Archive for the ‘Designer Families’ Category
From “No Excuse for Abuse” to “Truth is No Defense”: Terrorizing Terrorists with Civil Litigation
Maybe “all roads lead to Rome” but it seems that religious conflagration is more Middle Eastern in origin.
Today’s article quote (the longer one) is from the Middle East Forum (I finally figured out — I am on some legal mailing lists, including FindLaw.com, which publishes opinions and recent cases in specific fields). This email list I got from my interest in the feminist writings by the author of “Women & Madness” who also understands extra punch packed by a fist, or practices, incited by religious beliefs of women’s inferiority, or (at best) secondary place in society, or else.
Phyllis Chesler. ‘How Afghanistan shaped my feminism’
Nov 6, 2008 …Phyllis Chesler. ‘How Afghanistan shaped my feminism’ …. marathon tea-drinking and pistachio-eating, my polite smile was stuck to my face. …
vladtepesblog.com/?p=2954 –
Phyllis Chesler: Obama Throws Muslim Women Under the Bus
by an unrepentant kulak
Monday, June 8, 2009
Did President Obama sacrifice the interests of Muslim women in his Cairo speech? Phyllis Chesler thinks so, and says as much in a characteristically well-articulated piece at PJM:
It is a Catholic woman’s right to become a nun and shave or cover her hair; it is an Orthodox or Hasidic Jewish woman’s right to shave or cover her hair; and it is a Muslim woman’s right to cover her hair and her face–as long as those women who refuse to do so are not browbeaten, beaten, ostracized, stalked, stoned to death or honor-murdered. I have written about just such cases in the West right here, at this blog, cases in which young American- and Canadian-Muslim girls were tormented, then killed because they refused to wear hijab.
In Europe, where there are many more Muslims, there is a veritable epidemic of such exceedingly dishonorable and incredibly gruesome “honor” murders.
But there’s something more. Let’s face it: The Islamic face-veil and headscarf have become symbols of “jihad” and Islamic religious apartheid or intolerance in the West. And, it is spooky, even frightening to see women, (or are they men?), face-veiled or wearing full-body shrouds. Masked people, hooded people, have cut themselves off from human contact; they can see you, but you can’t see them. You cannot see their expressions in response to what you are saying. I would not want to appear before a masked judge, study with a masked teacher, hire a masked lawyer, etc. Would you?
Whether I approve of their clothing choices or not, Hasidic (ultra-orthodox or anti-modern) Jews and Catholics are not threatening western civilization and are not out there be-heading those who leave Judaism or Catholicism. Nor are they force-converting Muslims and Hindus. Muslims are doing just that at this very moment in history when America’s President has reached out to the entire Islamic world.
What’s more, Jews and Catholics are not honor-murdering their daughters and wives because they refuse to veil their faces, their hair, or their bodies. Mainly Muslims do that.
No, nothing like that. By the way — did the readers not that the man in Buffalo who beheaded his wife claims she was abusing him? Sound like a familiar theme?
ALthough “nothing like that,” it’s increasingly getting to be like that, as I sometimes email Dr. Chesler, while she still takes heat, I’m sure, for alliance with conservative Christian groups in some forums. Someone will listen, one of these days, of where the THEORIES (if not the practices, including familicides) unite. Can you say “faith-based collaborative” and “Fatherhood.gov”? There are dramatic differences, but too many striking parallels, between these groups. The atmosphere on the “family” issues is changing. Can you say “Islamification” and “Islamophobia’ in the same breath?
So these topics, mine and hers, seem doomed to overlap, time and again.
Today being 01/11/11, and as I have recently posted on my feelings of the similarity between the family law system and Shari’a law system (keep it in the family, right?), one has to wonder whether this family law system is intended to overwhelm independent “parents” (Moms) such that they return to dependence on at least the state, or their extended support systems. Leaving abuse amicably? Hell, no! What has this world come to? How else are older immoral* men going to continue their unfettered access to young girls, and boys?
[(*I’m NOT talking about the decent ones)]
I’ll bold or change font color on a few key terms. Understand, I am not following this case, or theme, in detail — BUT, it’s getting to be a smaller and smaller world. As a “noncustodial mother” (I suppose the term ceases to have meaning when children have all turned 18, at which point it may mean that one regains contact with grown children, or one does not. If not, then does the word “mother” apply at all? Historically, yes — but in present tense? . . . . As the dear old AFCC decided long ago to find a newer, better language to describe criminal actions (battering, kidnapping, assault, stalking, and molesting minors, including but not limited to incest), it is gradually transforming society into generations of traumatized kids, and at public expense.
At the BMCC [“Battered Mothers Custody Conference” in Albany, New York] recently, the Holly Collins case was featured, and she spoke, and her son. She fled to the Netherlands. Another woman who also fled there, was outed (Melissa Stratton), particularly after the child’s father bicycled through Europe and broadcast his distress — and after a ruling by the court-appointed psychologist that she’d imagined it all. She was an intelligent, educated woman who it seems to me considered the available options (grim, if one considers the situation) and chose a hard one. When we talk, Netherlands, Scandinavia, Denmark, and indeed almost ANY country these days, it’s likely that some high-profile cxustody case is attached. South Korea (NJ judge orders woman jailed on returning, although abuse charges were under way in Korea); Brazil, Canada, you name it, some Dad and friends has probably gone after some legislator to, gol, dang it — bring me back my kids! A Rep. in N.J. wants India and Japan to sign the Hague convention to make this a little easier.
The article below deals with Denmark, among other places — well, you can see.
Meanwhile, nursing infants in the family court system are STILL subject to a judge’s court order about what nipple they get to suck it from, and whether that’s accompanied with Mom’s smells, voice, embrace, or arms, or some with a leaner muscle mass, most likely, AFTER a domestic violence court order has already been issued. Kind of makes ya’ wonder…. Didn’t Germany try this kind of child-raising some generations ago? Dads can be nurturers, too, right — but at certain ages, an infant needs a reliable parent, a MOM, on-call. Her reassurances are a need, and a foundation for later independence. When society can’t respect this, when men (SOME men) are so needy personally that a child is an interruption to the fulfilment of their own narcissism, or possibly an alteration in a sexual relationship, society is sunk. When Moms, in a changing society are to be punished for adjusting to it in ways involving employment, or running a reasonable business while also being Mom — society is sunk. We’re already beyond that through this system in the U.S, and hardly contained within it.
That system has a religious basis, on the rights of males (notice, I didn’t say “man,” generic) and females as lesser, which we know because “God said so.’ The consequence to a man of listening to a woman’s voice (Eve) is that the fall of the world, and a curse. Talk about primal fears! For any woman thereafter to trust her own inner voice without running it first by her man, or if she doesn’t have one, a local religious leader, is an outrage to the stability of the world, and we will fight a few wars to drive the point home.
This site says detached kids make for genocides. Possibly true…. given the child-rearing practices. USA isn’t far behind with early childhood education (universal, ideally), and getting MOm into those low-paying jobs and her kids to the local child center, and Dad back into the kids’ lives after abuse and incarceration. She will be dependent to SOMEONE a lifetime — a man, an employer, a preschool being reliably available, etc. Unless she is wealthy, and possibly even then, if dumped.
The Childhood Origins of the Holocaust
Lloyd deMause
This is a disturbing read readers might do well to read, about what kids went through, previously, growing up. Don’t mock it — the U.S. had Spock which said breastfeeding was not advised, and which many Moms listened to. Now, I suppose, we have “Dr. Phil” and judges. (my commentary, not the quote)… It is a very disturbing read, however, after two decades of incredible (in supposedly free U.S.A.) punishments for simply existing, and showing independence, or expecting input into family decisions based on mutual information — not dictatorship — one has to deal with what are the origins of this shock, and becomes more sensitive to boundaries, and to violations of personhood and exercise of one’s simple WILL, from totally unexpected sources. I absolutely am witness (not here, in detail, obviously) to my own case that the underlying principle is that I must not make decisions, or even influence them, about my own basics of life, including work, sleep, come, go, finances/banking, transportation, education (i.e., continuing mine, or continuing in the field I had upon marriage), or budgeting, MAIL, and so forth. This was promulgated to me on the basis of Christianity, and “unfortunately,” for the husband, I actually read the scriptures. While they may be more restrictive than the wider society, nothing in them justified what he did to me, and what pastors witnessing it continued to allow. As a participant, researcher (after my fashion) and narrator of what’s UP with these systems, I have come to the conclusion that while an enraged, or angry person is indeed dangerous, and can hurt, or kill, or destroy — it’s nothing so frightening to me personally as a cold, detached personality claiming in sanitized terms to analyze a volatile and flesh-and-blood situation. Or, speaking in group terms, clinical terms about horrors, as if they were population research and functions in society, ONLY. There is something particularly Nordic about this attitude, and I find the social scientists — when placed near legislators — of far more concern than inflammatory rhetoric that shows its inflammation and anger, and is recognizable as emotionally based. Feminists have been called “feminazis,” but it’s the very, very masculine “Nazi” that is the concern here. This site talks about it better than I just did, below. The social denigration of women, and girls — even down to baby girls — has hurt society badly. Not the fact that now, they can work, or other civil rights! It’s passed down through the generations. |
THIS REMINDS ME OF HOW LITIGATION CAN BE DISABLING AND LIFE-THREATENING, IF IT NEVER STOPS! (STRESS, PRESSURE, ADDITIONAL PRESSURE FROM POVERTY, AND PARTICULARLY WHEN NOT IN A JUST CAUSE OF ACTION. THAT ALONE WELL DESCRIBES THE LITIGATION THAT IS PROMOTED AND PROLONGED ON OUR FAMILY LAW COURTS — THERE IS NO WIN/WIN IN SOME SITUATIONS, THOSE SITUATIONS BEING IN WHICH A WOMAN & MOTHER IS LEAVING FOR REASONS OF SAFETY FOR HERSELF, AND/OR THE CHILDREN SHE GAVE BIRTH TO…. THE FAMILY LAW SITUATION WAS ITSELF DESIGNED (I BELIEVE) AS A HYBRID TO MAKE THIS VERY ACCESSIBLE TO FATHERS ACROSS MANY LANDS. HERE, THE SIMILAR IDEA (ALTHOUGH I REALIZED FAMILY LAW IS NOT A “CIVIL” CAUSE OF ACTION IN THE U.S.) IS BEING PROMOTED AS A WAY TO STOP TERRORISTS, A CATCH-22 ABOUT TESTIFYING! AND ACKNOWLEDGED AS HAVING BEEN USED BY THEM IN DENMARK.
The latest terrorist tactic: litigation
by Daniel Huff
The Daily Caller
January 11, 2011http://www.legal-project.org/1060/http-dailycallercom-2011-01-11-the-latest
Send
RSS
Share: Be the first of your friends to like this.
On December 29, Scandinavian authorities arrested five terrorists planning an attack in Denmark. Almost as interesting as what they targeted is what they spared and the lessons it holds for future counterterrorism efforts.
The plot was to storm the Copenhagen newsroom of Jyllands Posten and murder its staff. It was the fourthattempt this year by Islamic extremists to punish the newspaper that published the Mohammed cartoons. But the terrorists are guilty of selective prosecution. They have yet to strike Politiken, which also published the cartoons, even though its offices are literally next door.
