adjusted to achieve a desired result — a GOVERNMENT desired result that was not subject to popular vote or poll) then we have a problem. And that “we” is all of us but those who do not need a country to protect their assets, their families, or their livelihoods.
So Subject Switching here is to be expected. Pick your melody and follow it — or, just float along, feel the tilt and roll of the boat. If you have leisure for the “float along” blog-read, I presume you are not IN the system, because IN the system many of us (without personal connections, or personal resources, or a professional guide — or a professional guide TO the professional guides, who prey on novices) are water-skiers with one ski and a frayed rope, we need to pay close attention to the wake (of the motorboat) and find ways to maintain our stamina on the fly. As such, we will be skiing faster and farther afield, and more dangerously so, than those in the motorboat. If this is you, you might enjoy the thrill of it, or, having had enough, try to let go, slowly sink, and hope shore is within swimming distance. Or, that the boat circling back to see where you were, lets you on board, and doesn’t force more of the same.
After all, a trip through the family law (and child support, psycho-jargon) system, or through the wide-cast trawling nets that reel squiggling, flapping, or stunned catch from the bottom of the ocean (or food chain, as it were), is going to change one’s major relationships: With children, spouse, employment, possibly former social acquaintances, concepts of “liberty and justice for all” and a few more items.
Therefore, it’s my blog, and it’s broad in scope. If you are overwhelmed, welcome to it. It succeeded in communicating — because that’s how families are. If you as a bystander don’t LIKE supporting families (societies) trashed by this, then please come back later and chew off some more data and digest it, or chew it (but don’t inhale — former President Clinton says he didn’t, neither should you. Take time out, but DO come back.) And don’t spit anything dark and nasty at me, either, please! Spittoons ARE available in comments, which I moderate.
Or visit some of the illustrious buttons I’ll be adding later today, and get another take on these items.
Speaking of visitors, this blog is getting viewers from many countries, including a few whose names I don’t even recognize. Please make yourselves known in a comment or two — I get a little nervous when India, Egypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia show up shortly after I’ve posted something with the word “honor killing” in it, or something about a brave 12 year old that said, give me the law, not your version of it — to her parents, when it came to marrying too early. Then again, maybe it’s someone else taking heart, which would be wonderful. I do wonder what West Finland, Sweden, and Scotland are doing here, and Washington, D.C., I’m citing your data and commenting on it, so “deal with it,” OK? Los Angeles, if you’re the Courthouse, ditto!
(2) Today’s topic, and how I got to it:
Intro:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Or, how many “awareness” days can you pile into one little month, APRIL, when at least in the U-S-A, many are most sensitively aware to the I-R-S? I believe April was: Sexual Assault Awareness month, Child Abuse Awareness Month, and in a few states, governors were persuaded to tack on “Parental Alienation Awareness DAY.” After all, one needs to even the score every now and then, which PA is intended to do, and in some arenas, has more than. The thing to become aware of as to “PAS,” however, is its author, its origins, its prophets & priests, and the varying (and they do vary — radically) responses of various areas of professional expertise (and grants/salaries) Pro or Con.
Well, I can now scope out the “He Said / She Said // WE (the experts) say” sites, fairly quickly, They tend to have more limited vocabularies, and the themes are fairly simple to follow. This gets boring, and sometimes I like to check one of the regular news an commentary, and just search on a hot term: “domestic violence” or (any of the above). Say, “truthout,” or CS Monitor, or Washington Post, or, today, Salon.com caught my eye.
In between other interests which kind of make up for, I suppose the years when the general tenor of the marital conversation was half a Bible version on gender roles (if you’ve been there, you know which one I mean), or reproof for not living up to my 9 /10ths of the imaginary marriage vows (as opposed to the one I said out loud, before witnesses), or reminding the holder of the 1/10th that if he was the boss and I was the hired hand, where was my pay?, and if working conditions didn’t improve, someone just might be short a hired (oops, “conscripted” hand) for the assigned tasks. Or, recovering from the somewhat predictable response to such protests (see, eventual DV restraining order actually was granted, based on declaration, and in the company of a support organization which had been helping me survive emotionally, learning a few legal rights on the way, until this event) — part of my compensation is an extra prolific range of reading, on-line and off. And, I talk to lots of people about their situation. I am a personal data net. It helps me navigate…and is entertaining at times, too.
So, I searched “Open Salon” on “Domestic Violence” (Parental alienation didn’t yield a single relevant result, which also tells me that this is a specialized vocabulary to this (Alice in Wonder)land, and, that (as in mirrors) normal words read forwards, but only make sense if you understand they are interpreted backwards..
And here it is:
(3) PRE-ELECTION PRIORITY:
“Obama on Domestic Violence” (link):
OCTOBER 2, 2008 2:18AM
October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month.
The one time when all people are supposed to remember this problem, and perhaps think about it. In my group, it is the month to get preachers to preach about the unacceptability of domestic violence. A lot won’t though, because it “encourages” divorce.
I know it is a difficult topic. It is a difficult thing to live through and then admit that you lived through it. It is extremely difficult to deal with on a regular basis in trying to help. It’s a soul-sucking, terrible, situation to deal with these women and their children trying to escape this violence. But it is so much worse to BE them, of course.
But it is always, always, a lesson in the great courage of women. The women who escape these situations with nothing but the clothes on their back are awe-inspiring – but they don’t know that. They are simply terrified women doing whatever they need to do to protect themselves, and more often, their children.
Ms. Kelly Lark says:
October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, so, I give you Obama’s statement today,
so we all know he has not forgotten us, and to hail Joe Biden for the VAWA act once more.
{{“Hail”is too reminiscent of “Heil, H_ _ _ _ _” and I tend to reserve mine for now.. How about, “thank” or “express appreciation”? We are in a republic (ostensibly) not an imperial regime. At least on the books. Let’s wait a little on the “Hail, the Conquering Hero Comes,” or Palm Sunday, as it were.}}
“Today, I join all Americans in observing Domestic Violence Awareness Month. At a time when one in four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime, it’s more important than ever that we dedicate ourselves to working on behalf of the thousands of women who suffer in silence. {{We WHO? Some have been all along…}}{{I resent the characterization of “suffering in silence.” Rather, the silence is deafening to those of us who actually do reach out, and report. That silence after reporting is ALSO heard by our abusers, and may result in silence the NEXT time. So it’s often a matter of tuning the community’s ears – – not just to reporting, but to tthe laws, the edifices in place to help (and their shortcomings and conflicts of interest), and to the broader definition of DV than broken bones and blood. And to its effect on children. Leave it to a man to say we suffer in silence as a whole, although it’s clear many do…}}
Too often, victims of domestic violence don’t know where to turn, or have no one to turn to. And too often, a victim could be someone you love. That’s why, as a State Senator, I led the fight in Illinois to pass one of the strongest employment protection laws in the nation, ensuring that victims of domestic violence could seek shelter or treatment without losing their jobs. {{Shelter/Treatment? how about Justice/Law enforcement prosecution Help? I don’t want to underestimate this, but I personally wasn’t showing up with broken bones, but still lost work through trauma, harassments, and direct orders. Shelter is a first step only and these shelters have their own issues, too.}} That’s why I introduced legislation in the U.S. Senate to provide $25 million a year to domestic violence prevention and victim support efforts. That’s why I co-sponsored and helped reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. And today, I am so proud to have Senator Joe Biden, the man who wrote that groundbreaking legislation that gave so many women a second chance at life, as my running mate in this campaign. {{Well, I am thankful for that legislation too. Now, are you aware of the groundswell of retaliation against it, or not? }}
{{$25 million sounds like a huge amount. Spread throughout the country, and compared to funding already in place to WEAKEN the effects of VAWA (let alone a system that tends to do this, probably not accidentally) it has a different ring. More, below Thank God for it. BUT, I have a question. When I went looking — HARD — for pro bono help to support my 2nd application for a restraining order, or my FIRST contempt of the multiple thousands of $$ child support arrears, I found nothing effective. Where was that part of the $25million. HOW’S COME every time I faced my ex in Family Court (and someone coached him to get the case there, too), I see indications that he was getting financial support for legal help, and expert coaching on how to railroad my civil rights? HOW’S COME when the ABA Commission on DV (or toolkit, you can look it up) advises clearly, along with Family Violence Prevention Fund (or “endabuse.org”)’s “toolkit to end domestic violence –which very fine toolkit, one now has to hunt for on their site) — when that highlights the IMPORTANCE of enforcing child support orders after DV, instead I found an agency intent on NOT enforcing it til custody was switched from me to the batterer, for the first time since we separated? HOW’S COME when I went to a mediator, he did abide by the rules, and categorically ignored domestic violence, which was an issue all 3 times? HOW’S COME there is practically no accountability (a “complaint form,” after one’s life was just upended) for quality control in this mediation — yet I see the whole system is adamant about mediation as THE formula, whereas organizations that do research say, it is NOT workable in cases where domestic violence exists? So, the system makes a token nod — and in a way that eradicates due process (right to answer the charges one is accused of in open forum) by “separate — but unequal — meetings with a court-appointed mediator. HOW’S COME that mediator “recommends,” but this should not happen in true mediation? And many, many more “How’s Come’s?” come to my brain. Especially as I began to review Federal budgets, emanating from the White House, some of which you will see below, shortly.
HOW’s COME? with all the effort ~ specifically coming up on a decade’s worth ~ ~ I put into getting free from abuse, with my eyes on alert, my mouth open, and my rudder set straight, it so far has failed, 10 years post-restraining order Are we only doing triage and then throwing the flapping women up on the shore? Or, are organizations focused on their own}}
- “As President, I’ll make these efforts a national priority. {{OUT OF HOW MANY HIGHER RANKING NATIONAL PRIORIOTIES< SOME OF THE CONTRADICTORY TO THIS ONE??}} This month, and every month, we must fight to bring domestic violence out of the darkness of isolation ** and into the light of justice, especially for minority and immigrant women, and women in every community where it goes unreported far too often. We’ll stop treating this as just a woman’s issue, {{WE WHO? CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, KAREN ANDERSON AND OTHERS HAVE ALREADY BROUGHT IT TO THE INTERNATIONAL / UN LEVEL, FAILING TO FIND HELP IN THE U.S. ON IT? WE ARE ALREADY CALLING IT A CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE.}} and start recognizing that when a woman is attacked, that abuse scars not only the victim, but [“also” is grammatically correct] her loved ones, sending currents of violence that ripple across our society.
- {{On this one, the word “scars,” though effective is weakened. It is already in the headlines, unchecked, it can and often does not just scar, but also KILL the victim and/or her loved ones.
- Re: “loved ones” — Future First Lady Obama, Michelle, help us here. You should understand. “loved ones” includes KIDS. Why no mention here of the overlap between domestic violence, and traumatized kids. OR, of DV and child abuse? It’s not exactly rocket science on this, at this point, 2008! I find “loved ones” too vague. I love my KIDS. I separated from their father, who was abusive. He saw them, but he lost his privilege to LIVE with us. In this, I, their mother, sought to make a point of what is and is not acceptable treatment of young ladies. Or older ones.}}
- We need all hands on deck to address this – [1] neighbors willing to report suspected crimes,{2] families willing to help loved ones seek treatment, {{{Batterers’ Programs being proved efffective somewhere that I’m unaware of yet?}} and {3} community leaders {{DOES OR DOES NOT THIS INCLUDE “COMMUNITIES OF FAITH?? INCLUDING SOME OF THOSE ON YOUR ADVISORY BOARD??}} willing to candidly discuss this issue in public and break the stigma that stops so many women from coming forward.
- {{Sir, with respect, all hands LOCALLY are already taking the brunt of this — nonprofits are overstressed, police officers responsding to DV calls sometimes lose their lives, too. A woman (this is VAWA, hence the gender) traumatized, in shock, or in the hospital leaves a blank — an expensive one — in someone’s life; either her kids, or her businesses’ (suppose she’s a teacher? Or in a place in front of many people? Or a pastor? Or a lawyer? Or a DV advocated herself? Or a woman caring for an elderly parent? Many of us get attacked for being too “uppity” in our professions, and if we have managed to somehow overcome that, this is a professional disaster, which becomes a financial disaster all too soon” So, WHICH “WE” DO YOU MEAN HERE? HOW ABOUT POLICYMAKERS?}}
FINALLY, IN 2008, PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA SAID, PER THIS OPEN SALON BLOG:
“Together, we’ll make it clear that no woman ever struggles alone.” (I hope so, I’m reserving applause, though). I just reviewed the “We’s” versus the “I’s” (Pres. elect Obama). I heard ONLY one “I,” only one promise. And that was in the opening statement. “AS PRESIDENT, I”LL MAKE THESE EFFORTS A NATIONAL PRIORITY.”
{{HOW?? Tell us NOW what you — not all of us — plan to do. After all, you want the vote, right? What’s your commitment, in DETAIL.}}. . . As it played out, I have looked already — this same remarkable “lack of detail” is in the White House Agenda. I have already posted on it, and one of my top links to the above right is a 4-page summary of just how much of a “priority” DV is in the big pictture. It is LAST on the agenda, and mentioned in appropriate token vagueness:
“Department of Health and Human Services” (this is a link)
The subtitle (page header) reads “NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY”
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the Federal Government’s principal
agency for protecting the health of all Americans
and for providing essential human services {{LIKE<, STAYING ALIVE??}}
This (FY2010) Budget provides $768 billion in support of HHS’
mission that will bring down costs and expand coverage
The reserve is funded half by new revenue and half by savings proposals that promote efficiency
and accountability, align incentives toward quality, and encourage shared responsibility (etc. etc.)
Let’s compare $25 Million (whether this be 2009 or 2010, the above promise is an indicator): If your high school math is in place, $25,000,000 / $768,000,000 = $25 / $768,000 = or 0.00325% (alternately, 0.0000325). National priority. Now, I know that the USDOJ administers VAWA, but I am unsure whether its funding actually comes from HHS. (I will find out, though!)ANOTHER “QUICK LOOK” WAY IS TO SEE WHERE DOES THIS VAWA COME UNDER THE DEPT. HHS FY 2010 DESCRIPTION. FOR EXAMPLE: DOES IT MAKE “FUNDAMENTAL HIGHLIGHTS?” Look and see (the answer is No).
Does it as such rate its own heading (no). It shows up LAST, not bolded, in 4 pages of elaborate agenda with details of amount of funding: The heading on alternate pages reads “NEW ERA OF RESPONSIBILITY” and addressing violence against women, or intimate partner violence (which overlaps with child abuse, can lead to homelessness and death, and does, etc., and has been tagged as potential cause of substance abuse and other troubles under http://www.acestudy.org (Adverse Childhood Experiences — see my link to right) — this does not make the “CHANGE.gov”‘s administrations honor roll, even.
Domestic Violence comes under “Other Presidential Initiatives” like this:
Provides Support for Other Presidential
initiatives.
The Budget includes funding to reduce domestic violence and enhance emergency
care systems It also expands the treatment ca-
pacity of drug courts including services to protect
methamphetamine’s youngest victims Substance
addiction is a preventable and treatable chronic
condition and this initiative helps address the
most urgent needs The Budget also provides re-
sources to reduce health disparities, which the
President has identified as an important goal of
his Administration
The sum total level of description, herein, are the words “reduce domestic violence.” There is plenty more detail in almost any of the other 17 plans. Each merits its own paragraph. REDUCING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COMES IN #18.5 of 18.
Hardly a “priority,” eh? ???
Let’s check back at whitehouse.gov — maybe they did better for 2009: (I have also already posted on this):
FAMILY:
Ten days after taking office, the President established a White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, led by Vice President Biden. The Task Force is focused on raising the living standards of middle-class, working families across America.
The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided needed support to families enduring difficult times.
ALREADY I see I’m not on the map. We were a middle class (lower) working family plagued by (my husband’s) domestic violence, which has resulted in him, basically dropping off the map economically since separation (FYI, part of the economic abuse, ongoing) and me being forced out of it back onto welfare. So out of the gitgo, many families, being in this situation, are not on the map economically as to being rescued. HOWEVER, let’s look. Under the “FAMILY” is this statement above, that this AMERICAN RECOVERY & REINVESTMENT ACT is to help “families enduring difficult times.”