It is logical that Jyllands is the principal target because it sparked the controversy. It was Jylland’s editor, Flemming Rose, who originally commissioned the cartoons in 2005. A Danish comedian had told interviewers he would publicly urinate on the Bible, but would not dare do the same to the Koran. Rose’s message was that Islam should be treated equally, not specially.
Nevertheless, there is a second reason Politiken is not a target. It already surrendered, vanquished by the nonviolent instrument of a civil lawsuit.
In 2008, extremists nearly murdered Kurt Westergaard, who drew one of the original cartoons. In response,Politiken reprinted the cartoons as part of a unified stand against intimidation of the press. The defiance didn’t last. A Saudi law firm claiming to represent 94,923 descendants of Mohammed threatened it with legal action and the paper caved. On February 26, 2010, it effectively apologized for defending free speech.
This is a textbook illustration of how litigation has become a complementary and sometimes superior strategy for Islamic extremists who traditionally relied on physical violence alone to intimidate their opponents.
In Europe especially, their cause is aided by vague hate speech laws that make it all too easy to punish legitimate discourse on Islam. Last month, a Danish Member of Parliament pleaded guilty to violating hate speech laws with comments he made on Islam’s treatment of women. He had agreed to forgo parliamentary immunity in order to fight the charges on the merits only to discover that truth is no defense.
[Paragraph by LGH blog] On January 24, another Danish politician, International Free Press Society president Lars Hedegaard, will stand trial forsimilarly speaking his mind. He also faces a potentially costly libel suit. There were reports last summer that Denmark’s hate speech laws would be reformed to prevent abuse, but this has yet to happen.
THIS author is saying, fight back, using the same weapon. I wish battered mothers, protective mothers, and etc. would at least get smart about what weapons ARE being used against them in their War for Independence (meaning, the right to leave destructive relationships WITH their children, and without being held hostage a lifetime to suits for custody, and sometimes more suits).
In the meantime, authorities can borrow from the extremists and use civil litigation as a complementary strategy in counterterrorism operations, particularly in the US.
This tactic was used consistently on me since I left the abuser. The battles were won OUTSIDE the courtroom, and it was made clear that any stand against other outrages would be met by escalation. I was specifically told this while still married — “don’t ever oppose me, or I will escalate til I win.” One of the few martial vows that has been kept, another one having been how to disappear, beat the system and not pay child support. That, I could understand, however, forcing me out of jobs so that I can’t survive AFTEr leaving him is off the charts. This was done by entering the family law venue. How hard was that? Not hard — the U.S. Government is all into “families” these days, and are sponsoring the concept, while the word “mother” is rapidly becoming an anachronism, when found in association with a backbone and in the face of danger to herself or her kids, including after damage has already occurred.
Forcing terrorists to fight simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings would make it difficult for them to focus their defense resources effectively. This has been the experience in white-collar cases when the Justice Department and a regulatory agency pursue parallel investigations against a target company.
PRECISELY WHAT ABUSERS (AND WAR STRATEGISTS) DO. WEAKEN THE ENEMY ON MULTIPLE FRONTS.
While criminal defendants can get court-appointed lawyers, civil defendants pay out of pocket and the plaintiff’s burden of proof is typically lower. In addition, the broader scope of discovery [[Did you know that? I didn’t!]] in civil cases may produce information otherwise unavailable to prosecutors. Finally, parallel lawsuits can pin terrorists between remaining mum in the civil suit and likely losing, or fighting back and forfeiting their right to “plead the Fifth” in the criminal case. Defendants might dodge these difficulties by delaying the civil proceedings, but courts do not always permit that.
This plan presupposes a clear basis for civil suits. In 1994, Congress passed a bill making it illegal to use force against persons exercising abortion rights and permitting victims to sue for damages. With only minor modifications, this law could be expanded to cover threats against free speech rights as well.
For example, officials are investigating whether the recent plot is connected to the 2009 arrest of two Chicago men for conspiring to attack Jyllands Posten. According to the indictment, Tahawwur Rana and David Headley gained access to Jylland’s offices on the pretext of purchasing advertising for their immigration services company. Once inside, they conducted videotape surveillance of the premises which they provided to co-conspirators in Pakistan who recommended using a truck bomb.
Headley pleaded guilty in March, but Rana goes on trial in February. Were the proposed law on the books now,Jylland’s staff could sue for damages using information from the indictment and guilty plea. This would be particularly disruptive to Rana as he tries to focus on preparing for his criminal trial.
More broadly, a law along these lines would allow victims to go on the offensive against Islamic radicals who terrorize them instead of having to hope authorities continue catching these extremists in time.
Daniel Huff is Director of the Legal Project at the Middle East Forum and a former counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.
I realize that either this last conference, or the new year, or the Tuscon, Arizona mass-shooting is more timely blogging. However horrible, SIX DEAD is not entirely unprecedented in the family law field, and if this is multiplied by how often — think about it. it’s just how, and who died, that was the issue here.
Yet, today is January 11, 1/11/2011, and I still remember 09/11/2001, an event that while in the forefront of the nation, happened and was played out in my case when I was hard at work leaving an abuser who had himself threatened suicide, talked bout his fantasies of it, and whose own father had recently followed through with the deal. I have yet to find a venue that took this seriously, as I still have to, given the entrenched position. The intent to destroy me, along with himself, seems to be one thing he hangs onto. Forget about the kids — they are already abandoned, and again, do the courts care about this, when it doesn’ produce income, or a warm body under 18 years old to attract income and justify the institution?
The answer is, no.
Truth is no defense in family law because it’s so nebulous, one cannot define it.
But, if one does, there exists within the system an easy out and a contradicting “truth,” and networks to disseminate it. Truth, like beauty, is in the eye(s) of the beholders, who are often attracted by things that glitter and repulsed by women reporting abuse. Nasty, filthy topic, you must be mad, have imagined it.
What we need instead to examine is the “ranking” of “truths.” Why should PAS get more attention than “rebuttable presumption” and why should “family” get more priority than “safety” and individual rights.
It’s no longer possible, Moms, to continue ignoring the delivery structure of what passes for justice. And for this, the infrastructure and sponsoring organizations that foot the billl, have to be defined as a whole — just as you, individually, are going to have to look at your entire budget if you are wondering “what happened?”
There are some holes in the plumbing. Like lead in plumbing in other famous civilizations, our asbestos, in our lifetimes, it will take its toll if things don’t change. And as to that on/off breastfeeding schedule, kids need breast milk when growing to at least toddlerhood (ideally) unless she’s on drugs, alcohol, or so stressed by abuse that hormones, I’d suppose, flood that system, or improper nutrition.
You can’t get much more stressful than Dad throwing Mom around, or Dad who threw MOM around (which requires obvious strength), or assaulted her, now in possession regularly of a fragile infant who represents, to him, HER, possibly. I mean think about it. Either that judge is going to have to recommend she pump her own breast milk for Dad’s use on alternating days (have we gone that far in court orders invading a woman’s biology and self-care) to having baby just do one breast milk, and one formula. Unless Dad has another willing and lactating female to draw from (pun unintentional). There is no odditiy, no outrage, no contradiction of common sense I’d not put beyond this system, most have already occurred within it, I hope.
It did talk to a mother with children who was in this situation at the conference, and more outrageous. I question whether women should “submit” to that at all, and should remember to warn others beforehand.
The healing from trauma is not likely to progress while while trauma is ongoing. When trauma comes from being unable to help — or even know the condition of — an immediate relative –one that fights have been fought over — while the aftermath of the last few assaults remain — the issue is FIRST to rectify that situation, and then to deal with the trauma more seriously, I believe. I’m saying this to explain the length of this post, and in deed many of mine. It helps me to write, and there are other (non-offending) ways to manage, one of which is to focus on something else, and do so for a good while. I’ve just attended a conference I’ve heard about for years, but couldn’t afford to get to (other side of the USA), and put face and voice, and observed in action, the professionals that are supposed to be stopping these outrages (in the courts) and assaults on free speech in the courts about important matters.
Mothers are getting gag orders, as well as thrown in jail. I have not heard of a father getting a gag order about his case, to date — have you? Although I’m years in the system, from what I can tell, things have n’t changed much.
And the “buy our book” people, I witnessed in action some attempts to handle reasonable questions from Moms lined up at microphones, and they had no answers, for the most part, to some very critical ones, namely, “what do you do if your judge is a crook?” The entire business was based on the premise that they aren’t — they “just don’t understand — but we can train them, maybe, so they “know better.”
I find that sadly lacking in reason. Writing, here, diverts some of the alarm about the situations.
SHARE THIS POST on...
@My Comments, Your Blogs: Rights for Mothers, BMCC, 12/28/2010: Family Court Cover(up)s no Patchwork Quilt, but a near-Seamless System
(need to work on those snappy titles…)
Readers are advised that I rarely tag and categorize my posts any more. If you want to find something, try the search function.
I’ve been blogging ( and commenting) long enough on certain topics (herein) that when I google, a site comes up which I know refers to my comment on the topic, not the blogger’s posts. So I figure — give those guys a break, and start putting it here instead, keyword “@” in the title line.
Too few people are writing on the heart of these issues. I think people reach their energy expiration dates on tackling the topic (or they are hurt or disappear somehow?). … One finds blogs that aren’t updated, and date from 5 to 10 years ago, are off the wall and telling the truth (not fluff and not rhetoric). I find these are often the most accurate, straightforward, and easy enough for an eighth grader (who can read & do basic math, I should qualify) to understand.
Which is probably why those sites can’t be easily niche-marketed; and many times whoever wrote them doesn’t make the effort to get a high search ranking, either. The authors probably weren’t paid, and to get paid in these fields, one has to repurpose, copyright and repackage the obvious. So, how does one market and repackage:
“I believe and have concluded that these people/organizations/associations/institutions/foundations and agencies are (or, were originated by and steered by, if not operated by,) criminals and engaging in legalized criminal rackets“?
a.k.a., the Sky is Falling or we’re headed for that fabled Armageddon, that “Valley of Decision,” and not because of religious fanatics (although they may relish and prepare for it a little better….). As one site says (with whom I have no association!!: I google, I cut, I paste, cogito (or so I like to think 🙂 ) ergo I am….OK?). I hunt, and I gather:
Whereas Armageddon is actually a mountaintop, most references relative to it are concerned with the valley that lies below it. During the past 4000 years, at least 34 bloody conflicts have been fought at the ancient hilltop site of Megiddo and the adjacent areas below in the vast Jezreel Valley. Throughout history Megiddo and the Jezreel Valley have been Ground Zero for battles that determined the very course of civilization.*** Megiddo is a fascinating site of twenty cities built directly on top of one another and inhabited continuously from 3000 to 300 BC. Megiddo lies at an ancient strategic junction of roads running north-south and east-west. Whoever held control of Megiddo held absolute control of one of the major trade routes of antiquity, the Via Maris. (the “Way of the Sea”)
***The internet has changed this, somewhat, and it seems that among other places the battle for control of civilization is being fought is, in these family court systems. They run deep (pockets) and they run wide (Paraprofessionals)…..
Many Christians believe that the Last Judgment will be held in the Valley of Jehoshaphat, interpreting the passage in the book of Joel:
- I will also gather all nations, and will bring them down into the valley of Jehoshaphat, and will plead with them there for my people and for my heritage Israel, whom they have scattered among the nations, and parted my land. (KJV)
Well, the gathering these days seems to be of power and influence, and wealth (in the form of ongoing very profitable business with very little accountability) and warm bodies often bring this. So, they don’t gather “at the river” and they don’t gather in this valley (yet at least),but they do gather in the courts. If you control the courts — or live off them (think, feudalism, which it essentially is), you control a good portion of the world, because these are life and death decisions. There is transfer of time and assets and children, who of course are to be trained in a better way of thinking than their parents …
One could definitely divide the “theologies” into about three pieces, and practices to match:
- There is a loving God, live moral and just, and you’ll be rewarded by harmonizing to this resonance of that loving God, NOW.
- The universe is undergirded by justice, and if you don’t get this, you may come back reincarnated as something “lower” and have to work your way back up again (although it seems that humanity’s behavior qualifies as “lower-level” more often than not..)
- There is a (pissed-off) God, therefore, live moral and just because if not, you’ll pay later, but if you do, oh boy, just you wait! He’s been watching and waiting, and currently is pissed off..
- And by the way, this invisible God has representatives on earth — which we are and you aren’t. And chosen people (ditto).
- There is a God, and it is US. Accordingly, we will live moral and just insofar as it’s practical and no one is looking, because otherwise who will provide for us in old age? We are Gods by the divine right of innate superiority because — see, we are richer. There’s the evidence. Poor people are asking for it, might makes right and gain is godliness.
-
- Besides, it’s more fun to stockpile and steal, manipulate, and obtain immortality by naming something after yourself, like a foundation, or a theory.
I really can’t pronounce on officially all that. But, judging by Nature, if God created it, at times it, and hence in this worldview, its creator, God, is a great steward, and can handle droughts, it has a sense of humor for sure, and at times is extravagant beyond reason, and at times it seems to clear the plate and attempt to start all over from scratch. Consider, for example, the food chain.
(One thing I don’t really see “Nature” doing a lot is what we do to the animals we eat, or to the children we raise.)
There are of course many other varieties of spirituality (or atheism), but I think I got the three ones that are causing the rest of us non-extremist plebes the most trouble here and now.
So, this is my morning’s work, as another year without my kids draws to a close and I’m through with celebrating this holiday season, no matter under which theological or family umbrella. See graphic below:
o
There Was a Little Girl,
Who Had a Little CurlThere was a little girl,
Who had a little curl,
Right in the middle of her forehead.
When she was good,
She was very, very good,
But when she was bad, she was horrid.
Creative financing: dozens of municipal projects in Los Angeles County have been financed using bondlike instruments called COPs, which critics charge have allowed officials to enter into long-term financial obligations without voter approval
Insight on the News, April 15, 2002 by Kelly Patricia O’Meara
Since the downfall of Enron and the crippling of the former energy giant’s accounting firm, Arthur Andersen, a great deal of attention and concern has been focused on big business. To be more precise, the focus has been on whether the well-being of a corporation is real or imagined, and how one can get to the facts by running the maze of complicated financing packages and misleading accounting techniques set up by experts to confuse, obfuscate and obstruct. While most of the hubbub is centered on the private sector, the public sector is by no means exempt from such shenanigans.
Incidentally, this author (never met him/her) has also uncovered quite a bit in the family court system….Attempting to track funding tends to do that….
For instance, one need take but the barest peek at the funding of municipal projects in Los Angeles County — a microcosm of the nation’s local funding policies — to see that accountancy in county and municipal governments can be just as opaque where there is a desire to deceive. Just as Enron shareholders blindly followed management’s hype, taxpayers in the County of Angels appear to have drifted into a trance when confronted with how their civic monies are handled. What is clear is that the taxpayers — call them shareholders in the county — pay their money into the system and then look the other way. Where the money goes, how it is used and who gets the equity it buys is anyone’s guess.
Nowhere is this more evident than with the increasingly used financial instruments known as certificates of participation (COPs). It’s fair to say that those who run Los Angeles County prefer COPs. Literally dozens of municipal projects involving hundreds of millions of dollars have been financed using these financial instruments, which for all intents and purposes are bonds or debentures backed by county or municipal credit.
Adding my Panels to that Quilt:
~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #1.
~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #2.
~ ~ ~QUILT BLOCK/EXHIBIT #3.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Holy Mother of God!” — (Fatherhood by Commissions in Ohio)
No, really. Think about it — Jesus would’ve been in foster care by now, and then where would shari’a law, honor killings, and domestic violence have been? In fact, there’d probably not even be a Pope — just emperors and/or priest-kings… or . .. (God forbid) matriarchy…
When I read about these things, I think some entities are running frightened of women. I mean, this is really as much overdone as some of the decorations we see around town these days.
WWJD (what would Jesus Do) should rather be WWJB (Where would Jesus Be — if he’d been born in the USA, and in (let’s say for example) Ohio?)
He was an at-risk of becoming a juvenile delinquent without a significant father-figure IN HIS HOME. Look at it — died early, social reject, etc. Who was going to teach him ethics? Certainly not his mother! Moreover, she was showing up pregnant before the wedding ceremony. Bush et al would’ve had a fit! Abstinence education missed his generation. The guy never bought a home, never got a college degree, didn’t reproduce. Ran around preaching with a bunch of cult disciples…
How do you co-parent with God? And the irony of it is a lot of the people pushing this are conservative Christians. Not to mention, as I read the story (in the Bible, not the Nativity scenes around the neighborhood), Jesus himself was considered a threat to both religious and governmental authorities. Moreover, he didn’t treat women like sub-human species; perhaps that related to the crucifixion — who knows?
==
Once Ohio got Fatherhood Voted into law, there’s always the expansions and updates. Here’s some:
It’s just about everywhere:
The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood is launching the first ever Ohio County Fatherhood Initiativeavailable to counties throughout the state. More>>
TrainingEngaging the Non-Resident Father training is to provide participants with knowledge to support a practice shift toward engaging non-resident fathers in child welfare cases. More>>
Engage the CommunityThe Ohio Commission on Fatherhood is committed to participating in fatherhood-related programs, conferences, symposiums and other forums to increase public awareness of the central role fathers play in their children’s lives. More>>
In 2009, Commissioners realized the statue needs to be updated to reflect the Commission’s actual functions today. Therefore, two Commissioners introduced House Bill 349 which contains these needed amendments to our statute. More>>
[[THIS Is the link to the text copied below…]]
======
Let’s see what other “goodies” we can come up with this season. It’s SO O O o o o exciting !!!
http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/FundedPrograms/CountyInitiative.aspx
While the crisis of father absence is national, solutions must be found and implemented at the local level, one community at a time. Moreover, in this time of budget shortfalls and rising needs, local leaders must build collaborations and coordinate services. With this in mind, the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood is launching the first ever Ohio County Fatherhood Initiative available to counties throughout the state.
What will counties receive?
- Training on how to conduct a Needs and Assets Assessment in their communities
- Planning for a Leadership Summit on Fatherhood
- Assistance on how to implement a Community Action Plan on Fatherhood
- Guidance in how to identify and apply for sustaining funding for your County Fatherhood Initiative.
Who will provide the training?
The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood will provide technical assistance and contracted with the National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) to provide free training to all counties.
(Although it’s outrageous, from start to finish — what about atheists? What about women? What about the fact that many faith-based organizations are among the most abusive to women anywhere? And have been for centuries…— somehow this just doesn’t surprise me….)
When will the training occur?
The County Fatherhood Initiative will begin in January 2011 and continue the training over the next six months with webinars, workshops and technical assistance.
How much does the training cost?
The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood is paying for the training so there is no cost to the county. In fact, counties who successfully complete the training will receive a one-time $10,000 seed grant to begin fatherhood programs in their county.
And I couldn’t even get a dang free cell phone from Verizon help-line after losing all work, to some serious crimes against my family, OUR kids, myself. Why? Because one has to join a PROGRAM to get help like that. And I’d already cycled through these programs.
Like a sheep to the slaughter, I complied with all custody orders, court orders, sought to work it out, setting those court orders as a standard, and was fully trained in the rhetoric (by example) that a crime against a women is not a real crime. The crime against “society” is for any such woman to PROTEST a crime against herself, including her pregnant body, which crime is based on her gender, essentially. After all this, the reward is — we’re done with you, you are an unpaid surrogate mother who is unfit to mother because you think that standards apply within the home, and you have an option to set them.
Who can participate in the training?
Each county must identify their County Leadership Team who agrees to take part in the training and must consist of:
- County Commissioner or State Representative
- Family or Domestic Relations Judge
- Director of Child Support
- Director of Child Welfare
Leader of a local faith-based entity or business
Elected officials, judges and directors can assign a designee to represent them in the training but are asked to review and provide input into the planning process.
How does a county apply?
Submit the simple one page on-line form. Monica Mahoney from our office will contact you to confirm that your county has been selected to participate in the County Fatherhood Initiative. Please contact Monica at 614-752-1624 if you have additional questions.
Our long-term goal is for leaders from all 88 Ohio counties to participate in this training and launch successful County Fatherhood Initiatives in every county in the state. By working together, counties can promote responsible fatherhood and create long term solutions to the father absence crisis, one family at a time.
Beneficiaries by County (there’s a US map)Click on the name of any county to see what projects have been funded by the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood in that area
(To see all the strikeouts, go to the URL).
It’s not enough to HAVE a Fatherhood Commission (and initiative, and such).
Once the foot is in the door, then it needs to be expanded and updated — regularly, if possible:
(link, above).
READERs NOTE: This section has a lot of strikeouts, which are NOT shown on my post here. See the site for the overall impact…..
As Reported by the Senate Health, Human Services and Aging Committee
128th General Assembly
Regular Session
2009-2010
H. B. No. 349Representatives Weddington, Maag
Cosponsors: Representatives Letson, Harris, Derickson, Gerberry, Stewart, Belcher, Williams, B., Blessing, Bolon, Brown, Domenick, Dyer, Foley, Goyal, Harwood, Heard, Hite, Koziura, Luckie, Lundy, Mallory, McGregor, Newcomb, Phillips, Pillich, Sayre, Skindell, Sykes, Szollosi, Ujvagi, Williams, S., Winburn, Yuko
Senators Morano, Miller, R., SmithA BILL
To amend sections 5101.34, 5101.341, and 5101.342 of the Revised Code to revise the membership, staffing, and duties of the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood.BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:
Section 1. That sections 5101.34, 5101.341, and 5101.342 of the Revised Code be amended to read as follows:
Sec. 5101.34. (A) There is hereby created in the department of job and family services the Ohio commission on fatherhood.
In 2002, in the court system, a Center for Families & Children in the Courts was created. It has two co-chairs, one who works in that department (as I recall). She was (probably still is) married to the Director of the Children & Families First entity mentioned below, but I supposed that’s no conflict of interest. After all, it’s in everyone’s best interest (male female, believer/atheist, law-abiding citizen/felons, including repeat felons, and — well, gol dang it, just EVERYbody — that the FAMILY is the thing. And the Bill of Rights is hereby (and was a long time ago, I see) suspended, and irrelevant. Heck, Constitution, too. We’ll just collaborate and coalesce and no more oddballs like — say — well, like that Jesus of long ago, and his mother, and like those wise men that traveled to anoint another king within a certain country. . . . Nope. No sirree!!