Domestic violence is long-term difficult times, until it is stopped, or the perpetrator is separated from his victim, and held accountable. However, a problem arises (among them, jails are full). ANother problem is the alternate white house agenda of putting fathers (ALL fathers, apparently) back in their kids lives. I am wondering whether a female-designed program might just have accounted for the concept that under the all-inclusive category of “WOMEN” (in VAWA) are many MOTHERS. We are approximately half the population, or 51% I heard? Most of the other half came from some of us. If the 1 in 4 abuse figure (25% of the 51%) is appropriate, then I think this is a significant enough percentage to merit a mention under “family” in our white house agenda.
Under “Families” are 7 bullets, none of which refers to violence within the families.
Under helping Working Families, it’s not mentioned either.
Under STRENGTHEN FAMILIES, do battered Moms (or women) (or children) make a mention?
Strengthen Families
President Obama was raised by a single parent and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. {{ DESPITE MY RAILING ON THESE SITES< I FEEL HE TURNED OUT ALL RIGHT. DON”T YOU? HE BECAME PRESIDENT. I VOTED FOR HIM IN PART HOPING HE MIGHT ALSO UNDERSTAND THE SINGLE MOM TAKE ON LIFE.}}
He is committed to responsible fatherhood, (1) by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. (2) The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.
[The bold below was a technical error and will be corrected later]…
A commitment to stopping domestic violence, which is primarily targeted at women when it comes to fatalities, would most certainly help ensure that the children at least get to grow up, period!!
(1) “responsible fatherhood” is a code word for the uninformed, and boy is IT well funded. By “encouraging young MEN to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways” I would like to note, WHAT ABOUT THE WOMEN?? It’s already abundantly clear it is desirable that the Moms put their kids in earlier and earlier Head Start. The purpose of this is that we go to work. So why do young MEN get our President’s and his wife’s special encouragement, while the young women, some of who are giving birth, don’t even get a mention when it comes to “promising career pathways.” What is expected? Does he want us at home with our kids (but not homeschooling, which is anti-patriotic, I heard), or in the workforce? Does he want to perpetuate the WAGE gap while attempting to narrow the health care gap? What’ gives?
And, I would also like to ask, where is the respect here for some of the older women, who have raised children somehow with or without the benefit of VAWA, and are working also? If we happen to be divorced and NOT playing 2nd string Mom to some children that were Healthily replaced into Marriages that the Federal Government approves of, what are we expected to to do? Take up the slack in the VAWA funding as encouraged to do in the Oct. 08 speech above?
Now, while I see under “Women” this is mentioned, I just wish to point out that when discussing “families” it takes a woman to make one.
“Prevent Violence Against Women
Violence against women and girls remains a global epidemic. The Violence Against Women Act, originally authored by Vice President Biden, plays a key role in helping communities and law enforcement combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. At home and abroad, President Obama will work to promote policies that seek to eradicate violence against women.”
On subsequent posts, I will describe some of the funding for policies that tend to do the exact opposite. When it comes to $$ versus words, a $$ is worth a thousand words, and paints a clearer picture.
Other links on VAWA, not necessarily up to date:
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) is a United States federal law. It was passed as Title IV, sec. 40001-40703 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 HR 3355 and signed as Public Law 103-322 by President Bill Clinton on September 13, 1994. It provided $1.6 billion to enhance investigation and prosecution of the violent crime perpetrated against women, increased pre-trial detention of the accused, imposed automatic and mandatory restitution on those convicted, and allowed civil redress in cases prosecutors chose to leave unprosecuted.
VAWA was drafted by Senator Joe Biden’s office with support from a number of advocacy organizations including Legal Momentum and The National Organization for Women, which described the bill as “the greatest breakthrough in civil rights for women in nearly two decades.”
VAWA was reauthorized by Congress in 2000, and again in December 2005. The bill was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 5, 2006.
Criticisms of VAWA legislation
Various persons and groups, including Marc H. Rudov, Glenn Sacks, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting (RADAR), and African-Americans for VAWA Reform (AAVR), have voiced concerns that VAWA violates due process, equal protection, and other civil rights. {{ALL OF WHICH DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ITSELF DOES….}} None of these groups oppose laws protecting victims of domestic violence. They oppose laws that discriminate exclusively against specific social groups and deny these groups equal protections.
NOTE: Click on “Rudov” (a name I’m less familiar with) for a sampling of the thinking behind opposition to VAWA
PICTURE ME IN THE AUDIENCE, EAGERLY RAISING MY HAND, AS IN A CLASSROOM, JUMPING UP & DOWN FOR ATTENTION.. .. “Sir, Sir? SIR?? I have a question”
Given that many “women” are “mothers,” and the Bush and Clinton administrations are avidly promoting “Healthy Marriages” (meaning, 2-parent households preferred, all others, go to the back of the line, when it comes to custody) “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood,” how are you going to reconcile the domestic violence restraining orders, obtained through the VAWA fundings, with the inevitable trip through the family law system, where another paradigm reigns?
How are you going to reconcile “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood” {{=child support waivers (lowered obligations) in exchange for increased access (to children that may have witnessed Dad beating Mom to the point the law had to intervene)}} with the above claim. As I am sure you know, those movements “rule” in the family law system, and are vastly outfunded compared to this $25million, though we do appreciate it?
Would it not be simpler to de-fang the the policies that are specificall directed AGAINST VAWA and AGAINST the right of a woman to NOT remarry after leaving an abuser, without losing the children that she removed from that volatile environment?
Or, I have another idea. If the “communities of faith” continue (as they have) to operate as a law unto themselves (as they do) in the matter of domestic violence, being as clergy at least, many of them mandated reporters of DV & child abuse, how’s about you remove the tax-exempt status unless they PUBLICALLY post the laws stating that domestic violence, spiritual or moral problem that it is too, IS in this country a felony or misdemeanor crime??
Prevent Violence Against Women
Violence against women and girls remains a global epidemic. The Violence Against Women Act, originally authored by Vice President Biden, plays a key role in helping communities and law enforcement combat domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. At home and abroad, President Obama will work to promote policies that seek to eradicate violence against women.
SHARE THIS POST on...
(Dis)Order in the Courts — get a perspective!
Actually, I’m not totally sure what went down with The Hon.Judge Henriod, (Utah), in his jailing a woman for texting in court. She did 2 days of 30 assigned, with the rest hovering. Was it about Order in the Court? Was it about her attempting to help her ex hide assets, and so protecting the case? It APPEARS to include some violations of due process.
But this is as good an excuse as any to note that “Disorder in the Courts” (2002), while not as old as the VAWA act, which I HOPE your Senator supports full funding for this time round, is still relevant.
Humor me, here are the lead-ins:
(1) Texting and Driving — Crash & Jail
There are laws against texting and driving for good reasons: the distraction can be fatal to others. When it does, jail seems appropriate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/7865114.stm
“Texting death crash woman” jailed
{{I’ve been through family court, and one gets called names in there frequently. Can you imagine writing the by-line for this item: “texting death crash woman?” What a handle, what a claim to fame.}}
A motorist who sent and received more than 20 text messages before she crashed into another car killing its driver has been jailed for 21 months.
Philippa Curtis, 21, from Suffolk, was texting before she hit the back of a stationary car at 70mph on the A40 near Wheatley in Oxfordshire.
Victoria McBryde from Northamptonshire, who was dealing with a burst tyre, was killed in the crash in November 2007.
Curtis, of Bury St Edmunds, was also given a three-year driving ban.
Judge Julian Hall said it had been “folly and madness” to use a phone while driving and it had been “disastrous” for Curtis, Ms McBryde and her family.
‘Various calls’
Curtis, who was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving in December, had told Oxford Crown Court she felt there were times when using a phone while driving was acceptable...
THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE REASON TO JAIL SOME ONE FOR TEXTING. SOMEONE GOT HURT. I DON’T THINK THIS COULD BE CHALKED UP TO GENDER-RELATED, DO YOU? THERE ARE REASONS FOR LAWS AGAINST USING CELL PHONE WHILE DRIVING, AND THIS IS THE REASON. LIKE THE LAWS AGAINST (SORRY TO HAMMER THIS ONE HOME) DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, THE REASON IS, SOMETIMES, THAT ACTIVITY CAN BE FATAL.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
BUT WHERE ON THE SPECTRUM WOULD YOU PUT THIS “JAILING FOR TEXTING”???
(2) Texting in court – Citation and jail
Now, on reading the articles, I am not fully of one opinion or the other. It raises a few issues… If I wanted to lambast judicial irresponsibility, this judge might not be the textbook case or poster boy, there are worse for sure. Also, some said this woman was texting AFTER the hearing….
Woman jailed for texting is released
TOOELE — A young mother who was sentenced to 30 days in jail for text messaging inside a courtroom — sparking an uproar that reached national media outlets — was released Wednesday after two days behind bars.
However, the judge who imposed the sentence for contempt of court defended his actions Wednesday and said he believed the woman was helping her husband hide assets in a complicated debt collection case before creditors could claim them.
“I have an affidavit from a woman who was sitting behind her who heard her and her mother-in-law talk about hiding assets,” 3rd District Judge Stephen Henriod said Wednesday.
Henriod had found Susan Henwood in contempt of court for text messaging her husband, Josh, during an earlier court hearing in which the judge believed the woman was tipping her husband off about collection measures for debts. Josh Henwood had said he was sick and could not attend the court hearing.
At issue is a legal battle involving a plaintiff, Bob Wisdom, who is seeking financial compensation from Josh Henwood. Wisdom’s attorney, Gary Buhler, said all his client wants to do is get paid and make the case go away.
Buhler decried media attention that focused on Susan Henwood’s youth and four young children, which he suggested painted her as a victim, while ignoring efforts that he said have been made to conceal or transfer ownership of a long list of assets that should be used to pay off debts.
The witness who sat by Susan Henwood said in her affidavit that she observed Henwood continuously texting someone during the hearing and remarking to an older female seated nearby that “Buhler is not getting that” and “we will just move it, they are not getting it.
Other quotes on this case:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705300489/Woman-who-texted-in-court-released.html?pg=2
But Susan Henwood’s attorney, Alan Stewart, said she has no experience with courts and was simply reporting what was happening to her ill husband using a method she thought would be the least disruptive in the courtroom. Stewart also noted that Susan Henwood is not a party to the debt collection case.
“You’re using his wife as collateral,” Stewart told the judge. “You’re saying, ‘We’ll take your wife as hostage.’ A judgment debtor has rights, too.”
Hilder said individuals can be held in contempt if they willfully defy a court order, or if they assist someone else to defy a court order. Judges also are charged with maintaining order in the court, which does not mean simply the physical environment.
And from worldnet daily, a different viewpoint of the arrest process:
LAW OF THE LAND
Judge reviews case of texting courtroom spectator
Woman freed although contempt ‘conviction’ remains
Posted: April 30, 2009
12:30 am Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
It was at some point subsequent to the hearings on her husband’s case a woman notified the judge there had been text messages sent.
Susan Henwood said she never would knowingly violate the law but was startled when she was cited. Then when she went to court Monday on the contempt citation, she said she was refused permission to testify on her own behalf.
 Susan and Josh Henwood |
The complainant, instead, was allowed to testify unchallenged that Susan Henwood had been texting more or less constantly through the hearing, which apparently had gone unnoticed by the judge, the lawyers and the bailiffs at the time. {{alert: Hearsay?? Violation of due process, much??}}
Then the judge announced the 30-day jail sentence for her actions. {A transcript of this matter would settle what happened}
She thanked the news agencies that reported on her predicament and that of her husband, left at home with four children under the age of 10.
. . .Just a quick refresher (and I am no lawyer):
14th Amendment:
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.“
“Josh Henwood’s stepfather and Susan’s father-in-law, Dennis Jackson, reported there were no notices or warnings posted about the use of texting, a statement contradicted by the clerk’s office spokeswoman, who told WND that visitors to court were told of the judge’s ban on text messages. However, when asked how the warning was delivered, by sign or verbal statement, she said, “I have no idea.”
“Conversely, in another case, Henriod gave a former teacher probation for having sex nearly 50 times with a 16-year-old boy.
“What is of primary importance to me is that [the boy] is doing well,” the judge ruled.”
(3) Sex and School — Probation Only
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (It was felt that the woman did not fit the profile of a pedophile. Interesting, someone else said that about the Huckaby case in Tracy, California also — but that has a gag order, now that she’s on death row for “special circumstances.”) (“equal” protection under the law?)
It appears to me that at least WNDaily is following up on this, and that possibly the Judge had some cause for concern, HOWEVER, before jailing, a person should be allowed to testify. I will not pronounce on all this (hearsay).
By the way, the “teacher” above was a woman (hover cursor over link for short comment on the story)
Another Perspective on No Child Left Behind?
{{I know, I’m kind of merciless on the NCLB theme. Sorry, but I think the mentality that drives that thinking was related to why I lost my kids. Ignore the DV, target the oddball parent who doesn’t support the federal almost-monopoly (give it time….) on “education.” ALSO, that mentality and dialogue (dare you to find it on Whitehouse.gov….) ignores cases like this: }
Former Utah Teacher Gets Probation For Student Sex
| Written by: Doug G. Ware Email: dware@kutv2.com Last Update: 10/19/2007 12:57 pm |
SALT LAKE CITY – A former Utah high school teacher avoided jail time on Friday, instead being sentenced to serve three years of probation for having sex nearly 50 times with a 16-year-old boy.
Christy Anne Brown, 33, had pleaded guilty to having sex with one of her students while she was an English teacher at Cyprus High School in Magna. But despite a recommendation for some jail time by Adult Probation and Parole officials, the judge decided that a probationary term was enough…(the boy’s parents didn’t want her jailed, particularly, either, it goes on to say…)(What IS it about Utah, eh??)
(Maybe this is a commentary that we ought to go back to attempting to have young people become reasonably morally, character-wise, and behavior-wise a little more mature by the time the hormones and this drive start pumping through them. . . But again, this is a family court blog, not a schools blog, I will restrain myself here).
(4) Due Process, DOJ and the U.S., holding tanks:
(according to Glen Greenwald — and all I did was search “habeas corpus,” which thought was provoked by the Henwood case, above….):
The Obama DOJ is now squarely to the Right of an extremely conservative, pro-executive-power, Bush 43-appointed judge on issues of executive power and due-process-less detentions. Leave aside for the moment the issue of whether you believe that the U.S. Government should have the right to abduct people anywhere in the world, ship them to faraway prisons and hold them there indefinitely without charges or any rights at all. The Bush DOJ — and now the Obama DOJ — maintain the President does and should have that right, and that’s an issue that has been extensively debated. It was, after all, one of the centerpieces of the Bush regime of radicalism, lawlessness and extremism.
Can I argue this case coherently, and have I been following loss of habeas corpus in these matters? Not really — I’ve been much more concerned much closer to home — in re: men, women, children, and the family law courts. My daughters’ habeas corpus was violated — they were falsely imprisoned for a month, and no enforcement of any penal code against this. As minors, the purpose of my prior attempt to get all parties in involved (and there were far more PEOPLE involved in this, both in my family and throught the courts, than literal “parties” in the actions at hand. Only TWO parties were in the action at hand, involving custody in a divorce and domestic violence dynamic. Those two parties were the parents of the children.). Therefore, to my pea-sized brain, if I were to put some ORDER into my personal life — including work life, associations, weekly schedule, and what not — the most sensible way would to insist that the court ORDERS be enforced, consistently (perhaps it was the teacher in me that wanted this order), so that something profitable and practical could actually get accomplished in our lives. In my case, that entailed making a living (despite repeated interruptions to that process) and raising children, which if you’ve done this, you understand has certain requirements attached, and takes both time, energy, and also money (food, housing, clothes, transportation, what not).
Which brings me to:
(5) DIS-order in the Courts
The title I sought was a publication by CANOW which addresses the topics I, and many on the blogroll, have been. It is now such a commonplace google term, that we get hits such as this:
A.