The commission shall consist of the following members:
(1)(a) Four members of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker of the house, not more than two of whom are members of the same political party. Two of the members must be from legislative districts that include a county or part of a county that is among the one-third of counties in this state with the highest number per capita of households headed by females.
(b) Two members of the senate appointed by the president of the senate, each from a different political party. One of the members must be from a legislative district that includes a county or part of a county that is among the one-third of counties in this state with the highest number per capita of households headed by females.
It’s a bit hard to tell by the usage, but female HUMAN BEINGS are meant here. As minor children don’t usually head households, the word would be WOMEN. In the case that these FEMALES also were biologically related to the minor children of the household, they might — of course not in this day and time, but they MIGHT — be called “MOTHERS.”
But that might dignify them with qualities relating to personhood (or civil rights of some sort). So, in the legislature, it was voted, in the bill, that these are NOT mothers, NOR women, they are “females.” However, by virtue of the Y chromosome, and propagation (which takes, last I heard, at maximum few minutes of time and a compliant — or dominated — or receptive non-contraceptive-savvy, fertile female) any such of the opposite gender are hereby designated FATHERS.
Got that? If they are XX in the chromosome area, and running a household (even if they’re running it WELL), they are “females.” And that is not a family, it’s a “household.” However, if they have a Y Chromosome, etc. and do not even reside in that household, and may not even be competent to support themselves, (let alone others, or offspring) they are FATHERS.
Don’t ever confuse the two. Not even in this season celebrating a mother and a child (and “Family.”)
(2) The governor, or the governor’s designee;
(3) One representative of the judicial branch of government appointed by the chief justice of the supreme court;
(4) The directors of health, job and family services, rehabilitation and correction, alcohol and drug addiction services, and youth services and the superintendent of public instruction, or their designees;
(5) The assistant director of job and family services in charge of the office of child support created under section 3125.02 of the Revised Code, or the assistant director’s designee;
(6) One representative of the Ohio family and children first cabinet council created under section 121.37 of the Revised Code appointed by the chairperson of the council;
(6) Five (7) Seven representatives of the general public appointed by the governor. These members shall have extensive experience in issues related to fatherhood.
(B) The appointing authorities of the Ohio commission on fatherhood shall make initial appointments to the commission within thirty days after September 29, 1999. Of the initial appointments to the commission made pursuant to divisions (A)(3), (5), and (6) of this section, three of the members shall serve a term of one year and four shall serve a term of two years. Members so appointed subsequently pursuant to divisions (A)(3), (6), and (7) of this section shall serve two-year terms. A member appointed pursuant to division (A)(1) of this section shall serve on the commission until the end of the general assembly from which the member was appointed or until the member ceases to serve in the chamber of the general assembly in which the member serves at the time of appointment, whichever occurs first. The governor or the governor’s designee shall serve on the commission until the governor ceases to be governor. The directors and, superintendent, and assistant director or their designees shall serve on the commission until they cease, or the director or, superintendent, or assistant director a designee represents ceases, to be director or, superintendent, or assistant director. Each member shall serve on the commission from the date of appointment until the end of the term for which the member was appointed. Members may be reappointed.
Vacancies shall be filled in the manner provided for original appointments. Any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration date of the term for which the member’s predecessor was appointed shall serve on the commission for the remainder of that term. A member shall continue to serve on the commission subsequent to the expiration date of the member’s term until the member’s successor is appointed or until a period of sixty days has elapsed, whichever occurs first. Members shall serve without compensation but shall be reimbursed for necessary expenses.
Sec. 5101.341. (A) The Ohio commission on fatherhood annually shall elect a chairperson from among its members. The
The commission shall employ an executive director and may employ other staff as necessary for the commission to perform its duties under section 5101.342 of the Revised Code. The executive director and commission staff shall be in the unclassified civil service and shall serve at the commission’s pleasure. The commission shall specify the duties and compensation of the executive director and commission staff. The department of job and family services shall provide other staff and other support services for the commission.
(B) The commission may accept gifts, grants, donations, contributions, benefits, and other funds from any public agency or private source to carry out any or all of the commission’s duties. The funds shall be deposited into the Ohio commission on fatherhood fund, which is hereby created in the state treasury. All gifts, grants, donations, contributions, benefits, and other funds received by the commission pursuant to this division shall be used solely to support the operations of the commission.
Sec. 5101.342. The Ohio commission on fatherhood shall do both all of the following:
(A) Organize a state summit on fatherhood once every four years two-year period that begins on the first day of an odd-numbered calendar year and ends on the last day of the next succeeding even-numbered calendar year;
(B)(1) Prepare a report each year that identifies resources available to Identify and fund fatherhood-related programs and explores the creation of initiatives operated by government agencies and private, nonprofit entities, including initiatives that seek to do the following:
(a) Build the parenting skills of fathers;
(b) Provide employment-related services for low-income, noncustodial fathers;
(c) Prevent premature fatherhood;
(d) Provide services to fathers who are inmates in or have just been released from imprisonment in a state correctional institution, as defined in section 2967.01 of the Revised Code, or in any other detention facility, as defined in section 2921.01 of the Revised Code, so that they are able to maintain or reestablish their relationships with their families;
(e) Reconcile fathers with their families;
(f)(1) Increase public awareness of the critical role fathers play;
(2) Augment father-readiness by preventing premature fatherhood, building parenting skills, and providing employment-related services for low-income fathers;
(3) Promote and enhance father-child bonding, family reconciliation, and fathers’ involvement in schools by educating the public about such topics as childbirth, paternity establishment, child support, custody, visitation, incarceration, and re-entry into family life and society following incarceration;
(4) Develop fathers’ relationship skills to strengthen their capacity for success in parenting, employment, and marriage.
(2) The commission shall submit each (C) Prepare an annual report prepared pursuant to division (B)(1) of that evaluates the fatherhood-related initiatives funded under this section and submit a copy of each report to the president and minority leader of the senate, speaker and minority leader of the house of representatives, governor, and chief justice of the supreme court. The first report is due not later than one year after the last of the initial appointments to the commission is made under section 5101.341 of the Revised Code.
Section 2. That existing sections 5101.34, 5101.341, and 5101.342 of the Revised Code are hereby repealed.Section 3. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 5101.34 of the Revised Code establishing two-year terms for the members of the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood, the two additional representatives of the general public to be appointed by the Governor under that section, as amended by this act, shall be appointed to serve for initial terms as follows:
(A) One of the members shall serve for a term ending July 31, 2011.
(B) One of the members shall serve for a term ending July 31, 2012.
Please send questions and comments to the Webmaster.
© 2010 Legislative Information Systems | Disclaimer
Index of Legislative Web Sites
I feel that perhaps the point wasn’t made right that it’s about FATHERS. So, just in case it’s not clear, here’s another link, a task force on families ….This one dates to about 2001 or so.
All the usual characters are present as part of it, plus the Access Visitation stuff, plus advisors from Australia, Ireland and Canada (and AFCC), and of course the court program “Kids Turn,” plus a man known for promoting PAS in California and Arizona, Philip Stahl, Ph.D.
Ohio Task Force on Family Law and Children
Family Law Reform: Minimizing Conflict, Maximizing Families
Again, let’s take a look at the average composition of Congress, and figure out which end is up.
I wonder how the state legislatures are doing on that front….
(Could’ve done a different type of post:
as a survivor of some pretty awful Christmas seasons
(both with and without being assaulted right before, right after, or having to
flee the home right before, or right after, this major family holiday)
I think enough is likely enough. I’ve had enough of it. If I had to choose between staying together in this farce of a family where “family” is idolized (breaking the First Commandment — no other gods before me) or being a custodial mother where this holiday was specifically targeted for incidents,
or a (now) noncustodial mother and simply out of that loop..
I think I’d ditch them all..
SHARE THIS POST on...
Thomas.loc.gov ~~ “The Little Engine that Could,” possibly Charge Uphill
This post is personal, philosophical, reflective, anecdotal, and doesn’t pretend to any scientific standard.
HOWEVER, this season, I do recommend U.S. Moms and Dads (and others) give themselves “The Little Engine That Could..” This is not a pep talk, but a search engine by the name oScreen Optionsf “THOMAS,” launched in 1995, and good thing, too!
About Thomas:
“Thomas” tells you what your elected representatives in the U.S. Congress have said and have done. its syntax cannot be harder than a foreign language to learn. In responding to pleas (from women’s groups) in various states to help this or that railroaded family law case, using DV terms, I have time and again noticed that these same DV (Domestic Violence) nonprofit agencies persist in absolute ignorance of what’s going on in their own state affecting these cases, and has been for almost a decade. They speak only their own language, and debate only segments of oppositional languages. This is a distraction. Why should I spend my (precious) time helping people who are not coachable?
This same 104th Congress slipped through a welfare reform “addendum” that basically compromised the due process in the courts for an “outcome-based” legal process. It was a slick maneuver by “fatherhood practitioner” Ron Haskins (as I heard this), to divert TANF funding to bring back Dads in order to (ostensibly) collect/enforce child support.
This spawned all kinds of demonstration projects, subject BY LAW primarily to the Secretary of Health and Human Serivces. Following suit, various states appointed Fatherhood Commissions that are so thoroughly entrenched in government, only a fool (which we have been) would believe that court cases are won or lost on the evidence as compared to criminal laws, when criminal behavior has been identified. It took me almost losing my life (and losing a lot that was central to it) to somehow unearth this information — and comprehend the significance of it.
Domestic Violence is known to cause death, sometimes, poverty usually, and homelessness, a lot. It is one reason many women who have been involved with a partner separate from that partner, or try to. Our lovely government response to do this was to create parallel, and conflicting systems of grants (which basically cancel each other out), split the proceeds between cronies, and work with family court also, to split more proceeds examining and evaluating the failures these policies have created. The wording justifying what I just said is found at “45 CFR 303.109.”
http://cfr.vlex.com/vid/303-109-monitoring-funded-visitation-19934173
and the syntax “45 CFR 303.109” can be learned by anyone able to text “lmao” or “lol,” and is a good deal more useful..
I learned that my own government now defines what “family” is. (1995-1996 Congress):
S.1209 — Responsible Parenthood Act of 1995 (Introduced in Senate – IS)
S 1209 IS104th CONGRESS1st SessionSEC. 8. DEFINITION OF FAMILY.
Section 501(b) (42 U.S.C. 701(b)) is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(5) The term `family’ means a child under the age of 19, the biological or adoptive parents of the child, the legal guardian of the child, or a responsible relative or caretaker with whom the child regularly resides, the siblings of the child, and other individuals living in the child’s home.’.
Probably it’s a good idea to speak the same language. Thomas.gov is where one can learn “GovSpeak,” and listen in on how elected leaders talk about the electorate (i.e., US).
We’d better learn about “PROWA” act, Title III, Subtitle “I” (alpha), Section 381.”
The day after tomorrow is the 15th anniversary of that particular conference report.
In my next “life,” I plan to schedule time to pay much better attention to politicians, in their own words — not from “CNN” or “Town Halls,” but on the record. The Congressional Record!
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 4, PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY ACT OF 1995 (House of Representatives – December 21, 1995)
Subtitle I–Enhancing Responsibility and Opportunity for Non-Residential Parents
Sec. 381. Grants to States for access and visitation programs.
HERE, “Enhancing Responsibility and Opportunity for Non-Residential Parents”
is 1997 Secretary of Health & Human Services, Donna Shalala’s form letter to Governors describing this (by now, Section 391, not 381) same subtitle welfare reform plan.
[OCSE heading reads:] Giving Hope and Support to America’s Children
Secretary, DHHS Letter to Governors
Grants to States for Access and VisitationThe Honorable
Dear Governor
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) provides up to $10 million annually for grants
to the states for access and visitation programs. The authority
contained in Title III, Subtitle I – Enhancing Responsibility and
Opportunity for Non-Residential Parents (which adds Section 469B to
the Social Security Act) presents an opportunity to address problems
that have caused much pain and suffering for parents and children
alike.The statutory language contains very general guidance for states on
what are considered appropriate activities to be carried out with the
grant funds. The grants are “to enable states to establish and
administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’
access to and visitation of their children.” Eligible activities
include but are not limited to mediation, counseling, education,
development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement, and
development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody
arrangements.The amount of the grant for each state for a fiscal year will be an
amount equal to the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during
the fiscal year for eligible activities or an allotment. The
allotment formula derives from the ratio of the number of children in
the state living with only one biological parent in relation to the
total number of such children in all states. The amount of the
allotment available to the state will exhibit this same ratio to
$10,000,000. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will
adjust the allotments to ensure that there is a minimum allotment
amount of $50,000 per state for fede
ral fiscal year 1997.The ACF is charged with the responsibility of issuing regulations
setting forth how states “shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such
programs.” Within ACF, program administration will reside with the
Office of Child Support Enforcement.States have considerable flexibility in determining appropriate
administrative arrangements. The grants may be used to create or
enhance state-run programs or to fund grants or contracts with
courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities.
Programs do not have to operate statewide.{{this is where cronyism and backroom deals are invited in..}}
As a first step, we ask that you designate a single state agency with
whom we will interact on a continuing basis in launching and carrying
out this new responsibility. Again, the choice of agency is a matter
within your discretion.*** Your selection and the name and title of an
appropriate official within the designated agency should be
communicated in writing at your earliest convenience to David Gray
Ross, Deputy Director of our Office of Child Support Enforcement at
901 D street SW, 4th Floor Washington D.C. 20447.We look forward to fashioning a partnership in this new program, a
program with the potential to positively impact the lives of children
and their parents. {{Note pretense of gender neutrality.}}If any questions should arise, they may be
directed to Judge Ross at 202-401-9370.Sincerely,
Donna E. Shalala
***In hindsight, this is “brilliant” centralization of control, removing it yet further from the courts’ concept of “due process.” Congress, blaming poor mothers for their poverty, and the welfare program for its own existence, votes in language of fatherhood into public law. Anyone who failed to pay attention didn’t notice a single head of a single U.S. Dept (the Secretary) reaching to Governors, to a single state agency to radically transform business as usual. I hate to bring this up, but Congress is now, and was then, majority white (Caucasian) males. Men are not a majority in the U.S. (women are), and whites of either gender are not a majority on the globe. Nor would I expect that the average white male Congressperson has experienced poverty, even if his father did. I sincerely doubt that whites of any gender or nationality represent the bulk of the world’s poor, but it’s likely they have started the bulk of the world’s wars, and genocides, including some in Africa.
And I am getting tired of this. Let these people (Congress) practice what they preach! They preach “jobs” (certainly in this bill) but themselves have often inherited wealth. Their own jobs are on the backs of taxpayers. Foundations don’t pay taxes, nor do nonprofits. Accordingly (above) promising to “help” “the public.” (say, who??) they innately bond with their own and funnel grants to them, also. I’m tired of the two-tiered information system: One for those with savvy (& internet) and another for those still stupid enough to trust — versus monitor daily — their public servants to be as hardworking, ethical, or honest as those whose wages pay them.
At that (1997) time in my life, the words “welfare” meant being not shot, or stabbed, or slapped, thrown, etc. and learning to live with enough caution to avoid this. I was actually working FT, and learning Internet (self-taught) which was not safe to use at home while still married. Little did I know that even then, plans were in place to put back into our lives fathers who had committed crimes against us, because by virtue of showing up single and temporarily poor, a way to keep us permanently poor by compromising BOTH child support AND safety was winding its way through Congress, and into the courts (etc.):
The natural offspring of “National Fatherhood Initiative” and President Clinton’s 1995 Fatherhood Executive memo — let alone “fatherhood.gov,” and so forth, are state-based “Fatherhood Comissions.” I discovered Hawaii, then Ohio, and any googling fool can see that Illinois, Maryland, Connecticut, etc., are all ga-ga about “fathers.” And mothers go to court like lambs to the slaughter, unaware of how things work in their own government:
Here are just a few. I’m not even going to link them all for readers. A search takes only seconds — do your own!:
- MARYLAND: The Commission on Responsible Fatherhood was created by the Welfare Innovation Act of 2001 (Chapter 395, Acts of 2001). Its charge was to make Marylanders aware of the problems that face a child raised without the presence of a responsible father. Obstacles that keep responsible fathers from being involved in their children’s lives were to be identified and strategies to encourage responsible fatherhood were to be devised by the Commission.The Commission last met in September 2002.
- Major F. Riddick, Jr., Chair (chosen by Governor)Appointed by Governor: David A. Engle, 2002; Joseph T. Jones, 2002; Ronald B. Mincy, Ph.D., 2002; Jeffrey M. Johnson, Ph.D., 2003; David L. Levy, Esq., 2003; Elaine A. Anderson, Ph.D., 2004; Thomas R. Rider.Nominated by Senate President: one vacancyNominated by House Speaker: Rudolph C. CaneEx officio: T. Eloise Foster, Secretary of Budget & Management; Georges C. Benjamin, M.D., Secretary of Health & Mental Hygiene; {{“Mental Hygiene”??? Makes me shudder, almost}} Denese F. Maker, designee of Secretary of Human Resources; John P. O’Connor, Secretary of Labor, Licensing, & Regulation; Nancy S. Grasmick, Ph.D., State Superintendent of Schools; Bonnie A. Kirkland, Esq., Special Secretary for Children, Youth, and Families.
- FLORIDA — bone up on the language. Fatherhood Programs launched in multiple states (yet are supposedly “grassroots”?? When it’s not expected low-income, or court-litgating mothers are present, the language is strikingly honest.
:
According to the Urban Institute, about two-thirds of the nearly 11 million American fathers who do not live with their children fail to pay child support.1 Therefore it is no surprise that children who grow up fatherless are five times more likely to be poor.2
First Generation Fatherhood Programs
Fatherhood programs are not, in fact, new. The first large-scale program, Parents’ Fair Share (PFS), was launched in the early 1990’s, when the fatherhood movement was just beginning to take shape in the national arena. Although the program was largely a disappointment, its shortcomings have provided valuable lessons to a new generation of practitioners.
{{A new generation of “practitioners” — on whom? Of what? WITH what? This is symptomatic of what happens when public income is used to practice on the unsuspecting…Failure is no deterrent to trying again … at public expense…Money was diverted, and is still, from helping custodial mothers to failed projects on helping NON-custodial fathers. }}
The Parents’ Fair Share demonstration project was an employment and training program aimed at increasing the earnings of non-custodial fathers unable to pay child support due to lack of or low income. Funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Labor, and private sponsors, PFS opened its doors in cities in seven states: California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and Tennesse
If you’re going to do something government style, start big and fail big, and keep on failing — after all, the infrastructure (producing failure) represents a substantial investment. ….of OPM (Other People’s Money) .
OK, I cannot keep up this blog with this [slow, slow, laptop] computer, and as the years of my life spent on this issue of survival continue to spin forward. I am marking it at 18-20 years (one full generation) of stripping off values, family, income, and respect for nearly any institution I’ve sought help from.
I have come to the conclusion that the act of seeking help, in current climate, sends out an ultrasonic distress signal that attracts vultures and other predators with specially developed sonar to hear these calls. The language of “help” implies the right to refuse it, or to promise, and fail to deliver. No can do! !!! Swooping in, talking “advocacy,” they do indeed advocate — for programs endorsed by their nonprofit, agency, or foundation-funded goals, which are rarely more than a 50% match with the woman’s goals, which are to get HERSELF and her FAMILY (kids) free from abuse by specific personnel. AFTER which, she/they may go on to transform society, eradicate oppression, and stop all family violence – – — — if they choose to.
Most noncustodial women I know simply triumph by virtue of simply surviving (they are somehow still breathing), generally having lost contact with their children entirely after trying to protest legal abuse through the family law venue. Exhausted (and I’m just about there, too), they may not become zealots (or professionals) for the cause, but rather wish their own lives back, and a little privacy. It’s a shame, because otherwise, we could learn from their lessons more directly, rather than learn by theories developed in a far-off laboratory or website or conference.
Assuming my comment will be approved, I discuss this on a “RightsforMother” post called “DV by Proxy.” I was struck by the continual characterization women adopt — of themselves — as losers (of custody), battered, enduring abuse, suffering, and wrongly diagnosing their own problems! This was from a group (also specializing in the psychological terminology field) called “The Leadership Council,” whom I have already begged to drop the endless debates about “parental alienation” and instead pool some of their resources (resources I don’t have, despite having endorsed this language previously) to something more useful to women in my situation. Similarly, another g roup calling itself “Center for Judicial Excellence” refuses to address the money trail, and another one called “Family Violence Prevention Fund” is itself right on the money — receiving grants from the fatherhood movements in the name of “family” and (appropriately to this funding) just about deleting any positive usage, or graphic presence, of the word “mother” on their website. (see my 10-31-2010 post).
Look to nature for examples of how human beings behave at different times — the analogies really do apply!
Clumping together with others seeking help identifies one as part of a “bait ball,” and is bad advice.
Language is critical to freedom, and corruption of it is a supreme tool for stealing from others, for initiating war, and for maintaining systems of slavery. In order to perceive any set of parables or beliefs, one must be willing to step outside them and look with another set. As with spectacles / glasses, the combined lenses give a clearer picture.
Whoever (collectively speaking) spoke, wrote, assembled, and preached what is now known as “the Bible,” essentially, “The Book,” fully understood the importance of parables, authority, and systems of logic and language to unite people. Also going with this was a code of ethics, and one of the most negative assessments of human nature without “God,” seen almost anywhere. According to the Bible, people are helpless, clueless, corrupt, and in need of redemption from birth onwards. The history of bringing people “out of bondage” (Egypt) and calling them to become a new people is filled with prophets scolding recalcitrant children, and predicting their failure; they must just hold on til “the Christ” came and by virtue of believing their own savior would come, or on Him when he did come, or on him after he came — is their salvation. Apart from this, we are helpless babies.
I was not raised with this book, but looking at a family (one of the kind the government would laud to the skies, and pours millions into making sure that children have one), a nuclear family with adequate housing, education, and even college, based on a father’s income and a mother’s mothering, plus a public school education for most of the kids — even as an adolescent, I knew this was an ethically, emotionally, psychologically, and spiritually bankrupt model.
Both my parents grew up poor, and by diligence and personal development (plus, I can say, elements of fortune), did what is called “well.” Like many such families who did “well,” after the nest was empty, my father, and many of his colleagues, dumped their faithful wives, who’d fulfilled their purposes, for a younger model — or at least a different model. Meanwhile, the kids who saw this cleared out, and took off separately. Such was the “nuclear” family in changing times. We split like ball bearings dropped on smooth glass, and went and became professionals.