DISORDER IN THE COURTS:
JUDGE CONVICTED OF CHILD SEX CRIMES
Jim Kouri, CPP October 13, 2005 NewsWithViews.com
New Jersey Superior Court Judge Stephen W. Thompson, who traveled to Russia to have sex with a teenage boy, was convicted by a federal jury last week on a charge of sexual exploitation of children. The judge also produced a videotape of sex with a minor and then transported that videotape back to the United States. Judge Thompson is associated with the North American Man Boy Love Association, a group which promotes sexual relations between adult men and children. NAMBLA is currently represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
After merely 10 hours of deliberations, the jury convicted Judge Thompson, 59, of one count of traveling in interstate and foreign commerce with the intent of engaging in sexual conduct with a minor for the purpose of producing a visual depiction of the sexual conduct. The jury found the defendant not guilty only by reason of insanity on count two, charging possession of child pornography.
This one got caught. Finally. Kind of undermines confidence in the judiciary, eh? SUPERIOR court judge?
When I taught music, it was a commitment/ a round the clock type of thinking. I thought about it when not actually teaching or performing, although it is most certainly possible to dwell on other things, do other things, etc. But for central passions in life, they influence you. They are not just mindless occupations you pick up for some hours and put down. I will say this for being a mother as well. It’s not something a judge can rule that I have to cease being, and I can readily comply with that — internally. It’s built-in, and a part of me, just like music. Taking both of them out, that’s a rough call.
So how about this judge having what clearly was a central passion (others, it’s money, others, I’m sure it’s “justice”) – – this is going to cloud judgment. Good thing he got caught. How many were hurt, en route?
B.
“CA NOW recognizes that there is a crisis in the family courts.” http://www.canow.org/ca_now_family_law/
Do you??
(Direct quote from the above page):
We have had hundreds of complaints from mothers whose divorce, custody and child support cases denied them their right to due process and failed to consider the best interests of the child. CA NOW documented the results of analysis of 300 family law cases in our 2002 Family Court Report.
About 40% of custody cases are contested today due to allegations of child abuse, molestation and domestic violence. Tragically, in some of these cases perfectly fit mothers are losing custody of their children to abusers. Pseudoscientific psychological theories are used as legal strategies to switch custody from or deny visitation rights to mothers of abused children. In cases where fathers contest custody, they win sole or joint custody 40 to 70 percent of the time.
CA NOW published an e-book, Disorder in the Courts: Mothers and their Allies Take on the Family Court System, which is a collection of essays by mothers and their advocates addressing different aspects of the problems with the courts.
Purchase your download of this e-book online, or contact CA NOW at 916.442.3414 x101.
We have lobbied for legislation that protects mothers and children, and against legislation that is harmful. We have worked in coalition with other organizations to address the systemic problem of court injustice. We have demanded accountability from officials, and utilized the media to bring attention to the issue. We have created and gathered resources for mothers, advocates and attorneys that you will find on the side bars of this page.
CANOW does not provide legal advice, referrals, or funding for litigation. We are taking action for family court reform through political pressure and exposure, legislation, public education and working in coalition with other organizations. We encourage individuals to find others in their communities who can organize grassroots efforts to do court watches and to use public forums (speak outs, protests, media, etc.) to bring attention to the corruption in their courts.
C.
So Does NOW NYS:
http://www.nownys.org/disorder_courts.html
(From a link on this page: This section refers to cronyism, misuse of taxpayer dollars, slowness to prosecute ethical violations, and it SPEAKS to the character of those who make crucial decisions in family’s lives. Some of these cases (of judicial misconduct) do not just show one form, but multiple forms of horrible behavior, if not felony. It BOTHERS me that people of this character still populate courts that I know (see post on “therapeutic jurisprudence?”) are an institution seeking to itself teaach and “reform” those on the lower spectrum of the socioeconomic radar, and make no bones about it either, with parenting classes, marriage promotion, batterer intervention programs of dubious efficacy, psychological analyses as a short-cut to fact-finding, or at times even reading the court record/evidence already on it. ):
The commission began probing Robin Garson four years ago after she told a grand jury that Brooklyn Supreme Court Justice Michael Garson – her husband’s cousin – confessed to improperly taking $100,000 from his elderly aunt.
Michael Garson, who resigned in December, has been indicted on grand larceny charges for allegedly looting the nearly $1 million fortune his Aunt Sarah Gershenoff saved over 50 years as a legal secretary.
His trial is expected in October.
Robin Garson, Gershenoff’s personal guardian, also testified that the power of attorney Michael and Gerald Garson used to pilfer Gershenoff’s money was forged.
Ethical rules require judges to report criminal acts. She did not at the time.
Gerald Garson is now serving three to 10 years for taking cash, cigars, free drinks and meals from crooked lawyer Paul Siminovsky in exchange for awarding lucrative appointments and fixing cases.
Last April, NOW complained that Robin Garson “exploited her official status to obtain special privilege” during her husband’s trial, passing notes to defense lawyers and entering the courtroom through special doors reserved for officials.
In the Aug. 1 letter, NOW exhorted the commission to pursue Siminovsky’s testimony that Gerald Garson asked him to help Robin Garson’s election campaign as part of their corrupt relationship. {{NOTE: Simonovsky is testifying because he was caught himself; part of the plea bargain was helping to catch this crooked, divorce-fixing-for-pay judge!! The crooked relationship in question was the Simonovsky/Gerson one, let alone any Garson to Garson ones}}
“Please be transparent in your investigation,” Pappas wrote. “Judicial canons require that judges maintain ethical standards and avoid any appearance of impropriety. Please help us rebuild our public faith and trust in the state judiciary.”
FINALLY, ON THIS LONG POST:
I ask you to visit the link above. I am going to put most of it as a separate post, and underscore personally:
Here’s SOME of it:
I am not, FYI, a member of NOW, and not about to become one. There are some issues and priorities on which I differ. But i question why it takes a feminist group to state the issues so clearly? Thank God for them, and their groundwork!
Feminists have been targeted and namecalled in many sectors, but some forget where they came from to start with, responding to some very real, and very outrageous discrimination and civil rights violation. I remind the fathers viewing this, that women got the vote ONLY in the last century. Talk about “equal parenting time” coming up in a decade or so only is simply not credible.
If you think you have “identity” problems — or are tired of participating in the rat race society that, I would just about bet, women (if they’d been making decisions) — I mean, ordinary women, not foundation owning women — we would have understood to allow for some time with our children, but not having this be our sole identity or talent. Our corpus callosus” is thicker than yours; we naturally multi-task (perforce, also!), and the place your kids belong, when they are young, is in our arms, primarily, assuming we are decent. Our hips are generally speaking set to have a kid on them. We live longer. We have more body fat in general. We are designed for this, and a lot of smarts are developed in these categories. Give us a _____-ing break in express-pumping milk for two-year olds (Toronto judge) so you can get equal time with your former wild oats.
I’ve been a professional, including teacher, and worked many fields. I was a Mom, and instantly (late 30s) I was supposed to drop that identity and STOP what i was doing. But also, bring home the bacon. But, stay home, barefoot, kind of, and car-less. Then that didn’t satisfy my confused mate, and towards the end, I was told to work nights, but this didn’t produce any more household cooperation, either in house OR child care. When I didn’t come up with enough $$ to compensate, I was lectured. helpers were flown in to lecture me, in front of my daughters, on how to be a wife (this was shortly before I threw him out). I later did a background check on the particular individual flown in to do this, and it wasn’t pretty.
I then (mid-40s) took legal action to protect myself (himself, given the context) and our children. I began repairing and rebuilding, and taking care of the children AND working. Child support was finally ordered. I moved for a fresh start, and then the hounding me, advising, lecturing, and attempting to direct me (not how to be a wife, but how to be a single Mom), came in, from another male (who had never raised kids), the same one that wasn’t smart enough to help us get a restraining order, or intervene in the wife-beating. When I deterred from this enforced “advice,” the punishments resumed – out of court, in the courts, and economically. I therefore had to restructure HOW to provide for us, and I had only two hands, not three. Work, household, children was enough. Fending off intruders and learning legalese was not on the map.
It is now.
I was told, then (approaching 50s here…) I was TOO enmeshed with the kids, then (as child support was withheld and jobs were lost, around the family law system) I was “abandoning them at home alone” (approximate quote), which, apart from being untrue, referred to at most, perhaps 4 hours a week of evening work, in my profession, necessitated by the prior reversal of schedules brought on by the court actions. This is called knee-jerk co-parenting. It’s impossible, and not good for kids.
Women, sirs, are generally short of time, and frequently finances also. If you want something done right the first time, perhaps you ought to ask us. I believe that, generally speaking, we know the value of our time, our $$ (and yours) and I find it hard to believe that a growing being that spent +/- 9 months inside us is just a piece of property, or a meal ticket. When and where that has happened, whose institutions has that young mother come through to start with?
Individually, and collectively,
we are personally unavailable for scapegoating from here on out.
For a counterbalancing view, see Chesler’s “Woman’s Inhumanity to Woman.” It happens.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Profile in Courage — India, Age 12
We had a “just say no” to drugs, and “There’s no excuse for abuse.”
Also, our administration is still paying top dollar to promote “Healthy Marriage” (whatever that is, but roughly translated it means, we want people off welfare) and even had “just say no to sex outside marriage” (abstinence education), which some religions at least say they endorse, and trying to get the young men (this was the initial rationale for the movement) who have been, many of them, through our educational system, to become “responsible fathers.” And paying top dollars, including dollars earned by single mothers and other women, for this.
Meanwhile, in India, a fairly recent law says no marriage before 18 (girls) or 21 (boys). 
Her story from the CS Monitor is below.
Rekha Kalindi, a 12-year-old girl living in Bararola, India,refused to get married when her parents tried to arrange one; she wanted to stay in school. Her revolt, and those of two other girls in the region, have halted new child marriages in their rural region of West Bengal, India. The legal age for marriage in India is 18 for girls and 21 for boys. But arecent study published in the Lancet found 44.5 percent of Indian women in their early 20s had been wed by the time they were 18. Of those, 22.6 percent had been married before age 16, 2.6 percent before age 13.
This is what I think, on the topic in USA:
(1st half blog: me blogging. 2nd half. The story which so inspired today, perhaps there is still hope.)
Education and cultural values – USA style.
- Thankfully no one married me off at 12. Thankfully, I was allowed to complete not only high school, but also, college, twice. I was not dealing with substantial gender issues, that I recall, in my work life. Sometimes, but not primarily. I also got my B.Th. from an organization that ordained women, and we worked alongside me in many fields. I continued to also do music during these years, which were exciting and adventurous also.
- It was after marriage – mid-30s (not that late, really, for our culture) — as a fully adult, functional, working, contributing member of society that the infantilization of me (by virtue of gender and the pro-forma definition of marriage in this person’s mind, which I didn’t know in advance) became, and was enforced for many years, with a vengeance. I have come to realize that while I was taught to work, my family in particular taught me nothing (by example, or discussion) about marriage, but their actions indicated that having a man (live-in) was mature, and supposedly not, wasn’t. When I finally threw him out, someone somewhere, relegated me back to immature status, and this is how I became exposed more fully to the dysfunctional segmentation of the college-educated liberal/progressive (childless) mindset, along with others in my family who did have children, but did the routine, farm them out, and get the high-paying job means of balancing the family budget.
- This has been a painful process, and I recently began to appreciate much more my faith (which incorporates at least a coherent system of reference) and music (which, we’re told, DOES affect how one things and reacts and sees things in life). It’s dynamic, and puts you in dynamic relationship with LOTS of people. So, for better or for worse, does evangelism (although that was always the weaker aspect of my involvement, I didn’t LIKE it).
- Anyhow, this young woman got a hold of a 2nd point of view (perspective) on herself. This is invaluable, an actual conflict of values, and then hopefully working out the differences. We CANNOT avoid this in the global situation, it is necessary to hash it through logically, legally, and personally. I h
- I said, and say, “just say no” to domestic violence, and that the family court system, which ignores its own laws in order to satisfy other priorities, and support other professions, should not be dealing with these cases, at all. And my thinking so is based on solid experience, a decade of it coming up soon here. I know what a difference it made, financially, and as to safety, and as to what my daughters are being taught now which is the exact opposite of what my filing for a restraining order and LEAVING told them about limits between a man and a woman in marriage. My state, California, has in practice undermined that standard (and our mutual standards of living, of civil rights, and many more urgent things that are not fully on the new administration’s scope, as examined by funding and relative rhetoric in the matter. STILL, women are seen as channels to provide kids, who are the cash (and, too often, sex) commodity, and THIS HAS TO STOP!
Here, women who put the priority on mothering, working their fields around it, are also not as popular (these days) with feminist organizations. These organizations address multiple issues regarding women.
But my issue (this blog), right now, is topic-specific, and venue-specific, i.e., the courts and the organizations that are working to undermine due process, many of which are outside the courts. And that these “outside the courts” situations sometimes have body counts.
If “women of faith” leave their man for due legal cause (having finally discovered the law, which I just about guarantee you will not be shared in those venues), they are often abandoned by that church for doing so (after all, the abuse happened while they were involved, $$, tithes, etc., are involved). Thereafter, though charity can and occasionally refuge sometimes do (sometimes do NOT) trickle down from that tax-exempt source, that charity, or temporary refuge does not replace or fix what was broken. Generally speaking, the tragedy doesn’t even cause the doctrine or practices of the church to even miss a beat. They continue downplaying abuse, continue putting out ridiculous (no reference to the law) pamphlets about how to help someone caught up in it. In this manner, the religious organizations (i’m talking Christian, which is my primary exposure) continue to set themselves above and apart / ‘special’ from the laws in place to protect women and children from violence — or, in the case of child support, from simply being robbed, which is another way to end up on charity (and how I was).
It takes money to run a church. If violent men were properly confronted (and properly includes PUBLICALLY) and admonished, for an example to others, chances are THAT church at least would make it clear that within its ranks, this is unacceptable. Oddly enough, I’ve found the ones that are real strong on no sex outside marriage (from the pulpit and printed materials) are quite weak on this issue. I was recently in a prominent one here that was made fully aware (by me) of the situation: child support arrears, children stolen, court orders violated, profession wrecked, I am on charity (again). I had some hope they might put their regal authority (as pastors) and go down to the other place and simply let the other pastor/outfit know that those cute kids’ Dad was in violation of the law, will you please support and encourage him to get on the proper side of it? In other words, I as a person in this place was respecting authority (and they had some) and clearly asking that it be wielded to help a single woman who had lost her children to a batterer Nope. But they did say something about going down to confront him on adultery. Good grief!
So, it was made clear that there is a professional, I guess, no-competition law between these outfits. Which is how I again deduced that “what it’s about” is something other than actual “righteousness,” but like any other business, profitability.
We are OK to be recipients of charity, but not equal partners in crime, or as it may be “faith.” When it comes to speaking, teaching, or almost any of the venues. This is personally reducing a woman to her gender, but in all the other areas of life. It is not ‘protective,’ but socially and spiritually eroding. This is how it should go, in the courts (and also what the law says):
How hard is this? Violence verified? Then
NO contact with abuser. No joint custody, no regular vistation. We are raising generations of children to accept a discrepancy between law and law enforcement, between crime and consequences. This is basically re-writing the English language, and endorsing “double-speak.”
Sometimes years go by, in which a woman has to rebuild her relationships (social, work, etc.) often enough, and also heal, rediscover the non-abused, non-degraded, intelligent resourceful self. During these years, sometimes child support is ordered, and that becomes another lever of control, as do the visitation exchanges (and mine were WEEKLY with my batterer, from the very start, practically.) In my case, the family of origin, I suppose aghast that I’d gotten divorced (Which is odd, as we’re liberal, atheist, supposedly, and both my relatives married a man on his second wife, as did my own mother), and perhaps their oversight had been exposed. Or, perhaps, it was that I didn’t take orders from them, after ahving stated clearly I wasn’t takeing them (in fact, giving a few) from my husband any more.
When as she is rebuilding, he is, with support, continuing to tear down, this is extremely destructive. Eventually, this can get to a family law venue, where she is told to “get along” with this clearly destructive (as measured by compliance with court orders, is one way, another is compliance with the law in general) personality, a literal impossibility.