My mother went back to school, and work, succeeding at that, and from what I can tell, never suffered financial lack the entire rest of her life. AND, never developed a passion in work, or a passion in life afterwards (as we children did). My father apparently (circumstances are still something of a mystery to me) responded to his divorce by trying on a number of different women (including a rebound wife), squandering a lot of what he’d earned, and finally resettled on my mother again. Then, a few days after retirement, he died suddenly. My mother never (that I know of) dated, remarried, or did a whole lot more than mildly exist in her communities.
As we had as a nuclear family, she existed, beautifully, and did things that women of her class did in those days. She did not communicate much, and had no particular wisdom to pass on to the next generation. Perhaps she got wore out from this particular husband. I see my mother as a shut-down woman, whose personality came out in certain circumstances, but was not really welcome in the family home.
The chief inheritance I can speak of is the example that there’s got to be something worth dedicating one’s life to besides profession, and that one can win much, and be a failure in life from another perspective.
Now I am close to the age at which she was dumped, however in a society which dumps certain mothers AS mothers, sometimes from the hospital, other than that, from the Early Childhood stages. Some classes are allowed to keep their children at home and nurture them, but most are not. Of those classes, chances are the stay-at-home dedicated mother (and I’ve known many of them, living in diverse communities — urban, suburban, etc. — over the years) will still be dumped, if not bankrupted, should divorce be done. Too often, that work is not valued, but her children are valuable, and the fights over them will fund another generation of family court professionals and their cronies. Fathers, expected to pay child support, will be recruited to get it abated through custody litigation aimed at preventing the welfare queen scenario. Kids will grow up — if they are lucky — without witnessing severe violence, repeated disruptions, or being farmed out to strangers (for pay) and neglected or abused in the process.
Mine have been. The restraining order that protected us briefly, long ago, was undone almost before it was out the gate. My family endorsed this, and gave what was a religious “shunning” for failing to switch abusers (rather than exit the abusive relationship). My kids’ child support was eliminated through custody switch, and I do believe that the father was exploited at a time of trauma for him, also, to enter into a custody fight when he didn’t even want the children. It took almost NO time for us to turn from two working parents who both had access to their children, me – because of a safety zone — being able to for once work in my profession, retain the income from it, and spend it without retaliation, and mostly on our children. I was allowed to make decisions about my own infrastructure (income-to-expense ratio, choice of housing, work, neighborhoods, associates) so as to become financially independent in work I loved, and had worked in prior to marriage; a scenario that allowed for parenting time and flexibility, because it was efficient.
The family of origin has never forgiven me for that — to date. I have been astonished, repeatedly, over the virulence. None of the family of origin has ever acknowledged any of the court rulings, verbally or in practice, but instead demanded I fork over my offspring, our offspring, as if they were for sale on the black market. The “rationale” for this was — solely — that I was a single mother. All other characteristics of the previous marriage, any academic or professional achievements (which were plenty enough), any work history, any LEGAL history (in the decade since), in fact virtually anything — is off the table for discussion.
While not a scientist, I have a healthy respect for “cause & effect,” and for whatever brief freedom from violence in my home that restraining order (much as I mock them as unenforceable, or certifiably insane — which they are — they DO sometimes provide a toe-hold out of the well of abuse) obtained. I have an appreciation for the need for LIBERTY and clearly understand that anyone financially enslaved is indeed a slave, and a beggar.
I do not know (and no longer care) what caused my particular family of origin to be so rigidly and viciously insisting that their “family” needs a scapegoat, and I must be it, apparently because of birth order. While they have mocked religion as for intellectual infants, I find (having some exposure to religion) that this attitude is itself infantile. An appreciation of the role of religion in politics, and in history, gives at least another language through which to understand the world, including some serious threats to its continued existence.
Repeatedly disrupting a household (notice, I didn’t say, FAMILY) is to repeatedly disrupt a CULTURE. Before people get their bearings, it’s time for another shakedown. This IS the family law system. It externalizes judgment to paid professionals, a cult of “experts” who themselves are many times operating from their own personal bad experiences in marriage or family, OR who are just crooks looking for an easy living (compared to being a family court litigant, for sure) in the world of prophetic psychological “diagnoses.” With heads in theory, and pre-occupied with the “scientific” evidentiary basis of it, they are blind to the real suffering, including death!, that this rains down on their subject matter.
I believe that this detachment from the “other” (professional/client) is as dangerous an attitude as Nazi-ism, eugenics, and the plantation mindset that a war was fought over, in the U.S., less than 100 years after we became a nation.
I first became aware of this detached language/perspective when looking up the educational backgrounds of some of the small, but VERY well positioned “Center for Policy Research” (all women). It became obvious that before completing college, the mindsets and career curve were set in place. This small organization has had a huge impact on the United States, for decades now. As kids beg, are abused by noncustodial parents who became custodial through the courts, as families are killed over “custody disputes” and kids get kidnapped, or flee with protective mothers overseas, and now are hauled back and their Moms jailed for doing this, as the next generation is growing up traumatized, rootless, and watching the U.S. version of a public flogging of (sorry, but I have to say), their mothers — they learn fast not to bond with those mothers, lest the same treatment be given them.
While the “Access/Visitation” funding to each state is supposed to protect the children through “supervised visitation centers,” in effect it is doing the exact opposite. Besides draining money from taxpayers, and often the affected parent (when such a parent must pay to see a child), these are in effect centers for experimentation / data collection / future studies on parent/child relationships. They are also tools to abuse the wrong parent, and can become also side-streams to a profiteering racket run by judges, retired judges, attorneys, or mediators, etc.
I have been blogging on this now for approximately a year and a half of joblessness through domestic violence, with the social safety net more tangled (and ineffective) than the abusive marriage, family of origin, family court process, associated religious (Christian) groups covering it up in order to retain THEIR corporate cash flow (from families/fathers/services of Moms & even kids). I have also just about explored (to my content) what most major DV agencies and (at least local) nonprofits are doing in this field.
They have their professional/funding niches, and will not compromise it for the sake of some lowly truths, including that more and more parents know the “scams” and including that no — and I do mean NO (zero) (nada) (zilch)(“squat”) — NO evidence that these are indeed making a long-term POSITIVE difference in the welfare of abused women IF . . .. IF . . . . . IF . . .. a father contacts (or already has connections), or is contacted by — some of the fatherhood groups running the racket in the courts.
It should not be about “fatherhood” or “motherhood” or “childhood.”
“Family” is a word. It is a concept, only, and its meaning is so loose as to be meaningless.
Moreover, all Americans should be aware of alternate (in)famous “families.” For example, see Jeff Sharlett’s writings on “The Family” in Arlington, VA. Or the Rev. Sun Myung Moon interpretation of himself and his wife as the True Parents of the world. Heck, the Mafia is a “family” enterprise, right? The word “Godfather” has two key concepts in it. Watch out which god, and what is being “fathered.”
Personal testimony:
But I am here to tell you that the model of “Dad, Mom and 2.5 children” is not all it’s cracked up to be. I successfully filled that model, through college, and marriage, married an abuser, got loose, lost all support systems and profession and contact with my daughters. I went from destitute to solvent (while RO was on), and was driven back to destitute — but with more debt and fewer workings years left — exclusively — and I stand by this — because of the abject failure of family, family law, law enforcement, faith institutions, and “domestic violence nonprofits” to simply do the logical things — practice what they preached, and openly inform their clients who they are and what they are in fact doing.
On this blog, as spotty and erratic as it is, I have told what are the UNTOLD facts of the operating system of the courts, and directed those who care to look, to websites that are NOT only:
fatherhood
motherhood
childhood
family
feminist, feminist-backlash language (essentially think; NOW vs. NFI)
DV language
Religious language
the language of psychology
etc.
And as a Christian, I say, it can be an idol, and is. Even Jesus had his family issues later in life, and was — come to think of it — at some point, run in a “female-headed household.” So — was he a failure? (those who say he actually existed) Did he make any lasting contributions to society? Did he run to drugs, violence, gangs, or become a male prostitute?
It should be about UNalienable rights to Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness.
One cannot consider “Life” without considering economic systems; eating is intrinsic to life. Mortaging one’s time to a paycheck is one model of purchasing food. Selling goods and services is another. Owning businesses is another. Investing is another. So is stealing, selling one’s body – or someone else’s. Fewer and farther between in the US is growing one’s own food the norm. Centralization is the key word, and this includes of education.
When education doesn’t routinely include much more than how to learn to work a job (which is what the public schools generally speaking train children to do), not ethics, not how their own economic system works, and certainly not how government (actually “works”), it is training for obsolescence and a debt-ridden lifestyle, for a lifetime.
It’s rarely the “theory” so much as the “technology.” The pipelines.
The language to learn is the organizational language that our (U.S.) country has become. It is fascinating, and it will dispel some ignorance, myth, and false hopes. While it’s true, history is written in the terms of the conquerors, one can still check a variety of sources on nonprofits, foundations, institutes, and professional organizations. Language similarities are key.
Also, we have an under-utilized Library of Congress site, underutilized “TAGGS.hhs.gov” grants database for the Health and Human Services agency, although it, too, is incomplete and inaccurate — it shows trends. (I have not yet learned how to navigate the DOJ grants system), and it would really behoove Americans to keep track of (keep a binder on!) their own President’s STate of the Union addresses, and (my New Year’s Resolution) to start reading the Daily Digest of Congress.
They are elected representatives, and you (we) are “the people.” It has GOT to be a civic duty to make it clear, they represent us — and do not “own” us. While it’s acknowledged, many are “owned,” changing this has got to be a worthwhile fight.
In order to maintain any edge in this fight, more people have to stop sucking off the government teat(s) for their basic needs. More than Libertarians and Tea Partiers, who are going to dump off single mothers (and ethnic minorities) in the process.
I lived a moderate lifestyle all my working years, content within my profession centering around arts-based nonprofits working across a variety of venues as arts-based nonprofits do.
I worked, from college forward through marriage to filing of my domestic violence restraining order, I worked or was in FT school. I had roommates or lived alone, navigated work and housing changes successfully in different states, and added a second degree through a solid work-study experience, picking up more skills and developing personally.
Almost the first aspect of marriage was economic abuse (shutting me down as an economic entity whatsoever- item #1. Item #2 — pregnancy, #3 — physical assault & battery while present, plus psychological terrorism, #4 — dominance/threat model being established, either I was working to still beg (for basic needs for children and me), and/or begging to work (to obtain these through employment). I mistakenly allowed the first steps to economic control in part from shock, in part from no one around to stick up for me: family not close, religious groups did “religion,” and I had simply not run across this odd beast before:
- You must shut down your credit
because it had a balance. Next, was ”
- give me your ATM
.” Many liberal/progressives (I tended that way, sort of blending it in a balance, ideally, with faith — with a social justice flavor, etc.) just don’t “get” this. Their liberal progressivism doesn’t apply “within the family,” and when it comes with a personal cost, called risk. Someone else must bear that burden.
Possession of a wife quickly changes the attitude of certain men, and the community endorses it.
We are not talking “yearning for Zion” type enclaves — but the panoply of communities who literally see abuse, criminal behavior “out in the open” — but figure someone else will handle it.
It’s a shame I married someone afraid of independence, and it’s a shame I actually had enough curiosity about my family of origin to move within geographic range of them in the middle of my work life. There is no turning back those decisions, however, there is the hope to survive the worst ones, and re-take ground lost.
It is one thing to watch an entire set of associations not “turn the other cheek” but turn “deaf, blind, and dumb.” (Turn a blind eye….) towards wife-abuse and that’s what it is. It is violence against women because they are (married, in this case) women. Filed & labelled, it’s not their job.
But it is entirely another to get free from that one situation to face the same “deaf, dumb and blind” individuals proclaim loudly, “we see — now let us take over!” Any mother would turn outside that realm to the legal and nonprofit realm of help, while rebuilding her/their lives, especially income-based freedom.
Well, guess what. . .. those are no better, or more honest (trust me on that one, or gather more anecdotal evidence in your community!) The same process of “no thank you!” is essential. Rather than endlessly seeking help, women just have to, as we can, figure it out and pursue our own priorities. For me, the language of liberty-self-sufficiency, self-determination, and self-defense are FIRST. This is not “selfish” at all! It’s responsible citizenship, and responsible parenting; a good role model.
However, it does bring one into conflict with almost every entrenched system on the planet, as manifested in one’s local county court system, as run from (whoever runs) Washington, D.C.
Here, still, is a great example of sleuthing on a particular case from 2002. Scroll down below the blood and guts reporting on a disillusioned sniper (!!) / estranged Dad . . . . to this same individual’s “Devoted Dads” connection.
I will be “obnoxious” and paste paragraphs here to illustrate the scope of this problem. I have spoken at least once to the author, and understand she, too, has expended years exhorting others to follow these leads, and is likely exhausted and ready to regain her personal life.
Me too. This data-rich (proofreading-poor) blog is my part. I can’t live on air, and my “access” concerns right now include to healthy food, which is basically unavailable through Food Stamps (invasive, restrictive, massive, and suspicious of recipients. Certain items, such as healthy oils, or nutritional supplements to deal with the ongoing stresses of job loss through legal abuse, even after child loss, etc., are unavailable. I committed no crime to deserve this! Nor did other women in this situation through these same policies. Except the “crime” of not paying attention. Again, Give the Gift of “Thomas” — “Train” yourself and teach others this “Toolset.”
Analyzing the background of the 2002 DC Sniper, by Cindy Ross:
For a summary of how FR groups and their court allies obtain — and misuse — federal program grant funds through DHHS (Access/Visitation programs, DOJ (Arbitration/Mediation) programs, Responsible Fatherhood Programs, Co-Parenting Programs, and other mislabeled court-based federally sponsored “Family Services”, please see my summary, originally posted at NewsMakingNews.com in July, 2002, “Family Court Corruption”.
URL: http://newsmakingnews.com/ross7,8,02familycourtcorruption.htmNAFCJ has obtained program documents regarding the Responsible Fatherhood programs, which show that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)/Welfare programs are being used to recruit abusive men — including incarcerated criminals — into fathers’ groups, where they are provided with “benefits” including free or low cost legal services to assist them with getting custody and getting child support obligations reduced or eliminated.
NAFCJ has been working with legislators across the country, requesting an investigation at the federal level into Fatherhood and related Child Support Enforcement Program, Access to Visitation Enforcement and Welfare Program fraud. One of the primary programs we have looked into, is the “Devoted Dads” program in Tacoma, Washington.
NAFCJ has determined that John Muhammad’s former attorney, John Mills, is an attorney for — and his legal assistant, Mario Young provided paralegal services to “indigent clients” at — the Devoted Dads program: (See Footnote following this article which excerpts the relevant PDF FILE (Adobe Acrobat required).
URL: http://auditor.co.pierce.wa.us/Elections/Archives/September2001/VP_pdf/fire6pos1.pdfDevoted Dads is funded by the Metropolitan Development Council. According to NAFCJ Washington State Director Martha Jacobson, Devoted Dads received at least 1.3 million dollars in federal grants between May 1998 and May 2000. On 8-5-02, in a tape recorded interview with Ms. Jacobson, Doug Swanberg of the Metropolitan Development Council confirmed that Mr. Mills was the “part time attorney” for Devoted Dads. This suggests that John Muhammad — a “homeless” dad who abducted his kids and then applied for Welfare in Tacoma — was not only a personal client of Mr. Mills, but was one of the “indigent clients” being provided services and “benefits” through the Devoted Dads program.
Ms. Jacobson has also obtained copies of correspondence between Doug Swanberg and David Arnaudo. Mr. Arnaudo is the administrator of the $10 million in federal access grants to the states, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, who gave a presentation entitled “How to Obtain Access/Visitation Grants” at the Children’s Rights Council National Conference in 1999. URL: http://www.vix.com/crc/conf/
Children’s Rights Council is the same organization identified by NAFCJ as the “umbrella” organization of the Fathers’ Rights movement, which is cross affiliated with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). As described in my article “Family Court Corruption”, CRC/AFCC crafted “Parental Alienation Syndrome” (PAS) methodology — working with “experts” who advocate pedophilia and incest — as the means to assist child molesters and other abusive men get out of both criminal prosecution and child support obligations, while punishing mothers in supervised visitation and jail for reporting abuse.
I continue to be thankful for people who dedicated their investigation talents (probably for free) to dig up this information, and leave a track record.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Now Abideth These Three: Faith, Hope & Charity” — but not marriages….
This started out as a comic post from a court case. Alas, it’s become a morning ramble, with side-references to government faith- and marriage-policies, teacher’s unions, campaign financing, and (finally), the first Chicago mayoral race since 1989. Amazingly, these are actually related in a world hooked up to Internet, a global economic system that increasingly consolidates wealth in key decisionmakers, and these technologies dividing people into “haves” and “don’ts & won’ts” and blurring (linking..) government and religion, and the branches of government that in the U.S. were intentionally separated specifically so this would NOT happen.
Take it as a chat from a noncustodial mother who knows (another) Thanksgiving is upcoming with no anticipated contact with her children (now adults, or almost) and be Thankful I didn’t try empty the full contents of my heart about “how could these things be?” and “who has this society become?” onto the pages today.
Being female (?) or, being me, I noticed one-topic posts just don’t satisfy. This could’ve been a one-topic post, but the fun part of thinking is weaving at least 2 to 3 ideas together in unique ways. I tend to “braid.”
If you don’t, and want the main point, go to the bottom strand. The front two are usually added later as I think about the topic and try to add some layers of thought/relevance into the mix.
(1) Longwinded intro:
(early 1990s)…
Wife, becoming fundamentalist Christian, forgets I Corinthians 7:10ff,** awakens to the reality that her Jewish husband is going to hell. Husband, perhaps responding in kind converts to orthodox Judaism.
**This links to an entire chapter, with hyperlinks to every word to show a Greek link. Atheists and secular humanists should read to appreciate the dilemma of any “true believers,” in marrying — or for that matter — separating. The context in which it was set, to my understanding, was a culture not that different from ours in any fairly international, port city. The same group had already been confronted on incest (a man with his father’s wife), schisms, and apparently this was the big chapter on sex (with non-relatives….) which culturally was intrinsic to the worship service. Ain’t much new under the sun.
Put it together with the stipulation in another book, same author, that relegates forbidding to marry as a doctrine of the devil [but “Catholicism” is the universal church] , but celibacy is only if a man gets it from God as a gift, and marriage is not for the welfare of society, but so one doesn’t “burn.” Whether this is in hell, or from simple lust, isn’t unclear, but either way, it sounds like a “using” relationship as to the woman. All in all, for anyone who takes this all literally, and not with a grain of salt or metaphorically, it presents some mental challenges. Hence, the weak of heart, mind, or understanding might want to convert, take the beginner’s easy way out, and say your spouse is going to hell because s/he believes differently, thus at least temporarily solving YOUR existential/mental dilemma, if not your kids’ or your society’s…
Those who haven’t hung around Bible folks much (obviously, I’m not in this category) may sometime appreciate the suspension-of-reality factor is a real thing. Imagination and re-naming of reality is absolutely to humanity.
In a religious system which labels the world as F–‘ed up because of fallen human nature (i.e., not only maybe BEGAn with a big bang, but also will end in one, likely man or God-made, same difference essentially) ongoing, and while it’s NO excuse for abuse, it MAY explain why when individuals approach true believers with conflicting legal standards — such as, women do NOT exist to be used by men, in OUR culture, marriage, and child-birth, are to happen later, and no, it is not right to kill or threaten to kill your wife for committing adultery, or even if you think she did — or, if she gets too uppity.
One theory I have is that to function in two worlds simultaneously creates a constant tension between perceived and believed reality. Artists I know understand this, and have found ways to express it. This tension cannot and SHOULD not be eradicated, or creativity and the urge to invent, persist, or sometimes even WORK, leaves. The same total discrepancy exists between laws, in our country, and practice.
In the short case below (about which I know nothing more than is posted), it’s likely that the summary exaggerates the wife’s view (though not impossible) and the guardian ad litem asserts, with the court, that conflict hurts kids — they cannot handle religious diversity in the family, and will have a psychiatric breakdown if it continues. Therefore, they get only ONE majjor religion to be raised in, and with this, accept intolerance.
And like I’m saying — by “religion” and promising heaven while delivering (or delegating others to) hell, can be done by marriage, religion, or government operatives with equal facility and ease. It’s really a language/labeling thing.
Over the years, of exposure to both marriage, religions, and government agencies, initiatives, and operatives in all three categories, I think it’s reasonable to extrapolate that all men, and women, are innately liars. Therefore, it’s better to limit authority of one over the other; including of any single group over any other single group, by any profile whatsoever. Balance is better.
Generally speaking, thus, no matter what is systematically said, the opposite is going to be practiced. For example, “Social Services” means “Systematic Exploitation.” “I do” has a statistically about 50% chance of being followed through with, however sincere initially. As survival in our society becomes less and less natural behavior, we have less and less ability to actually know our own communities, neighbors, friends, and lovers in an environment NOT pronounced upon or defined by, well, someone else.
When this comes to religion, therefore, the general rule is that, while bringing in recruits by promising them heaven — the general reality is delivering hell to others. (I’m allowed to say this — I believe in
God, and can testify as to some of the hell delivered in name of Him, and because of my gender, personally).
I also believe that true atheism is a theory — rarely practiced. You gotta serve SOMETHING, or dedicate yourself to SOMETHING in life. If that something doesn’t match the pre-set religions, the quality of worship and focus is and seeking meaning in life is part of the human condition once basic survival needs are met, and helps in the seeking to meet them for those struggling with it.
The Jewish/Catholic situation sounds like a great match to me. But they had kids, and having kids does face people to actually make some decisions they can slide out of themselves, when beady-eyed dependent crying and pooping (regularly!) intelligent-question-askers move in, full-time, permanent (almost), nonincome-producing roomates that they are…These questions get asked often enough before speech sets in…Policies of some sort generally have to get set in order to get things done.
(I happen to know what looks like a good pair where Dad is a stay-at-home Jewish father, and mother, as I recall obviously not a stay-at home mother, and a Catholic, and kids go to a cooperative). I had many reasonable conversations with him indicating he had a good sense of himself, and of the communities we lived in.