I say, and when a woman (or, OK, man?) is just coming out of that high-risk, potentially lethal situation, if there are children, they are taught by this state that it is NOT excusable to beat on a woman.
This is not going to happen if the legislatures, law enforcement, judges, and (when they ARE necessary) custody evaluators do not get on the same page. What is happening instead is that these personnel are getting together, out of real-time involvement with the public and people served, and gettting together on an entirely different page than what the law says. They are on the “therapy” page. Uninformed us, we read the literal law (and even case histories) and think that in this venue, it should have weight.
So I THINK:
If a domestic violence restraining order is granted — we hope, properly — then he loses custody, PERIOD. Visitation, maybe later. No Joint Nothing. No more high-conflict custody, and everyone get back to work. Men are still paid more per $$ anyhow. And IF he physically abused her, financial abuse is also probably (although I’ve known cases where it isn’t).
They are respected in light of their work and expected to succeed in it, this is what men in this culture have been rewarded for, and what supposedly “manhood,” culturally and religiously (see recent post). Simultaneously, in the courts, and in divorce, there is a call to Have one’s cake and eat it too, and its not called p_ _ _ _ envy, but rather the other part, that we have, and that is a natural bond we sometimes have with children we have raised. If you don’t believe me, then go back and read the 1984 Surgeon General’s declaration that breastfeeding is healthy. (I have personally been attacked on this part, right after nursing, good grief!).
Many times the violence is a matter of her “womanhood” to start with, and an entitlement to hit. Why should it be part of “childhood” to see this at home? Or to experience a protective parent (largely female, but that’s the term) thereafter being browbeaten in court, or even go homeless as a result of it (yes, it happens).
DV = No Custody would at least, he would not prevent HER from getting back to work if he’s kept distance. This is a punitive effect, and intended to be seen as so. I am sick of the family court trying to “even the score” artificially in these situations. This is called “lying,” with evasive, euphemistic jargon, and if there is anywhere it’s important not to lie, it’s in pursuit of “justice.” There’s no excuse anymore for beating each other up. Yet, we saw a case the other day (last post, Rosenberg article) where police arrived just in time to see a young man, blaming circumstances, decapitate his little sister, after having already killed another. SOMETHING ain’t spiritually right in USA-land…). I think we should teach women and girls self-defense, for real ! ALL of them….
As over here, in India,
having a law as to safety of young girls (& boys) & women doesn’t get it enforced or culture changed.
Thus, this article is not really “off-topic.”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
She just said “No!” to marriage. At 12.
And was heard, and the ripple effect continued, helping others.
(In our country, we still have children saying “No!” to being sent to live with convicted child abusers, or women-batterers, and they are NOT heard. Women who protect their children from this by failing to comply with court orders that violate existing laws have been jailed, and have had to figure it out).
The story is self-explanatory and is below.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0424/p06s07-wosc.html
India listens after a child bride says ‘I won’t.’
The girl’s courage has prompted India, where nearly half of all females wed before age 18, to consider the consequences of marrying young.
By Ben Arnoldy | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitorfrom the April 24, 2009 edition
BARAROLA, INDIA – When Rekha Kalinda was nearing age 12, her parents told her they were planning to marry her off. Rekha’s response would reverberate all the way up to the president of India: “No.”
Nearly half of all Indian females get married before turning the legal minimum age of 18. The requirement has been in place for more than three decades, but centuries of custom don’t change overnight – and that’s especially true in Bararola, a land carved up into small farm plots and crisscrossed by dirt paths that takes at least a day’s journey to reach from Calcutta. But even here, some people are taking a stand.
Many locals eke out a living making beedis, a leaf-wrapped Indian cigarette. Rekha was rollingbeedis with her parents inside their mud-hut home when they broached her nuptials.
“I was very angry,” says Rekha. “I told my father very clearly that this is my age of studying in school, and I didn’t want to marry.”
With the help of friends, teachers, and administrators, Rekha accomplished what the law alone has not. No child marriages have taken place in the surrounding villages where she and two other girls refused to marry last summer, and similar approaches are meeting some success in other regions.
“We have a strong law and we need to find the people who can advocate for [it],” says Sunayana Walia, a senior researcher at the Delhi office of the International Center for Research on Women. “All the [successful] interventions are tapping the girls … so they are able to campaign on this issue, along with community participation.”
DETERMINED NOT TO FOLLOW HER SISTER’S PATH
South Asia has the world’s highest levels of child marriage. A paper published in the Lancet,a British medical journal, in March found that 44.5 percent of Indian women who recently reached 20 to 24 years of age had been married by the time they were 18. Of these, 22.6 percent were wed before age 16 – and 2.6 percent before 13.
Child brides face greater health risks and their babies tend to be sicker, weaker, and less likely to survive childhood, according to UNICEF. The child-welfare agency also cites research from Harvard University that found that even a one-year postponement of marriage increases these girls’ schooling level by a third of a year, and their literacy by 5 percent to 10 percent.
Rekha learned about the dangers of child marriage firsthand when her older sister got married at age 11. She is now illiterate, and lost all four of her children within one year of birth.
“I had a talk with my sister,” Rekha says. “She said, ‘You have seen me, I’ve lost my children…. It’s good you stood against child marriage.’ “
Rekha had other motivations as well. Like many children here, she had to leave school to work for her family. But she was granted a rare second chance to improve her education through a goverment program called the National Child Labour Project, which, in her district of Purulia, offers remedial education to 4,500 children. Rekha says she did not want to stop school again on account of marriage.
“They love to come to school,” says Prosenjit Kundu, the district project director. “These schools are the only place where they are treated as children. Otherwise, they are workers.”
Yet they aren’t entirely sheltered from the adult world. Five children from each school are bused to extra lessons in the nearby city through the Child Activist Initiative, which is partly funded and supported by UNICEF. The kids, including Rekha, are given leadership training and informed of their rights on a range of issues from forced labor to the legal age for marriage. The girls think up solutions and teach others back in the village.
{{SCHOOLS TEACH VALUES. WHAT HAPPENS IN THEM IS IMPORTANT!}}
The Purulia program is new, but has already helped Rekha and two other girls refuse to marry under age – saving, by example, many of their friends from the same situation. Similar child rights programs backed by UNICEF operate across India and involve more than 60,000 children in Bangladesh. The programs are also credited with recently helping another girl in Nepal refuse early marriage.
EVEN THE PRESIDENT IS LISTENING
In Rekha’s case, her parents initially did not listen to her. But she soon went to friends and teachers. They all came to talk with Rekha’s parents, including Mr. Kundu, the government official. That collective support for her and work with her parents was crucial, says Kundu. {footnote1}
“Children are not taken seriously in families,” he says. “A girl of 11.5 years who takes a decision for her own against the family members’ will – this is an enormous, courageous act.”
During a visit from two foreign journalists, the barefoot Rehka, dressed in bright purple and yellow, fielded questions confidently, despite the crowd the interview attracted. In February, she addressed a gathering of 6,000 beedi workers, asking them to allow their children to stay in school and delay marriage. Her best friend, Budhamani Kalindi, says she hasn’t gotten any pressure to marry now that Rekha has become such a role model.
“It’s terrific how you get that ripple effect of one being brave, sticking her neck out … and then others following,” says Sarah Crowe, a spokeswoman for UNICEF in Delhi.
Those ripples extend all the way to the president of India, Shrimati Pratibha Devisingh Patil, who, after reading about Rekha in the Hindustan Times newspaper, has requested to meet her. That makes her father happy, and he says he supports her staying in school.
The custom has proved hard to change, says Ms. Crowe, partly because it’s often embedded in poverty. Sometimes parents marry off a daugter to lighten their economic burden, though the problem extends into the middle and upper classes too, she adds. It’s also incorrectly assumed that an early marriage will protect the girl from violence and sexual abuse from men.
Enforcement of age laws, meanwhile, is hampered by the lack of birth records. Only 40 percent of births in India are registered; in Bangladesh, the number is just 10 percent.
“You can’t prove a child is a child if you’ve got no certificate,” Crowe says. The international community is working hard on birth registration, she says, but it’s a daunting task in a place like India that has more than 1 billion people.
Back in Bararola, one of those billions faces a brighter future. Rekha says she wants to be a teacher when she grows up.
Is she open to marriage eventually? “Anything after 18,” she says, “but not before 18 at all.”
{my “footnote1″} Yes, the collective support is important. While I do not mean to trivialize the differences, how is it that international organizations will support the law overseas, but within the U.S., when a variety of agencies sometimes come to judges and present evidence of abuse, this is discredited, or sometimes not even allowed to be considered, by a presiding judge? When judges are not ethical, a country is going to go down fast! I think that the U.S. needs to be more honest about what is going on within its own borders, and that includes mis-appropriation of federal funding to produce desired outcomes in court (vs. truthful/ just / due process ones). This collective effort involved the input of a young lady, and her friends.
(The link also leads to a video of the reporter discussing how this situation came to pass.)
…”Reporter Ben Arnoldy discusses Rehka Kalinda, her family, and potential reasons behind her self-awareness.”
SHARE THIS POST on...
PAS posts: Pro, Con, & Corollaries
This post will be updated later let’s hope.
This week several states, stupidly, are having “Parental Alienation Awareness Day.”
So I pause from tracking the funding of the “Fatherhood Initiative” and violations of due process in order to attain a government mandate to stop singlehood, I suppose (or is it motherhood?), to address this “Parental Alienation Awareness Day,” and question the thinking behind assigning single days, or months, of awareness to this and then to that, nationally (or, internationally). No wonder medicating for ADD & ADHD is big business: The innocent observer trying nobly to make sense of it all will find his – OR her — brain darting too and fro, or asked to throw dollars at one problem/passion, ignoring the rest, then wonders where all those dollars went.
For a(nother) great example of bureaucratic dollar-throwing, see:
“Sexual predator settles locally”
No, that is NOT a joke, unfortunately. Meanwhile, at one local charity: “Demand up, Donations Down, 5 items only.”
The purpose of having an “awareness” of something is not a fleeting glance, but an incorporation of that awareness into one’s values, principles, and purposes. Or, dismissing it.
“PAA” Day: I am utterly opposed to this terminology — because of its origins, and how “PAS” is used to divert the public conversation from much, much, more hard topics to face — and these have ugly names, but not nearly as ugly as ignoring them is to the people suffering them. These topics are as ugly as (but not unrelated to) “Domestic Violence Awareness Month,” which (good planning on the part of PAS folk?) was about six months apart from this new “day.” As this term is primarily (though not only) directed against custodial Mothers (in order to help switch custody, or gain more access to children), how silly that one month later, we have “Mother’s Day.” Yet, nationally the problem supposedly is “fatherlessness” — referring to a state of children, rather than actions taken previously by their parents (Huh?). So, are you giddy yet? No wonder the year starts out with the month of January, after the god “Janus,” looking two ways.
Today I choose to post links to these ugly-content, hard-to-stomach topics, and to (again) talk about them. The $30K/month link above I found from “lostinlimaohio” which blog somehow came up when I was tracking down why a judge placed a gag order on the Huckaby/Cantu case. In that case, also a judge has (inexplicably) recused himself, and I heard that the DA had issued charges before he had either the coroner’s report OR reports or recordings from the 5-hour long interrogation leading to Ms. Huckaby’s arrest, without bail. 8-year-old Young Miss Cantu is physically GONE, she herself no longer has a future, but 28-year-old Ms. Huckaby is on trial for her life, without bail, and after sensational, high-profile, nationwide (at least) media coverage because of the horror of the accusation & crime (especially for a Sunday school teacher, female). Anomalies caught my eye that I started (reluctantly — I’m busy!) following this. Because it’s about confidence in the prosecutorial process, and due process, and more. If you want my input on that so far (and I may be wrong), post and I’ll reply. Then they gagged it!
One upside of pursuing these topics is you run across other information and insights; and if life is not about insight so that we can live reasonably upright and effective lives, what is it about?
Anyhow, I had no major persistent troubles with the seamy side of life (even after being mugged twice, without physical harm, and despite living in some dangerous urban areas), this side of life arose through and as a direct consequence of who I married, and who have had to deal with since attempting to separate. Since the seamy side of life bit me pretty hard in the butt (and people associated with me, and related to), it bears addressing. One of the most valuable lessons I learned is that some of the less seamy “characters” don’t look it on the outside. If anything, they are in positions of policymaking, and good at dominating conversations, and people.
Meanwhile Mr. or Ms. lostinlimaohio appears to think like me. And (I believe) posted under the title “Wouldn’t Prison Be Cheaper?” an article on the $30,000 state support of this middle-aged man:
Rasmuson’s first conviction for child molestation came in 1981 when a Santa Barbara [CA] court found him guilty of raping an 11-year-old boy. He was sentenced to state prison and conditionally released in 1985. [Four years only?? see:
25 yrs for a cat, 8 for a little girlIn 1987, Rasmuson was arrested again, this time for the kidnapping and sexual assault of a 3-year-old child, who was reportedly later found naked and abandoned in the Los Angeles foothills.
In other words, I think a little screw-up happened judicially, somewhere, or were the prisons just too crowded? As usual, when government screws up, everyone pays, not just emotionally, and family-wide, but also through the nose, which is why the NEXT quote, I put in red, which this state (and nation) currently is, deeply.
According to his neighbors, Rasmuson is living in a mobile home on the fenced acreage while repairs are being made to the house he’s renting on the land. Though the 47-year-old is employed, Rasmuson is still paying the state back for previous care and financial support, meaning taxpayers are also footing the $4,500 monthly rent on the $1.5 million property. In addition, according to the state’s Department of Mental Health, there’s an $800 daily expense for the court-ordered security detail assigned to protect him—for his safety and that of his neighbors. The current set-up is costing taxpayers close to $30,000 a month from the state’s general funds.
Rasmuson won his freedom in 2007 on an appeal, after the courts initially denied his release from Atascadero State Hospital. Under the terms of release set forth in “Jessica’s Law,” Rasmuson is required be monitored by Global Positioning Satellite at all times and must live more than 2,000 feet away from a school or park where children congregate.
Do you know how abundantly I could (have) provided on that salary for my children, and me, and with $ to spare, had not local entities (who will be repeatedly named, on this blog — at least by function) not chosen, outside of my hearing or input, or even awareness, chosen to interfere with my livelihood with their (communal) It takes a Village to Remove [excuse me, ‘Raise’] a Child “help”? The last time I was in range of this salary, my kids disappeared, overnight, despite my attempts to avert that virtually predictable event.
Anyhow, many times, other people have said the thing better already.
I too, have my limits on what I can stomach in a day. I am already missing my daughters (as every day) and simultaneously grieving the lost time, opportunities for all of us (professional, academic personal), but I think perhaps most of all, that when I went for help to the justice, law enforcement, and nonprofits of my geographic area, and the situation became worse. ACTUALLY, in seeking to renew a restraining order, a relative? or? a spinoff employee/patron of the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood movement? helped my ex bounce it into family court, a more friendly venue to batterers, where he could better convince a judge of how much he “loved” his children, now (let’s not talk about the prior violence, OK?). Not only analyzing this past (done, long ago), but doing so looking for how to (THIS time round) handle the present is a full-time occupation, just about. One balances purpose, energy available, emotional health, statistical probabilities of succeeding in changing status qui (that’s plural, probably not in the correct cast, for you non-Latin folk), etc.
There are also other issues I follow and things I do in life, many of them. Like many of the people sponsoring blogs on these issues, in our own lives, the issues are not in “closed” mode, but the problems are ongoing and on-traumatizing also. This can affect quality of blogging — I know in particular that my copyediting is sub-par, and that the appearance of this blog is less than professional (nevertheless, it is getting some international traffic, I note). Some days, it’s better to defer to others who have already written, well, on the topic.
Today, also, another group, Legal Momentum, discusses 15th Anniv. of VAWA…
I am delighted to announce that Legal Momentum, the nation’s oldest legal defense and education fund dedicated to advancing the rights of women and girls, will honor United States Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. on April 22 with its Legal Momentum Hero Award at a symposium marking the fifteenth anniversary of the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), initiated and championed by then-Senator Joseph Biden. The historic Act was the first comprehensive federal legislative package designed to end violence against women and put the issue on the national agenda….
The event will take place at Georgetown Law Center in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, April 22, 9:15 a.m. until 3:00 p.m. The complete list of speakers is posted on our Web site at: http://www.legalmomentum.org/news-room/press-releases/legal-momentum-to-honor-vice.html
LIVE WEBCAST WILL BE AVAILABLE
Although seats are not available at this sold-out event, it will be broadcast live via the Web by Georgetown Law Center at this url: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/webcast/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.randijames.com/2009/04/pas-is-real-targeting-noncustodial.html
Randi James responds to a comment on her site called “PAS is real” and suggesting that we (mothers groups, fathers groups) on stopping this. This is a teaser, the link above has more URLS than the post here I put this exchange in GREEN, for Go Take a Look!, but have not indented. Therefore, all the (contiguous) green below is all quote:
Robert Gartner has left a new comment on your post “Mothers’ Movements“:
Your blog does an injustice to the non custodial women you mention. Everyone knows that family courts do not get it right all the time. Even those on death row, some of them, are innocent.
PAS is real. If your groups could get past that we might have a way to work together.
Posted by Robert Gartner to Randi James at Apr 22, 2009 12:33:00 PM
Unfortunately for you and your ilk, I know that “PAS is Real” is a catch phrase you use to target unsuspecting noncustodial mothers and men who have been primary caretakers. I also personally know that you lurk around women’s boards, especial single mothers and abused women, in order to recruit them into your camp. It is an unfair, divisive tactic that fathers supremacists have been using increasingly.
It’s not that they really believe you…they need something to hold on to…something that seems to make sense. Mothers and innocent fathers do not understand the depth of the origination of the term parental alienation syndrome, a history that should not be forgotten or obscured.
Mothers are often the target of abusive husbands/fathers in relationships where the children have been taught to hate the mother, often taking the abuser’s side because of the perception of power that he has. This is trauma bonding through the use of maternal deprivation:
Maternal Deprivation, or Motherlessness, is occurring with alarming frequency due to the unethical treatment of women and children in family court. Maternal Deprivation is inflicting abuse by severing the mother-child bond. It is a form of abuse that men inflict on both the mother and children, especially men who claim they are “parentally alienated” from their children when there are complaints of abusive treatment by the father.
Maternal Deprivation occurs when men seek to keep their children from being raised by their mothers who are the children’s natural caretakers. Some men murder the mothers of their own children. Others seek to sever the maternal bonds by making false allegations of fictitious psychological syndromes in a deliberate effort to change custody and/or keep the child from having contact with their mother when there are legal proceedings.
Anyone reading old enough to remember the experiment carried out on young monkeys, who were forced to choose between a warm fuzzy (fake) mother and a wire metal, milk-dispensing mother. Guess which one they chose? In the earliest years, kids need to be held and hugged (and later on, too!). I wonder what kind of personnel the new Zero to Five is going to attract to the expanded preschool industry, and who is going to monitor them (and at whose expense)….
“PAS” doesn’t want to talk about cases like this:
Egregious case, but I provide it because a response to the post links to quotes from Richard Gardner, PAS-front-man (until he committed suicide, now adherents continue to carry the NAMBLA etc. torch in many venues):
”I hope he suffers,” said the woman, who has not been identified because she is a sexual abuse victim. “I want him to die in there in jail because that’s what he did to me. He confined me,” the 29-year old daughter said whose assault started when she was just 6 years old.
She said her 48-year-old father, a martial arts instructor, threatened to kill her if she told anyone and kept her a prisoner at home, monitoring her movements using surveillance cameras and delivering fierce beatings during paranoid rages.
As her father was led away in handcuffs, the woman wept quietly and embraced her younger brother, who she said was also a victim of beatings by their father, the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday.
DNA tests confirmed the daughter’s account, proving that Thibes was both the father and grandfather of her three children. All girls, they are 4, 7 and 11.
. . .
Her father, she said, grew fearful that her brother had told police about abuse at the home and fled to Las Vegas in 2003, taking her and her children. They lived in a motel, where, she said, Thibes told others that she was his girlfriend.
In April 2005, he stabbed her twice in the chest with a 10-inch kitchen knife, police records show. In interviews with police, he described her at various times as his wife, girlfriend or daughter.
The woman said she told hospital workers about the abuse once her father had been arrested and she knew her children were safe in custody.
A comment to THAT post links to a history on Richard Gardner, some of his less “choice” quotes.
CAUTION: some readers, especially survivors of sexual abuse, may find Gardner’s remarks deeply disturbing. Indeed, we all should. {{I chose not to post them. Even the subtitles are offensive. However, they remain as the background and underpinning of “Parental Alienation Awareness Day” and in its tawdry history. Now, when children (PAS in reverse?) are returned to the abuser, and then no longer bond with the protective parent (generally, not always, the mother), the feeling sure feels like “alienated” from this (case in point) perspective. However, there exist other terms already to address these actions and symptoms of such actions: kidnapping, brainwashing, Stockholm syndrome, others.
I think a difficulty arises in labeling something with which one has no personal acquaintance, or accepting this label (insert applicable epithet from other generations or ethnic, religious groups) wholesale. We cannot farm out our THINKING to the experts for long!
Quotes By Richard Gardner, the Father of “Parental Alienation Syndrome”
Battered Moms Lose Children To Abusers Blog does not agree with the pervertedly twisted philosophies ofRichard Gardner. The following information was posted at Stop Family Violence and is posted here to demonstrate that the philosophies of this man, such as “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) are all integrally related to his pro-pedophilia beliefs and misogyny. The whole idea of the theory is to recast disclosures of abuse as “hysterics” by women and children. But even worse, this sick man’s ideas on punishing children by forcing them to remain with their abusers while depriving them of their protectors needs to be denounced by everyone in the world who cares about the safety and well-being of children. For more info on Richard Gardner, see Cincinatti PAS.
So if you support Parental Alienation Syndrome theories, you agree with the theories of a pedophile supporter.
April 20, 2009 — batteredmomslosecustody
Richard A. Gardner, M.D., is the creator of the creator and main proponent for the bogus Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) theory. Prior to his suicide, Gardner was an unpaid part-time clinical professor of child psychiatry at the College of Physicians and Surgeons at Columbia University . He made his money mainly as a forensic expert. PAS was developed by Dr Richard Gardner in 1985 based on his personal observation, not on scientific study, and on his work as an expert witness often on behalf of fathers accused of molesting their children. Gardner ’s theory of PAS has had a profoundly detrimental effect on how the court systems in our country handle allegations of child sexual abuse, especially during divorce. Because Gardner ’s PAS theory is based on his clinical observations–not scientific data–it must be understood in the context of his extreme views concerning women, pedophilia and child sexual abuse. We provide Gardner’s views so that people can understand the radical, perverse thinking of the so-called “expert” who invented the bogus theory of PAS that has done so much damage.
NOTE: Stop Family Violence does not agree with the views espoused by Gardner – we find them disgusting, offensive, and most importantly, they are not correct. Gardner’s views are based in his own perverse thinking, not in anything scientists know, not in anything our laws condone, and not in anything our culture believes. To be clear – pedophilia is not natural, children do not enjoy, ask for or consent to sexual abuse, and mothers are not to blame if fathers commit such heinous acts against their children.
CAUTION: some readers, especially survivors of sexual abuse, may find Gardner’s remarks deeply disturbing. Indeed, we all should.
Read, and Think About This before you sign another PAS petition.
THEN go to AFCC.net and look at the conference brochures, notice the similarity of terms, and consider:
Would you want your family’s future in the hands of these people?
If not, then stay married, take more abuse, do something . because on the way out, with children, they are going to be. Also, do a serious criminal background check before partnering up, and talk to former partners. Consider, they MIGHT be telling the truth.
. . . And by the way, domestic violence is a clear precursor, sometimes to homelessness (if not death) (or, if not, extended undermployment, and documented health problems.
Finally, the “lostinlimaohio” blog I discovered today, as I was so disturbed by a recent “gag order” on the Cantu / Huckaby case recently, where an 8 year old was discovered in a suitcase at the bottom of an irrigation pond, and a 28-year-old woman/mother is facing the death penalty or life in prison because of special circumstances. Several details in this case flagged my attention as not passing muster. Either my mind can’t conceive of the situation, or my instincts were right. Either way, the case is now gagged.
I don’t know anything more about this blog than that I think the writing is good, it covers many aspects.
It appears to have more of a criminal focus than some of these others, but as the issues that routinely pass through family court halls many times ARE criminal in nature, but handled as psychological and relationship problems (and shunted off for mind-therapy on how to get along with that violent person you just threw out of your house, legally, because, long ago, or not so long about, one of you impregnated the other, and the female partner did not abort).
I may need to separate the funding aspects of this blog into another one, but ALL these issues are related, of course.
Have a happy day… Be “aware” of what you are asked to become aware of. Pay attention to vocabulary, and who invented some of the jargon.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Same, old Wine on New Whitehouse.gov Website…
-but apparently what changed was the Dream.
I went looking for Former President Clinton’s 1995 Memo to all federal agencies, telling them to within 90 days revamp their programs to incorporate father-friendly-(funding, procedures, etc.), and found a memo, same president, same summer, addressing the 20th anniversary of the Child Support Enforcement Agency. These are related, folks.
While looking this, I also found a very fine summary of the relationship (and the history of the Father-land Talk) dating back to 2001, which is at the end of this post. I will add it to the blogroll also.
I’d already looked at the white house agenda and FY2010 proposed budget (see link, top right), seen its token reference to domestic violence, but detailed determination to take children from hospital through age 18 (at least) from the arms of their mothers (while, if necessary medicating their mothers, who are presumed incompetent til proven otherwise, which at this rate, they won’t be given much of a chance….). I had already in previous weeks/months been (in some shock) looking at the millions and millions of funding for unbelievably gratuitous studies on this theme of Dads Are People Too.
No one paid me for these studies. But I’m publishing (here) anyhow.
The problem with a White House drunk on its own collective dreams is that tipsy with power, it has swerved:
The content of the dream changed from 1963.
“I have a dream” to “we have a dream.”
Well, I have not been dreaming about forcing my version of utopia on the rest of the United States. I never drank from that trough. I was focused on the immediate (my family, work, etc.) with a long-view to their future.
I’m getting tired of the Government as Nanny and Behavioral Interventionist Expert on things its Experts haven’t experienced. What they are experienced at is obtaining federal funding to promote pet policies, as far a I can tell.
Kind of reminds me how April is “Sexual Assault Awareness Month,” “Child Abuse Awareness Month,” but also in several states across the U.S., I hear, “Parental Alienation Awareness Day” which might be properly re-named “S A N D”, i.e., “Sexual Assault Never Discussed” day, as its origins tie DIRECTLY to the reframing of many, hard-won women’s rights issues, such as not being slapped around in the home, especially not with kids watching. And there is an overlap between kinds of bad behaviors.
We don’t have “Fatherhood Federally Funded” days, but that seems to be a permanent fixture in the Federal Budget, far more permanent that VAWA funding, or arts in the schools. Hey, the family that plays (musical instruments), reads, learns, dances or does sports together stays together? How about that for a federal policy?
At the bottom of this post (you have to scroll past my quotes, comments, and complaints first) is a coherent summary (dating to 2001) of what the ‘fatherhood initiative” is about, really.
But before then, crook your neck at this:
THE END OF MANHOOD:
A Book for Men of Conscience
Now that I have your attention, and before you load any weapons, the Title above is a link to the Harvard Educational Review of it. I have read this book, and it addresses the mythic thinking that is also behind some of these Fatherhood Fallacies. In fact, as it’s 1995, the years seems appropriate, too:
“Stoltenberg presents a radical critique of the very concept “manhood,” arguing that it serves no socially desirable function — only hurtful functions that can and should be eliminated from men’s personal identities and social interactions. He presents a provocative alternative to most thinking about men and the problematic aspects of our behavior and identity. He bases his critiques on the claim that “manhood,” in all of its various masculine incarnations, is at odds with, and in fact mutually exclusive of, an authentic sense of “selfhood” — a selfhood necessary for relating to others in just, moral, and non-violating ways. He argues:
This book therefore rejects the widespread notion that “manhood” can be somehow revised and redeemed — the contemporary project variously described as “reconstructing,” “reinventing,” “remythologizing,” “revisioning,” and re-whatevering gendered personal identity so as to bring its hapless adherents back into the human fold. That project is utterly futile, and we all have to give it up, as this book will carefully explain. (p. xiv)
Stoltenberg’s book provides a detailed and complex analysis of gender relations and identity formation around his underlying argument that gender is nothing more than a means of social control that is harmful to individuals, families, and society because the culturally defined ways of “being a man” are generally at odds with intimacy and real interpersonal connection.”
As a heterosexual, male-friendly, but criminal-behavior-antagonistic woman and mother who has been searching for ways to address the language stupidities in many sectors, I really appreciate books like this. They are a find, a real gem. Thank you John Stoltenberg.
It’s not uncommon to find women who have been able to put words to this, but while I’m hear one uncommonly good source is Dr. Phyllis Chesler, and her book “Mothers on Trial” seems to address the issues within the courts as well. Perhaps these two books, along with “The Batterer As Parent” should be required reading (and in the possession of) the “family justice centers” across the country.
UNFORTUNATELY, THEY ARE NOT FUNDED BY PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITY CENTERS, AND PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS, THEREFORE THEY DO NOT SELF-PROPAGATE. I’LL ADD THE SITE TO THE BLOGROLL.
Anyhow, is the Fatherhood = REAL Family, single-mother households, kindly exit stage left talk, going to change? Are they going to stop penalizing mothers who try to report or leave abuse and do NOT consider themselves ipso facto inferior persons? Is it going to allow them to set a limit their personal exposure to violence without sacrificing their CHILDREN (and to similar futures)?
Not likely on this watch: see whitehouse.gov, Agenda, Family:
“FAMILY”
“…[A]t the dawn of the 21st century we also have a collective responsibility to recommit ourselves to the dream; to strengthen that safety net, put the rungs back on that ladder to the middle-class, and give every family the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had. This responsibility is one that’s been missing from Washington for far too long — a responsibility I intend to take very seriously as President.”
— Barack Obama, Spartanburg, SC, June 15, 2007
President Obama (and I voted for you), with all due respect, “the dream” above sounds quite different than the one with which I’m more familiar, although I am of different color and gender both. My DREAM includes, along with seeing my daughters again, and that they understand that they are NOT on this earth to be someone else’s dream, except by their informed consent.
My dream didn’t include being given direction and handouts for me, my daughters, my relationships, and more. My dream is a day where the words “dream” are not a collective trance, but that individual families can, without retaliation, choose different lifestyles for themselves and their children, and make creative use of existing resources to house, feed, and educate them. To make a choice to leave a violent situation without having to become permanent welfare, permanently injured, or permanently lose contact with one’s offspring because of one’s gender.
My dream this particular week was to see these young ladies on their school break. But because someone had coached someone in what venue to continue control and abuse of our family (and them), and break down a safety zone I’d set, they are in a situation where court orders are no longer safely enforceable — safe for them, me, or now an elderly relative also. And in tracking down where this dream originated, and what it was about (it was NOT about the children, it was about balancing the federal budget. Talking about children, families, fathers, dreams, and change are simply how funding is released and programs are re-focused. I do not have a job, a car, a bank account, credit, or contact with my immediate family members.
This is an artificial situation started that took government interference and squelching of initiative I showed post-marriage, and it was done now I am finding under programs that believe fathers — ANY fathers — are better than no fathers, no matter what the circumstances. And the belief that single mothers — ANY single mothers (not just ones on welfare) were worse for their children than mothers in two-parent homes, no matter what happens in those homes.
How is this different than judging based on skin-color, please?
Should I quote the other “I have a Dream” speech? OK…
This dream was about JUSTICE, not about DOLE-OUTS. As characterized on “USConstitution.net”
In 1950’s America, the equality of man envisioned by the Declaration of Independence was far from a reality. People of color — blacks, Hispanics, Asians — were discriminated against in many ways, both overt and covert. The 1950’s were a turbulent time in America, when racial barriers began to come down due to Supreme Court decisions, like Brown v. Board of Education; and due to an increase in the activism of blacks, fighting for equal rights.
Martin Luther King, Jr., a Baptist minister, was a driving force in the push for racial equality in the 1950’s and the 1960’s. In 1963, King and his staff focused on Birmingham, Alabama. They marched and protested non-violently, raising the ire of local officials who sicced water cannon and police dogs on the marchers, whose ranks included teenagers and children. The bad publicity and break-down of business forced the white leaders of Birmingham to concede to some anti-segregation demands.
Thrust into the national spotlight in Birmingham, where he was arrested and jailed, King helped organize a massive march on Washington, DC, on August 28, 1963. His partners in the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom included other religious leaders, labor leaders, and black organizers. The assembled masses marched down the Washington Mall from the Washington Monument to the Lincoln Memorial, heard songs from Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, and heard speeches by actor Charlton Heston, NAACP president Roy Wilkins, and future U.S. Representative from Georgia John Lewis.
King’s appearance was the last of the event; the closing speech was carried live on major television networks. On the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, King evoked the name of Lincoln in his “I Have a Dream” speech, which is credited with mobilizing supporters of desegregation and prompted the 1964 Civil Rights Act. The next year, King was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
The following is the exact text of the spoken speech, transcribed from recordings.
I am happy to join with you today in what will go down in history as the greatest demonstration for freedom in the history of our nation.
Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.
But one hundred years later, the Negro still is not free. One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land. So we have come here today to dramatize a shameful condition.
In a sense we have come to our nation’s capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked “insufficient funds.” But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation. So we have come to cash this check — a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice.
So, President Obama, regarding “Agenda,” I never lost sight of that dream. I am old enough to remember both it, MLK, JFK, RFK, and was raised on the musicians mentioned above. I have also spent much of my life working in “multi-cultural” situations before the word was invented. I attended the first college in the United States to admit blacks OR women (Oberlin College, Ohio) and from it, took a year to work in your stomping ground (meaning Chicago, South Side) in music, and continued working along these lines for many years.
Although I worked with choirs, my dream was not to force everyone to. Although we also homeschooled, my dream at this point is not to force everyone to. Although I am a Christian (although challenged in this with the treatment of battered women in that faith, as well as in others), I am not trying to convert everyone else, but simply walk the talk. And although I had children, I am not trying to raise everyone else’s. Although I didn’t have seven, or even four children, I have known terrific families with seven or nine kids that do very well. Mom and Dad work it out one way or another. We had one family that lost a father to cancer; the whole group pulled together and cooked meals for them, helped with rides, they supported that woman and children through her grief in a wonderful way.
Moreover, when my ex-husband escalated his aggressions towards me and continued to knock out jobs, and systematically withhold child support, some of these individuals stepped in to help our household as well.
Even in the field of music, the trend nowadays is towards dynamic, small ensembles in a variety of styles, that can really pull out the best, as community choirs still continue (though fiscally challenged). So why are we doing the one size fits all family, please? As I formerly made a living for organizations putting back into schools what government took out, and I thereafter made a very decent living (when permitted to) for a combination of these groups and parents that had opted out of the system, why cannot you envision that something NOT regulated by the federal government and under the age of 18, just MIGHT be OK if left alone?
We are individuals, and have individual dreams. I see that the tax burden on us to execute YOUR administration’s dreams is not going to permit this, apparently, any longer. The dream has changed. Again, let’s compare:
1963:
When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men, yes, black men as well as white men, would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Will Smith, the PURSUIT of HAPPYNESS, remember? This movie was about his pursuing and reaching, his goal, overcoming obstacles, and showing incredible tenacity and diligence to reach it, with his son. He went from sleeping in the subway to successful stock broker, right? The movie was about the PURSUIT of happiness.
The “I have a Dream” speech, here, talks about the “bank of justice,” not the “bank!” It’s a metphor…
Where is the Federal Funding to stop the erosion of due procees in the family courts? Laws are already on the books to protect women and children from abuse, and men, but these are being systematically ignored, to the destruction of their personal economies, mental health, stability, and at time, lives.
Now, the people for whom THAT dream (of opportunity equallity, and justice) is most important to me in 2009 are my immediate family and others I have become acquainted with since seeking to safely disengage from violence in the home, and failing to find this supported in the Family Court venue, at all. Or in related arenas.
I do not share the “dream” of enforcing my lifestyle nationwide, or endorsing funding for federal funds to study compare two-parent families with violence (etc.) vs. single-mother households without it; or of women working 9 to 5 with their children in child care and day care, ( if things continue as stated on your new Agenda, this would be ages 0 to 18) [Compartmentalized thinking, some of which i believe is a holdover from the manufacturing age, assembly-line production of a populace) over holding, cuddling, and nursing children longer, and engaging in competent homeschooling and, what often goes along with this, increased local community involvement. I do not share a dream of putting violent and abusive (and unrepentant about it) fathers back with the people individuals they have abused in order to balance a corporate budget.
Prior to marriage, I was also acting my dream, in service to nonprofits in urban areas, and I worked with children, youth and adults. During marriage, this put on hold (many years) as an attempt was made to reprogram me about WHO I WAS and WHAT CHOICES I COULD MAKE. WHAT THINGS I COULD PROVIDE FOR OUR DAUGHTERS.
After marriage, I resumed the original plan, only with children, who were not a burden to be farmed out, dumped off, or federally cared for in order that I could pursue work I wasn’t on this planet to do. Rather, being an individual, and using what talents and education I already and had obtained, and with diligence and consistent effort, I resumed contributing to the communities around me, in the same field I’d attended a top U.S. college and been trained for since little, but adjusted which type of work I assumed to my children’s lives. There was a return of joy to my life, and I imagine it was noticeable. “Do what you love and the money will follow” happens to have some merit to it, sometimes, because PASSION is involved, and commitment.
The sole cause of my need to return for enforcement of child support orders was interferences, repeated and escalating, in this pattern of re-engaging and making decisions independently of the father. ALL of this took place primarily when our legal case went into family court. I was legally forced back into a lifestyle already proven to lead to insolvency. Repeated often enough and severely enough and for long enough, insolvency gets there. Now I’m occasionally hungry, but that beats being beat, still.
Here’s the “Family” agenda:
Obama will make college affordable, reform our bankruptcy and credit card laws, protect the balance between work and family, and put a secure and dignified retirement within the reach of all Americans. President Obama has been a strong advocate for working people throughout his public life, and he will stand up to special interests and bring America together to reclaim the American dream.
Support Working Families
(Pause to acknowledge that mothers raising their children — without referring too much to bodily function, including “Labor,” I would like to point out that this IS work, which seems to have been forgotten somewhere in the list of topics here). Under this topic, you have 10 bullets of agenda, and detailed plans.
Strengthen Families at Home
(pause to acknowledge that under this topic you have only 2 bullets)
Of these two bullets the first one is the same old same old (only probably MORE of it) “Fatherhood and Families”
and the second one which addresses your belief that teen mothers need more in-home visitation).
Therefore I presume that intelligent, lifelong-working, law-abiding, educated mothers (like me) whose work per se allows flexibility, and who chose not to buy into the one-size-fits all education OR the one-size-fits all definition of marriage, OR the one-size-fits all definition of employment, do not exist. Nor do the women, such as Shirley Riggs, who at last count, was sitting in a jail because she, understanding (as do I, now) that no law enforcement or court agency was going to protect her four children from being sexually abused by their father and grandfather, which apparently had been established, and she FLED. Or, women such as Holly Collins, who had to flee the United States with her kids for safety, or women such as are now in other more permament underground boxes, because they stood up for their civil rights, too, and for their kids. They were mothers too, and they went to court for help.
They didn’t need behavioral modification, they needed protection. They had dreams, too, that they wouldn’t be denied due process because of their gendcr, or because they didn’t choose a wise partner.
ANYHOW, Trish Wilson, in this link, addresses, why not just stick with the welfare and allow women to BE single?
Now, I find that not only is CHANGE.GOV not changing the mixture of messages about this situation, but it is pretty darn similar to what was going on under Clinton and Bush as well. We want “healthy families” and “involved fathers.” Well so, sirs, did I. Unfortunately, this was not available with both of us living at the same address.
At this point, I do not appreciate expert professionals with VERY cushy government funding — in some cases whole institutes have been founded on this matter — who have not EXPERIENCED the direct economic, and physical/emotional impact of getting free from violence to be dragged back in through family court, until ones’ kids have just about aged out of the system and onesself has aged out of, just about, employability — I do not appreciate having my first-hand assessment of these matters challenged by people I cannot look in the eye and tell them where different parts of their anatomy are currently residing (metaphorically), or advising them how to put them there.
I do not personally appreciate being the subject matter funding someone else’s research without my informed consent. The only reason I am now informed is that a generous neighbor helped me get a laptop. No charity or organization did that although I sought them there. The laptop enables internet access. The internet access enables job searches, communications, and networking, something women are good at as well as men. It also enables a degree of research.
Until you’ve taken the time to study (or been personally thwacked by this policy), certain phrases will have a pleasant, noble ring to them. On the other side off familycourtmatters as promoted by a desire to reduce welfare, and justified also by the child support agency carapaces getting harder and harder towards the people they are supposed to serve (I spent about 2 years trying to penetrate my local one, during which 2 years my kids were stolen. To date they have not served him with a seek work order to my knowledge, and as usual are not collecting arrears either before or after that event, despite a substantial arrearage, still. We recently went statewide as to distribution, and I have given up on translating the new, improved, computer system.)
Consequence: Stalemate. If I am served with a child support order, I cannot pay — the process just put me out on the street almost, besides which I would simply point to what I am presently owed (in the thousands, naturally) and say, “take it off that.” Who is hurt with this? Primarily our children, but not only them..) Worse: If I serve a contempt order, I do not know the risk level, but I would assess it as high on the lethality scale. Thank you, “Fatherhood and Family” corporate trancemakers.
Strengthen Fatherhood and Families:
Barack Obama has re-introduced the Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Families Act to remove some of the government penalties on married families, crack down on men avoiding child support payments, ensure that support payments go to families instead of state bureaucracies, fund support services for fathers and their families, and support domestic violence prevention efforts. President Obama will sign this bill into law and continue to implement innovative measures to strengthen families.
The parts I just italicized, above, in this context pretty much qualify as lies. In practice what happens, I would qualify as lies.
What happens is that federally funded outreach (through child support payment offices many times, or family courts) endorsed by federally funded studies, make plea-bargains to reduce child support arrears in exchange for more visitation time wiht the kids, and COACH them how to do this. On the way, (3rd italicized phrases), lots of people get referral work around the psychological evaluation of why Suzy doesn’t want to visit Daddy this weekend, or why Mommy is looking so distraught in court, or right after a visitation. This is inherent in the design of the program, and in its conception too. The reason I now have time to research this is that, through no crime except ignorance of how these things operate, I have been now unemployed for the longest time in my entire adult life, and I can document (in this particular case) that “the economy” had nothing to do with it. At all.
read about it below. The title of the link is a clue to the contents. This was in 2001, and not much has changed since.
RE: Responsible Fatherhood, Child Support Enforcement, Preventing Violence Against Women, Healthy Marriages
http://www.stopfamilyviolence.org/get-informed/custody-abuse/fathers-rights-movement/u-s-fatherhood-initiatives
I am now promoting a self-initiative (not federally funded) to speak about this and I advise women leaving abuse to AVOID the child support system if at all possible. There is a better way to get free, if only the well-intentioned government would leave us alone (as they did during the violence, many times) to let us figure it out. This is not the manner of government, however, and never has been.
+++++++++
When it comes to Women:
Preventing Violence Against Women
- Reducing Domestic Violence: One in four women will experience domestic violence in her lifetime. Family violence accounted for 11 percent of all violence between 1998 and 2002. As a member of the Senate, President Obama introduced legislation to combat domestic violence by providing $25 million a year for partnerships between domestic violence prevention organizations and Fatherhood or Marriage programs to train staff in domestic violence services, provide services to families affected by domestic violence, and to develop best practices in domestic violence prevention.
These same partnerships have been diluting the protections we so needed. I have seen it happen over the almost two decades I have been personally dealing with these issues. I oppose such partnerships as fundamentally dishonest.
Let me see where a non-teen mother might be able to participate in mothering her child:
Early Childhood Education
- Zero to Five Plan: The Obama-Biden comprehensive “Zero to Five” plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, the Obama-Biden plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama and Biden will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state Zero to Five efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.
It is a short step from voluntary to compulsory, and the end of breastfeeding and other age-old healthy practices (like bonding with one’s parents) as we understand them. And I personally never had such a LOW goal for my kids as to be “ready to enter kindergarten.” Both were reading easily before then, and when they got there, were coloring in large letters and doing other obviously busywork designed to handle large groups of children at once. Most homeschooling Moms I dealt with reported similar experiences. I have taught many kindergartners and younger over decades. They are fun. However, I conclude that most of them belong with their Mommies a little longer. This is good for Mom and children both.
- Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama and Biden will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding, and improve quality for both.
- Provide affordable, High-Quality Child Care: Obama and Biden will also increase access to affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.
It seems clear to me that as mothers “pro-choice” does not include opting out of some of these expensive systems any more than out of a very violent marriage without forking over the kids to either a government program, or the Dad.
Please count me out of this corporate dream. I want my own back, and this type of group-think off my back, and out of my “neck of the woods.” It frightens me to wonder where the sound-thinking individuals are going to be found, in coming dccades.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Mastering Acronyms: “Forget PAS.” Study HHS through TAGGS.
… for a while at least.
SEE ALSO A PAGE on this topics. This possibly ought to be mandated high school curriculum, to spend XX hours surfing the TAGGS site of the HHS. This may also indicate for high school juniors & seniors, which university to aim for, depending on their interests. For the rest of us,this is living, breathing history. I have learned in just the past 24 hours how an institution up in Oregon has received over $118 million in government grants in the 10+ years since President Clinton told Congress to revamp its agencies to study the newest crisis, supposedly, nationwide, called fatherlessness. (For more exact wording, see my blogroll — I’ll double check the link).
The image above is the link below:
http://taggs.hhs.gov/AnnualReport/FY2008/discretionary/top50_grants.cfm
The Fifty Recipients Receiving the Greatest Discretionary Funding Levels
FY 2008 Top 50 Recipient Dollars: $14,967,274,219
FY 2008 Top 50 Recipient Awards: 31,321
Highligh
Universities and colleges represent 39 of the top 50 HHS discretionary grant recipients in FY 2008. The University of California received more HHS discretionary grant funds for more projects than any other recipient. Five state or city health and welfare organizations are in the top 50 HHS discretionary grant recipients. Three hospitals and four research organizations are in the top 50 HHS discretionary grant recipients.
(for chart, by top 10, top 50, click on the yellow chart above. It’s a sight to see.)
NEXT: the “ACF”
Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
http://taggs.hhs.gov/AnnualReport/FY2008/portfolios/acf.cfm
Operating Division Grant Portfolios:
Mission: Provides national leadership and creates opportunities for families to lead economically and socially productive lives, including helping children to develop into healthy adults and communities to become more prosperous and supportive of their members.
| Award Class | Awards | Dollars |
|---|---|---|
| Discretionary | 4,927 | $7,659,770,829 |
| Mandatory | 2,872 | $38,491,920,683 |
| Total | 7,799 | $46,151,691,512 |
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) administers grant programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals and communities.
Are you curious about those $7.659 BILLION in discretionary awards. For 2008, that is? I am. You betcha.
. . . .
ACF leads the nation in improving the economic and social well-being of families, children and communities by administering mandatory and discretionary grant programs such as the national welfare-to-work program; Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; foster care; adoption assistance; Head Start; child care; child support enforcement; positive youth development programs; refugee resettlement; and services for those with developmental disabilities.
The majority of the awards go to nonprofits. I daresay that many of these nonprofits came into existence in order to receive those awards.
obvious, but most of us do not have $46 billion to play with or, outside the IRS et al, the ability to garnish paychecks, or to decide whether 9-5 work is or is not the standard definition of “work” when it comes to TANF.
I also might debate this in re: the ACF program, it is indeed a very broad claim.
Just one final issue, if I may:
| CFDA | Program Name | Awards | Dollars |
|---|---|---|---|
| 93.600 | Head Start | 1841 | $6,677,528,436 |
| 93.086 | Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | 225 | $118,310,126 |
| 93.010 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | 187 | $92,353,264 |
| 93.676 | Unaccompanied Alien Children Program | 25 | $91,187,483 |
| 93.576 | Refugee and Entrant Assistance Discretionary Grants | 271 | $80,459,555 |
| 93.567 | Refugee and Entrant Assistance: Voluntary Agency Programs | 17 | $59,556,608 |
| 93.623 | Basic Center Grant | 387 | $51,077,558 |
| 93.009 | Compassion Capital Fund | 187 | $47,671,646 |
| 93.616 | Mentoring Children of Prisoners | 221 | $46,203,627 |
| 93.550 | Transitional Living for Homeless Youth | 230 | $41,441,819 |
For additional information on ACF programs and funding please visit the ACF Web site at http://www.acf.hhs.gov.
The Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood grants are of interest.
I find it odd that we are attempting simultaneously to promote these things (where is the safe woman promotion grant?), yet the single largest one is for Head Start, which is NOT uniformly accepted as being valuable. It seems to me that our government wishes us to:
Not have sex before marriage.
Marry a lot and not leave, even if it’s violent.
Raise GREAT children.
But, put them in child care pretty early so we (mothers in particular) can work 9-5 jobs, although these jobs are the least likely to result in bonding between mother and children, after birth, let alone nursing (known to promote both health and smarts). The reason they are to go into preschool earlier and earlier is so they can be prepared for the school system.
How are we going to have healthy marriages if we don’t spend adequate time with either our kids, or our spouses?
Speaking as a single mother who has tried almost every version: 9-5 single (a stable day job) and my passion (music) in the evenings weekends. Music (my passion) daytimes, and evenings and weekends, but for nonprofits, meaning a relatively student lifestyle for several years (low to moderate income). Add social life, communities of faith, and I was working to pay off the piano, not to play it. I have done Married, 9-5, Married with children telecommute // stay at home (a misnomer if there ever was one!), married self-employed from home, married, work FT nights (did I mention homeschool yet?) and single, as I recall all of the above.
The only one that was 100% incompatible with us, as a two-parent, two-household situation for the girls, was me working my profession and those girls in the public school system. It was THE most inefficient use of their and my time, resources, and energy levels (high energy/low energy times of day). I have seen it drive two-parent well to do households nuts, in good school systems too, it definiteloy drove my low-income, single-parent self into fatigue, as well as depression at the retardation of the educational opportunities (and levels) involved.
So, I do question the emphasis on more, better, earlier, and for longer days, as a way to promote healthy human beings, let alone families. That’s a personal take. Future posts will provide other “takes,” however with the TAGGS system, you now have been introduced (if it’s a first time) to some of the tools.
Non-U.S. Citizens, pay attention, we are spreading doctrines abroad, and they do propagate. Our birth rate may not be going up, but our rate of initiatives, studies, doctrines, programs, and presumptions about human nature up and running at fiber-optic speeds.
…
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
. . . and Non-sense, diagrammed….
leave a comment »
1994-2009 , it’s about “Fathers,”
and is beginning to remind me of the Viet Nam war.
Began in secret, finally acknowledged, and I hope someday
we will have something better to talk about, as a nation.
These quotes are from June 2006
This happens to be true. But how is this a war on fatherhood? And why should girls, or grown women, who are already socially conditioned to sit still; do for six hours a day either? They are more likely to daydream and underperform in some response to this, or start intrigues, or other non-scholastically-engaged activity. How is that any more acceptable for girls either?
(And he cites the same study I just did! but with diffferent conclusions):
I take issue with this “we.” I was born in the 1950s, and I didn’t create the public school system, and, like “war”, it was not conceived, designed, or pushed to full fruition by women.
Common sense says that children are going to learn better where there is some personal relationship with the teachers, and their classmates, that has half a chance of enduring past a semester. And for them to individually recognized for WHO they are, not only how they perform. This will have to require some “down” time and informal associations as well. Putting them in large groups to absorb the nationalized curriculum en masse is a recipe for failure. Moreover, there possibly IS something to the different rates at which boys and girls tend (overall) to be literate and fluent; there already is among different children of the same sex as well. The age-segregation thing — as the rule, and differences, the exception — is unnatural in almost anything but armies. Good grief! It doesn’t happen in families, and doesn’t always in corporations or businesses either. Why do it in school? That’s a recipe for gangs, which — face it — we have.
But declaring that situation, and this clear, systemic educational failure to be a “war on fatherhood” is ridiculous, and ignores that it fails girls just as well. Any system rigged for one gender, or social class to succeed and another to fail, is failing allof them. In fact one of the prime functions of this system, and characteristics, is to set children loose in large groups, where for sheer survival they must figure out a “gang” to belong to, a “type” to become.
And I do not at all approve of our current administration’s promises to “fix” something that has a design flaw — which has been already identified — it sorts by sex, and it also sorts pretty thoroughly by income. It wastes parents time and energy (propping it up by involvement, or by fundraising). It dumbs kids down, and slows them down. I
For more information, please see “edwatch.org”
A mother’s lament/rant on the public school system.
If you want to skip it this time, scroll down past the red ink, which it also has helped drown my household in, as a result, not to mention red tape. I think there might be some forgiveness for my seeing some “red” on this issue!
Also, this post is not copyedited, I’ve had several “saves” so far, and the most current one is not posted. I am not going to proofread here (on such a personal “hot topic,” but simply want the thoughts, references, and information out.
I have participated in education in, around, before, and after public schools, as well as private, home, and some Catholic schools, and I’ve had my share of watching simply intelligent boys be labeled hyperactive. IN one case, I had to throw out a 4-year old from a piano class, but he turned out to have been gifted, and I took him on as a private student. I have taught boys bouncing off the wall (literally sometimes) but able to focus when they were allowed to be engaged — which singing tends to do, to some. I have also had a daughter daydreaming in class while the entire class read aloud a book geared to several grade below her level.
Jonothan Kozol detailed in “I Won’t Learn From You” how some kids get into “Special Ed” that really don’t belong there. John Taylor Gatto wrote of his struggles to get a fluently reading you lady out of a slower classroom. A book on “JUMP” (Junior Undiscovered Math Prodigies) writes of how he worked with supposedly “slow” kids and their successes. There are many more profitable things that can be done when someone fails to learn than labeling and sidelining them. By and large, public schools don’t do this.
My children were forced back INTO this system by a man cheated by it himself (it did not compensate for family lacks), who I’d just left because of violence. I myself am still unlearning values I absorbed while in public school system (at which I excelled), one of which was slowing me down and undervaluing my strengths, and judging myself as a person by the things I was less adept at, rather than appreciating the strengths. I know this affected how hard I pushed in my career, prior to marriage, although that came out pretty decent overall. Now my kids are incorporating the same values.
When we homeschooled, both children were vivacious, engaged, ready to talk to adults, and with time in their schedules to play also. They were, in short, themselves, and felt free to relate to both parents, the custodial one and the noncustodial one. We moved in and out of various learning situations with relative ease, which is typical, and adds interest to the school day. They saw sunshine every day, and not just during gym class or a hurried lunch.
The style, motivation, and goals of us as a homeschooling family differed from the larger classroom, which teaches to the middle or bottom level. As a parent, OR teacher, I’m never interested in my kids’ middle or bottom levels, but their top ones, and had a pretty good idea of where that was, because we lived in the same household, and I had adequate time to see them at work in a variety of situations.
They both excelled although had different learning styles. I watched in horror, and shock, as my own offspring became commodities in a war against allowing them to continue in this fashion because a woman had made a decision to return to it after a non-relative non-parent, non-educator (by lifelong profession) told her to stop. Watching them give up great activities to participate in classrooms where some teachers, let alone the average student, couldn’t put a paragraph together without grammar mistakes, where math was slowed down, and one daughter’s major concern was literally daydreaming in class (and missing something) because they were reading the entire book aloud in class to compensate for kids who otherwise wouldn’t do their homework. . . and that book itself was aimed at a reading level far below hers — this was like torture to a parent.
The school system took me out of their lives in any significant role — because we were a two-household family — and put me in a traffic jam instead, a place no single mother can really afford to be! Time counts! Our schedules were stressed whereas before they weren’t. I have talked to wealthy professional mothers (same neighborhoods) who were equally stressed for the reasons of supplementing the school’s failures with after-school enrichments. I tried to each some of their stressed out students too, and finally became more discriminating in who I would and would not take on as a private student.
NOTE: My children, after years of the School wars, would disagree, and sought peace, at any price. As a parent, I note that they are not yet fully grown, and may (or, OK, may not!) think differently afterwards. I know what it cost our family. And as a musician privileged with 13 years of private lessons, which helped me get into a top liberal arts college — majoring in music — I know that continuity in an instrument is required for some mastery. Mastery of any sort of skill that requires this sort of development opens doors socially, often far beyond grade school. This also goes for other skills, such as language, athletics, gymnastics, or for that matter science interest.
To hold back multiple children from their long suits to help some children learn to read, write and count, sometimes under methods that are known to not work well (such as the deletion of phonics, for a period in US history, or the experimentation in math texts, about which I know something, and which a book called, appropriately (it’s a pun), “Class Warfare” addresses — has GOT to be a form of child abuse. Many, many authors have already addressed this.
If someone wishes to look for a major source of social problems, it would make much more sense to look at significcant institutions in our country, rather than half its populace — women! And declare that they have declared war on the other half in all situations where they left a marriage. Or to declare a new national religion: Fatherhood! The real war is much more likely to be: inherited wealth “haves” from up and coming “have-nots.”
The Rhetoric of “Fatherhood” does exactly this: It rides parasite style on existing situations (in this long post, I address two: education, and war, with attendant PTSD), and co-opts them into the fire fanning the cause. I have seen it also complain about the family law system in the ssame manner, calling it pro-mothers, when the facts are, it svery origin and design, by primarily men (southern California) is to prolong family strife (for an endless cash machine) and diminish the rule of evidence in favor of out-of-court situations where due process can be better violated. I am talking about mediation, where there has already been criminal behavior.
Back to Education as a “war on fatherhood” (implying, by feminists):
In 1990, John Taylor Gatto documented seven primary lessons this system ACTUALLY teaches. Look them up! Like me (I have scope and experience as a teacher, graduate, and having kids go in, out and back in to this system, while in my household, and have also dealt professionally with many parents, year after year, with kids in a variety of schools as well: urban and suburban. Beyond that, I read a lot!), as teh New York State Teacher of the Year at the time, he explains correctly in his little book called “Dumbing Us Down” what this system actually does, as opposed to its stated mission. That he doesn’t mention “war on fatherhood” or unfairness to boys or girls may have been because this was before the founding of the “National Fatherhood Initiative,” or it might have been because that’s not the situation. He DOES mention that it breaks down family units and true communities, as opposed to false, and fleeting networks.
Another author, Samuel Blumenfeld (I picked males, guys, OK?) wrote “Is Public Education Necessary” and narrated some of its history. That’s rhetorical question, folks! Diane Ravitch has written a book called “the Language Police” and she worked FOR the U.S. Dept. of Education, a Dept. our Constitution said nothing about originally. Other books such as Adult Illiteracy, The Literacy Hoax, and many others have categorized its failures. No matter, where there is a government contract, there is an ongoing proposition.
I ran afoul of a recent product of the California Teacher Credentialing process in my own custody and divorce in the 2000s. The same personality took issue with my homechooling (which had been our standard) but none with the violence, not even while the RO was on, instead, characterizing my decision to homeschool as “emotionally violent.” Say What??
I was shocked !! at the prejudice and tunnel vision involved, and at the callousness to the impact on our family household (including its income) in these matters. Our kids are not to be testing grounds for drugs, theories, or human behavioral management techniques. They are not to be strip-searched, punished military style for something their classmates done, indoctrinated, sorted by sex and age, locked down, taken hostage, sexually assaulted (or harassed) by teachers OR fellow-classmates, or shot to death in or near a school, yet this has happened and continues to happen. This is not what childhood is for.
Moreover, childhood passes fast, and it shouldn’t be squandered.
I worked in and around homeschoolers — the student/adult ratio was enough to keep a watch on violence, abuse, hate-talk, and I guarantee you, these kids wouldn’t have thought ganging up on or about stoning me, as a middle school band teacher (female) recently was in this county. I knew the parents of the children I taught. I also know that these people have the power to hire great teachers and fire bad or unreliable ones. I appreciated working with children who were intelligent and had some self-control, this was good for all of us. Moreover, apart from a few relationships around music, the friendships with kids and parents alike that my children formed in this manner were among their most stable and long-lasting ones, lasting beyond a change of schools or personal interests in life. They knew each other as PEOPLE in a variety of situations, which traditional school doesn’t allow.
And neither girls nor boys deserve to be locked up in one box, while parents work in another during daylight hours, when a better way is available. I know the finances of this personally also. It was totally impossible for me to accomplish, in my situation as a single mother with weekly visitation to Dad (in a nearby county) with my kids IN this system what I could had I been given permission for them to exit it.
But the reason I could not relates directly to this school systems’ need to perpetuate itself, and pick off the stragglers who otherwise might put them to shame. My kids experienced parental stealing by their angry father because I as a mother dared to say, this is NOT good enough for our children! ANd that attitude — that doing this — came from the near-lethal (and I do mean that literally) combination of fatherhood promoters (such as these below) and the financial “ancillary interests” serving the public school system.
I will take on any one in fair, open, debate on-line on this matter, with some moderation. This school system is cheating both genders, which should not be blamed on one of them. Moreover, the school system is generally speaking “progressive” and leftist, while the federal government appears to becoming — through these HHS grants I keep speaking of — more and more influenced by conservative right-wingers, who like to keep their women under control, and in large part from supposedly religious bases. Your blogger here has not only experienced this, but also read on the issue of domestic violence as addressed in conservative Christian mainstream press (i.e., Focus on the Family, Promise Keepers, etc.) Books such as “Battered into Submission” and others address their silence on this plague — physical violence backing up other forms of violence, within personal relationships — is always a plague when it’s system- endorsed. Dr Chesler addresses its format in the other fundamentalist religion, Islam, when she writes on honor-killings.
When a school system is actively pro-LGBT and not very friendly to Christianity (as opposed to, say Islam), and a government agency is pushing a Christian agenda through, the natural consequence is conflict. Both approaches are likely to engender a reactionary exodus from the system, or reaction to it. Add to this, underperformance intellectually when a school is more about indoctrination that education, and we have a cesspool of conflicting ideologies and power struggles, both within the school and between parents and the schools.
Most human beings don’t appreciate being the target of a mass label of any sort. This is a way to sort fruit, cattle, or sheep, not people.
Te American public, across the board, and is hostile to competitors, principally homeschoolers. In other countries — such as Germany! — homeschooling is illegal, which should be a message to us all about what direction this is heading. Our economy would be better off with private, market-based competition, and allow people to re-engage in their own communities. Schools throughout Chicago have demonstrated alternatives.
Here’s one tirade:
As I pointed out in my post of 06-01-09, the exact opposite appears to be true. In general, baseline sanity (as with family court in general, when it comes to labeling) the ground-zero truth is often 180~ reversal of the proclaimed truth.
FOR EXAMPLE, HERE:
I posted the original documents for us to look at, also, or links to them: Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech, at the Lincoln Memorial (1776, 1863, 1963) all talk about JUSTICE. In seeking freedom from being colonized by England, the signers pledged their lives and their fortunes as well. In 1863, on the battlefield of a war, commemorating the cost of not letting the South secede and keep their slavery trade going — then-President Lincoln reminded his audience BRIEFLY of 1776. The concept of slavery was supposedly anathema. In1963, another civil rights leader said, that promise was made, but for a certain sector has not been realized. Notably, both Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr., were later assassinated. All around this, women had been seeking to vote, at a minimum.
In 1994, VAWA said : STOP! hitting and killing us because we are women. Stop it! It was not a “we hate you because you are men,” but a “what about justice? We are people too!” Anyhow, “Whistleblower” (the source) drones on. . . .
Did the word “bizarre” come from some of these access/visitation grants? My ex used that one, of a very normal activity we were engaged in, although his description of it made it sound like Guantanamo. Bizarre & Dangerous together conjure up some great images, if the intent is to play them emotions and other rabble-rousing. (I am thinking he’s referring to Prop 8, or the attempt to switch the marriage registration forms from reading “Husband” and “Wife” to Party 1 and Party 2? For gay marriages, I suppose, it could be simply “Husband and husband” (til further notice) and “Wife and wife” I suppose. Or “Ms.” and “Mr.” — but in any case, I don’t think it’s nearly as bizarre or dangerous as the fatherhood movement, presently, which is affecting the justice processes in the U.S.
Let’s consider the phrase “be divorced by their wives and lose their children” in its proper context, as to Vets:
Whistleblower author, you didn’t know that War messes with men, and women, both?
Mr (or Dr.) Baskerville must not have served as infantry, or in actual combat? And he doesn’t understand that PTSD happens? And in a soldier, can become lethal, including to his own family?
Let’s hear from some serious authors (not just serious about their own causes…). Senator McCain (See US Veterans article below) served in war — did Jeffrey Leving, David Blankenhorn, Wade Horn? ?? (We know about Clinton, he didn’t fight, and he didn’t “inhale”. either..)
NYTIMES: Across America Deadly Echoes of Foreign Wars
January 13, 2008, By DEBORAH SONTAG and LIZETTE ALVAREZ
BAD WOMEN, SEPARATING FROM THEIR TRAUMATIZED, LEAN, MEAN FIGHTING-MACHINE HUSBANDS. THEY ARE PARTICIPATING IN A “WAR ON FATHERHOOD.”
NOW, IF IT HAD BEEN A FEMALE HEAD OF STATE THAT SENT THE US INTO IRAQ ON (FALSE PRETEXTS) AND THEN SAID, ‘WELL, WE’RE IN, WE HAVE TO FINISH THE JOB NOW — OR AFGHANISTAN, OR ANYWHERE ELSE,AND ALL THE FEMINAZIS WERE EGGING HER ON, THEN PERHAPS YOU COULD BLAME FATHERS RETURNING HOME AND LOSING THEIR FAMILIES ON WOMEN’S WAR AGAINST FATHERHOOD. SOMEHOW, IT DOESN’T RING AS REAL AS THESE ARTICLES, BELOW . . . . .
These men, and I bet some of then are responsible fathers, too, are actually DOING something about the struggle the veterans have coming home. . .
(1)
Odysseus in America: Combat trauma and the trials of homecoming
By Jonathan Shay, MD, PhD;
Foreword by Senator Max Cleland and Senator John McCain
Book review by Helen A Williams, MS
New York: Scribner; 2002. ISBN 0-7432-1156-1 352 pages. $25.00
Boston’s Jonathan Shay Honored with MacArthur Fellowship
VA PTSD Psychiatrist Given “Genius” Award
September 25, 2007
WASHINGTON — A Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) employee in Boston, Dr. Jonathan Shay, has been awarded the so-called “Genius Award” from the MacArthur Foundation. Shay, the author of two popular books about post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), has been a VA staff psychiatrist treating combat veterans with PTSD since November 1987.
(3) The men in my family, in re: military service:
The men in my family background did not come home and get betrayed by their wives, bad women. This is how it went:
One cousin went to Viet Nam and served. He came home, and had a wife and two kids and was an upstanding man. He was done in, eventually, by Agent Orange and died, leaving THEM. The other cousin was disqualified due to poor circulation.
My Dad, I’m told, was held back here to work on a military-funded project for a major research lab in NJ. Naturally, as a kid, I was not privvy to on all of this. Later, I learned more. from a book and the Internet than my own family ever shared. One thing I also learned, and remembered, is that behind MOST technological advances is a military purpose (and money). He died early (65), why, I don’t know. I am sure had he not died early, he might have put my ex in place when the battering began. However, it’s also quite likely that childhood abuse was a factor in his life, and stress level overall. DNK. He overperformed and dedicated himself to study and work, and providing for us.
My uncle served in the war, and I never knew him that well as a person to start with, he was always kind of sidelined in the family; he was very talented artistically, and I have some cartoons of his, sardonic commentaries on how inhumane the treatment of his soldiers. He typically had a silly smile on his face (mental illness? Fetal alcohol syndrome? Smacked around as a kid by his Dad??) and never said much. No one would talk about this. He never married, and died early; I wasn’t told why.
SIDE NOTE: My Dad grew up with domestic violence, we were told. I suspect some of it got to this uncle and may have accounted for how well he did in life, and how short a life he lived. As he lived, so he died — though a niece, I was told next to nothing, then, or now.
In-law: My father in law served in Korea, and came back, at least, paranoid schizophrenic, medicated, and is described by my ex as uninvolved / depressed. My sister in law described him as a drunk (she refused to ride home in the same car with him from the airport). His household was definitely dysfunctional and he was most likely uninvolved as a parent because he was on medication and depressed. Eventually, well after one son divorced, remarried & was jailed for incest, and another one got a restraining order with kickout for domestic violence, and I guess after a daughter had multiple kids with a man who wouldn’t support them, my father in law blew his life out with a bullet to the head. Certificate reads “acute chronic depression.”
A brother in law I never met served in the military, came back, and remarried a woman with children. He was the one jailed for incest — not long enough as far as I am concerned. He since remarried almost 20 years older than than himself and judging an on-line photo, and his track record, I’d say she was desperate.
This was NOT “women leaving their husbands,” and it was not woman’s war on manhood. Perhaps THE logical conclusion of this version of manhood IS war. Period. Manliness = fighting someone. I don’t know. I don’t go for it. Not safe!
Who knows — perhaps the “feminazi” (as we are called) came at one point from having to deal with generation after generation of war-torn fathers, brothers, orphans? Perhaps these men were coming back and acting out what they’d lived in war. . . And we protested.
Anyone who wishes to blame the ‘feminists” for everything has an ahistorical perspective. Where did we come from to start with? Not wanting to be the new slave class? Nationally speaking — and these FR guys DO obviously get national platforms to speak from — they own many of them, and pay for others (which can be traced at least in part) – – have externalized and targeted women as their personal “demons,” For being women, for not going along with the stereotyped gender roles, for wanting to leave the home and work, even if the household is suffering for lack of their doing so, for failing to crawl low enough – — A bigger, better man would face his own issues and think about maybe why she left. . . . . I know the man I left has apparently not done that yet. He’s simply found more people to agree with him, and got them all worked up (and incited to action), also.
I don’t disdain men overall. For one, that’d be foolish — I work with choirs, and it takes all kinds to sing, deep voices and high voices, “SATB.” Historically within music, I have worked with male and female, let alone straight and gay, old and young. The children’s choirs I hung out with, some were boys and girls, and some girls only, and some boys only. It takes all kinds. I married and had children, which indicates at least a nominal ability of some sort, and stuck it out for almost a decade. I drew the line somewhere between the collections of weapons (more than one kind), destruction of my credit, attempt to keep me without transportation, and being concerned that a suicide was imminent. Not to mention being physically assaulted in front of my own kids, and lectured, too. Enough was too much.
Now, I want a little space, some peace, and sanity within the family court, only to find it is more interested in funneling funds to tweak the male/female family balance because of earlier concerns about welfare vs. child support and the establishment of what looks, sounds, feels, and is experienced like the establishment of a new national religion. Now THAT, I object to.
Those who have lived with certain personality types understand how setting a limit can be interpreted as declaring “war.”
I do reserve the right to determine when someone is talking sense, or nonsense, speaking treasures of wisdom or rubbish coming from sloppy, emotional, thinking. I do reserve the right to not be assaulted in my own home — and for this, I eventually had to have one of us leave — him! (we rented, don’t get all worked up about family property — I had chaos to deal with, from years of the chaos of violence. And plenty of debt. No assets — at all. Period. None, other than books, I suppose. An old car…, and not the only one…)
NOTE: I am ONE woman, not ALL women. Most women I know are not “ALL” women. To attack us — to the point of killing! — because of perceived injustices by other women shows delusional thinking no different than attacking all people on the basis of race, national origin, or for that matter, body size, or faith. The rhetoric simply makes no sound sense.
Cites please? And if this is so, it is likely made up for the ones who ARE the fathers not paying it. Plus some fathers who are having custody switched and now their wives pay, or are jailed.
“Resolving the boy crisis in schools” by Jeffery M. Leving and Glenn Sacks, showing how today’s public schools are profoundly unsuited for the genuine needs of boys.
I lived and worked in Mr. Leving’s home greater metropolitan area.
I do not think he was practicing on the Chicago’s South Side. I was there in the 1970s and 1980s working under a man who talked less and did more to help support and supplement inner city public schools through inspired excellence in music, the Unitarian church, to help boys AND girls get along together in mixed ensembles and non-age-level-separated situations. Another unique (for his generation) thing he did, starting in the 1950s (before Maryland had fully ratified women’s right to vote, and told Congress so!) was get some of the kids from the privileged Chicago Laboratory (private, upperclass) school and others on the North side of town to function, at work and play, and on tours and rehearsals, with some on the South and West sides. This was (the late) Rev. Christopher Moore. I came in from Oberlin Consevatory, and learned a thing or two as well.
I respect that man (shortcomings and longsuits) because I saw his work and service. Unlike Promoting Responsible Fatherhood, it’s not getting families killed or put back on poverty — except ONE child, “Virgil White” who was shot for quitting gangs through this group. It enriched their lives and infused something terrific INTO these public schools — singing. He also got kids OUT of the schools to sing together after school, and concertizing in front of a variety of others. This group is still going, and infusing emotional, musical and other cultural life into the city, and the lives of the boys and girls (now young men and women, or some gray-haired ones). In 2007 they had their 50th anniversary celebration, brining across male — and female; young — and old – musicians from across the country and across time. We (I came, too) sang for almost 3 days straight and filled the Lyric Opera House as to both audience and stage.
They also had something better (more noble) to focus on than gender, and gender alone. OR marital status. Good grief.
Guess why I was unable to bring a daughter along? Not in small part because of what demagogues like these were pushing through Congress, and then down through the Health and Human Services Department by way of Child Support Enforcement (or non-, as the case may be), and other programs that were set in motion while I was: 1. working to put music back in the schools, and not for high pay; 2. as a woman, pursuing a B.Th because it was part of my faith, and still doing music, and 3. During marriage, getting slapped around, in marriage, in front of pastors, family, employers, and others without intervention. And thereafter, in the family law system, when I was again attempting go rebuilding the profession marriage had trashed.
I can testify that the family law and child support systems are in bed financially with several others, and that groups that helped weaken the VAWA laws and enforcement of existing family codes in place to protect women — and children — and men from beating on them and hounding them out of work — couldn’t/wouldn’t even stick for a mother whose kids were stolen on an overnight visitation, and refused to enforce child support collections diligently either before or afterwards.
So I went to that 2007 50th anniversary of this group (Chicago Children’s Choir, incidentally) without my daughters, and inbetween the 6th & 7th court hearings in one year, ALL of them jumpstarted with a felony crime that no one will take responsibility for to start with: child-stealing.
Had they come, they would’ve had an eye-opener culturally (my daughters have scarcely left the state they were born in, to date) and seen adults respecting their mother, been musically inspired beyond belief, and heard a choir from South Africa sing also. (A group from here has also toured South Africa, and some of them sung for Nelson Mandela). Why should I, because I am female, and single, be prevented from bringing my offspring in front of such wonderful opportunities? How does this figure into the “feminazi war on fatherhood” because I protested that injustice? One daughter is accomplished musically, and still sings in a choir. This would’ve been a great opportunity. What kind of mindset would make that opportunity, for a lower-income single mother (which we became primarily through the courts to start with!), impossible for some growing daughters?
We are indeed in dark times. To me, that’s just totalitarianism.
I’d rather SEE a sermon — or hear a concert — than hear a sermon any day.
I think perhaps we need as a nation to start choosing our leaders from poorer backgrounds, uniformly, and not people who come straight out of college into law school, clerkships, judgeships, and privilege. Our current President apparently didn’t, but what about the rank and file of Congress? I think “royalty” is highly overrated, and the Fatherhood and Healthy Marriage is about neither topic, but about dumbing down the general level of conversation to TWO identifiers only: 1. Gender and 2. Marital Status, both of them to be considered privileged, when neither of them is really a character indicator.
Humanity is much more diverse, as are the issues important to debate nationally. And neither wealth nor poverty are, of themselves, sole indicators of how well a child is going to do in life. Let’s get out of the fields of virtual self-fulfilling prophecies, and predictions, and take a closer look at PROCESS (as in, due process) in the court systems, among other places.
i recommend a closer look at Tom Mortenson’s blog:
“postsecondaryoppotunity.blogspot.com.” There are valuable lessons on it, including one on the recent omission of the “family income” category in US Census work. One of the most stratifying institutions we have today — and one that was supposedly in place to do the opposite — is the k-12 educational system. Because of what comes out, only wealthier communities, or those where nonprofits committed to certain causes exist, to put it back in, as they still do ( from what I recall) in Chicago. Moreover, the monopoly has to be willing to let go some of its privilege and acknowledge failure. ONE of the failures is also character failure. One character builder includes competence, but it is not the only one. Another one is service, and participation in meaningful communities.
I think it’s also time to look at the dependence of our national economy on the public school system. Whole sectors would have to be dismantled if it were, yet it is failing students. I say this as a former teacher and parent, supplemented by experience and reading. Childcare cannot solve everything, and boys in particular, need their mothers when they are very young, and to not be age and grade-sorted with girls, and then stigmatized because they are different. And children who literally DO learn differently, should be allowed to — they are among the creators and inventors, we are drilling out of the population by reducing things to a standardized test answer. Such kids need TIME and some freedom to experiment, and permission to fail also without stigma. Edison did, after all! And Einstein.
That’s all for today.
This blog is becoming unwieldy (electronically), and I recommend that readers perhaps explore some of the links, and do their own research particularly on what our government is doing with tax dollars. There are few subsitutes for a little direction and a lot of googling, mixed with real-life experience and informal, unmonitored conversations with lots and lots of people from many walks of life.
If life is work, church/mosque/synagogue/single community organization, school, and commute — when does this happen?
What are we living, working, schooling, and campaigning/worhipping FOR? The right to direct someone else’s lives, or restrict their opportunities, or living one’s own, peaceably?
Above all, children are not property. Of all things, parents should know this. Too many entitities are making merchandise of them. When parents divorce, Sometimes it’s “no-fault,” but sometimes there are legitimate faults or crimes. At this time, one size fits all does not work, and shouldn’t be forced to at public expense in the courts any more than it does in the school system. ANy more than an employer should be forced to keep incompetent employees affecting its bottom line and public reputation.
As a nation, the US Government is the EMPLOYEE of the American people, as well as employing many in the exercise of its authority. It is in too many different businesses for sure, and has forgotten who it was to be Of, By, and For. Looking at who is greasing the wheels of Congress, and presuming to speak for an entire nation without openly consulting them on its policies, this has gotten entirely out of hand.
Like most bulldozers, or for that matter outsized tanks, it lacks the finesse, and substitutes force. and works best with a free rein in a large area.
People who work primarily as employees, paying taxes, have been bulldozed over at teh behest of private foundations running institutes at major universities driving data for federal purposes not voted on. It is paying salaries of judges who are sometimes caught with their pants down, or taking kickbacks, and trafficking in kids too (I refer to a federal judge in Texas on sexual harassment, a NJ judge on pornography involving kids, and two judges who sent juveniles, improperly, to detention centers, in Pennsylvania, among others).
I’m tired of this — as a mother, and former musician (as to employment) both practices require finesse and a degree of freedom to work right.
As to this post, I apologize for the length and its condition (not up to “snuff”) but hope that some of its links, references, and ideas may spark something in a reader for follow up, or to reconsider some of the rhetoric in light of, perhaps education, versus the gender or ideology wars. Maybe there is a better way!
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
June 3, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Posted in History of Family Court
Tagged with Manhood, men's rights, Motherhood, social commentary, women's rights