One day in particular, this conversation was followed by a woman coming in from the local, nondenominational Protestant church (prominent in the community). She was about my age, heavily made up, svelte, and in a panic to get arts & crafts materials for a daughter’s project, attempted to engage me in a conversation about who alienated teenagers are (no, I didn’t identify…) and shared that her church was running classes on “how to be a woman.” She was obviously female as much as the pony-tailed stay at home Dad I’d just conversed with was obviously male. She had children, had a degree and a technical profession — and was submitting to church indoctrination as to how (not) be herself. Such is religion, folks! You WILL be defined, and whatever you are, must change into something else — like us — otherwise, you will be spat out, and labeled. Go find another group you more closely resemble.
But the days of tolerance are going away at least in this country, and people must take a stand either for or against religion, abortion, same-sex marriages, food-additives, welfare state or back to the plantation state, for or against national sovereignty, and under all this, we have a Democrat U.S. President raised Muslim, converted to Christianity, who seems to have taken Bush’s Initiatives to a whole new level, at least as deduced by $$ invested and rhetoric heard. I have a personal sense that for all this wonderful variety within our President and First lady, the institutions they run are becoming more and more authoritarian, intolerant, and dogmatic. Perhaps this is just an emotional pendulum our country is in labor (contractions) with.
Anyhow,
(2) Speaking of religion and marriage and government theory:
Prior to the dual conversions, they had three children, this 1990s case naturally provides business for a guardian ad litem and comic relief for me in this field.
How do you know when it’s time to stop using federal $$ (lots of them!) to push marriage because it’s good for them?
Answer: When the law of reverse efforts begins to set in:
-
Maybe file this case under: “The Three Faith Factors”
2002 Article by John J. DiIullio, Jr.: “John J. DiIulio Jr. is the Frederic Fox Leadership Professor of Politics, Religion and Civil Society and Professor of Political Science at the University of Pennsylvania. Previously, he was the first director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives under President George W. Bush from early 2001 to August 2001.”
Wow — apparently that didn’t work out too well. However, like what appears to be many in (and out) of government posts, they simply move over to a related institute, for example, Brookings, where the next year he wrote “The Three Faith Factors.” Hmm — what could they be?
Judaism, Christianity, Islam — no, despite certain longstanding wars among the three.
Catholicism, mainline Protestants, Mega-evangelical churches? — no. No, it says “factors.” Someone is breaking down a “product” into the factors that comprised it. a X b X c = DESIRED STATE OF HUMANITY.
More to the point, the Three Faith Factors are about:
But what types of religious influences are most beneficial to the individual and society? At least three separate but related faith factors can be identified-what I will call “organic religion,” “programmatic religion,” and “ecological religion.”
“Organic, Programmatic, and Ecological.” I knew that …..
Yep, the never-ending quest for the perfect equation to make the perfect society. Or, a former Faith-based Initiative appointee to continue in an advisory capacity to maintain a marketable niche & voice.
That was published one year after he was fired or quit (are there other options?) the (in)famous White House Office on Faith-Based Initiatives. The topic of this particular article was — like so much of what the White House Offices, now headed by Czars (a comforting concept, eh?) do — is how to research — and reform — and restructure– populations the researchers now (at least) have absolutely nothing in common with, whether or not they at one time did. In this case — religion is examined for its impact on the general health — especially urban youth in high-crime areas. (Do I need to add “black” or is this already implicit?):
Under what, if any, conditions does religion help to improve the lives of disadvantaged urban children and families, and how, if at all, can we [we WHO?] foster those conditions? Is there any significant body of evidence to suggest that religion reduces crime and delinquency among low-income, inner-city youth?
Photo of author at link above.
(see, I told you, there is no emphasis in these circles on white-collar, high-income, suburban or gated community crimes, or in examining what type of religious or areligious influences helped create inner cities and low-income areas which the idle? rich seem ever interested in analyzing…)
What religion is this smart guy from? Well, I’m going to hazard a guess, “Catholicism” based on his writing 7 years later for America, a Catholic magazine, and having written “Slowing the Exodus” (funny phrase for a religion famous for persecuting the Jews):
A national survey in 2008 by the Pew Forum got America’s Catholic clergy and lay leaders talking. It found that a third of Americans who were raised Catholic had left the church. One in 10 Americans was an ex-Catholic. Ex-Catholics outnumbered converts to Catholicism four to one.
In March 2009 the national American Religious Identification Survey found that between 1990 and 2008* the church’s flock fell from 26.2 percent to 25.1 percent of the total U.S. population, even though roughly half of all immigrants to the United States were Catholic.
*including the couple that inspired this post, below…
The March 2008 Pew survey also found that only 41 percent of all Catholics attend Mass weekly; only 57 percent consider religion important in their lives; only 44 percent believe that abortion should be prohibited in most or all cases; and only 35 percent oppose the death penalty.
Ex-Catholics and lapsed Catholics are a twin reality that cannot be attributed simply to changes in American culture. Many Americans now favor self-styled “spirituality” over “religion.” Old, religion-rooted moral codes are often mocked or worse by the nation’s secular elites.
Still, from sea to shining sea, over the last few decades many Protestant evangelical and Pentecostal churches have boomed with new members, new ministries, new megachurches and new multimedia outlets that reach millions here and abroad.
Yes, the power of the Internet and forcible, or implictly forcible electronic transfer of wealth is amazing, isn’t it? Possibly these churches learned something from the IRS.
Cathedral-building American Catholics used to know how to do all that, and more. Despite anti-Catholic laws and a hostile culture featuring Know Nothings, 19th- and early 20th-century Catholic leaders created America’s parish-anchored religious communities.
Well, no longer being in his Bush-appointed White House Office, he can come out. But, per a 2007 book (on author credit to this May 2009 article), he is centrist: ”
John J. DiIulio Jr. is the author of Godly Republic: A Centrist Blueprint for America’s Faith-Based Future (University of California Press, 2007).
Wife, becoming fundamentalist Christian, forgets I Corinthians 7:10ff, realizes her husband is going to hell. Husband, responding? converts to Orthodox Judaism.
How do you know when it’s time to stop using faith-based initiatives to push marriage?
Answer: When the law of reverse efforts begins to set in:
(3) Go figure….
Don’t ask how I found the case — just enjoy the comic relief. Well, not for the husband, wife, or kids……
Rarely do we get such straightforward commentary:
Kendall v. Kendall, 426 Mass. 238, 687 N.E.2d 1228 (Mass. 1997).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved an appeal from a judgment of divorce nisi.
FACTS: Jeffrey Kendall (H) was Jewish and Barbara Kendall
was Catholic. They married in 1988 and had three children and agreed that their children would be brought up in the Jewish faith. In 1991 W joined a fundamentalist Christian church that taught that anyone who did not accept its views would be damned to hell. H adopted Orthodox Judaism in 1994.
Having children (one per year? Twins? Triplets?) can tend to produce a religious conversion.
To summarize: two adults, by my count 3-4 religions and three children in six years…
W filed for divorce based on an irretrievable breakdown of the marriage. A guardian ad litem was appointed to assess the religious conflicts between H and W and their effect upon the children. The resulting divorce decree contained restrictions upon religious exposure ordering that neither parent could use their religious beliefs to alienate the children from the other parent. W was granted custody and H appealed the terms of the divorce order.
Such a hard choice — having a genuine religious belief (if an odd one) or, forsaking it lest it alienate the children and so probably cause loss of custody for violating a divorce decree, so damning not just one husband, but also one’s kids, to hell. To settle this, call in a guardian ad litem, hopefully an atheist who will not understand the dilemma of being excommunicated from mass (by divorce), from a new-found faith community (by failing to condemn one’s spouse to hell) or from the guardian ad litem (by doing so).
This is why I’m thinking of converting to Catholicism, maybe. At least they have rituals, pretty stained glass windows, gothic and ornate architecture, and a CEO with his own post office, and if that fails, there’s always SNAP.
ISSUE: What must a court find in order to restrict religious indoctrination by parents of different persuasions?
Well, for one, that while Congress (at least at one time) can’t make a law establishing a religion, since when are family court judges bound by the Bill of Rights anyhow? Basically, it must find (from what I can tell) that it feels like doing so.
RULE OF LAW: There must be a finding of substantial harm to a child by clear and convincing evidence before a court may restrict religious indoctrination by parents of different persuasions.
“Harm” can be defined in any terms whatsoever (however “alienation” is a good start), just nothing remotely related to the Penal Code — that’d set difficult precedent for all the former custody decisions prioritizing parenthood a.k.a. father-access over character.
HOLDING AND DECISION: Under these facts the report by the Guardian ad litem more than justified the court’s finding of substantial harm and supports the order that the court issued regarding the religious indoctrination of the children. A court need not wait for a formal psychiatric breakdown of a child to determine that the burden of proof in a finding of substantial harm has been met.
The burden of proof has been met if the evidence paints a strong picture of the reasonably projected course if the children continue to be caught in the cross fire of their parents’ religious differences. The guardian ad litem’s report clearly demonstrates the course that H and W had put their children on. We reject the claim that this decree burdens H’s right to practice religion under the free exercise clause. There was clearly substantial demonstrable evidence of the development of serious conflicts for these children.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
Related postsMoss v. Superior Court – Failure to Pay Child Support – Contempt
deCastro v. deCastro – Divorce – Division of Marital Property
Wolfe v. Wolfe – Annulment of Marriage Based on FraudWritten by Nymatlaw
July 7th, 2009
Copyright Nymatlaw All Rights Reserved
Thank you, Nymatlaw, whoever you are!
Where there are children, there are GOING to be language — and real — wars over (1) whose they are and (2) who gets to raise them and (3) what is hate (bullying) and (4) what is love. If two parents stayed together and had a religious conflict with the school system, or government, with a religious basis, they would be forced to choose — particularly if their lifestyles depended upon children’s enrollment in so-called “public” schools. While I won’t provide all links for this (one can look it up easily — but I can’t because my laptop is so slow) it’s commonly known that the Teachers’ Unions in any state are a financial and political force to be reckoned with. One cannot go far without doing so:
Life in this world involves serious cross-fire, almost anywhere, between conflicting ideologies about who owns whom, especially if one is a child. Moreover, even adults are now being regularly groped at airports — in THEIR best interests — if they object to full-body scans. This is occurring in the same country where, about a year go, a teenaged girl at a homecoming dance somehow got plied with alcohol, not only groped, but also gangraped (Richmond, CA). The dance was supervised and she had a father. She was found, half-naked, UNDER a picnic table, her back covered with scratches and her face with vomit, says a police officer, testifying of how her attackers scattered when he was finally called to the scene. Think about this as you continue reading below about asking for MORE money for these schools that sort families by wealth & race.
(4) How we PAY our public educators to buy a market share / maintain their status quo, and national workforce structure also:
From “OpenEye” — only 1 out of 2 prime organizations, 2008 election, Illinois Only:
National Education Assn: All Recipients
Among Federal Candidates, 2008 Cycle
Total: $2,212,532 Source of Funds: Individuals
PACs
Party Split: Dems
Repubs
Name Office Total Contributions Obama, Barack (D-IL) Senate $86,862 Kirk, Mark (R-IL) House $14,000 Durbin, Dick (D-IL) Senate $13,050 Bean, Melissa (D-IL) House $10,000 Biggert, Judy (R-IL) House $10,000 Davis, Danny K (D-IL) House $10,000 Hare, Phil (D-IL) House $10,000 Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) House $10,000 Schock, Aaron (R-IL) House $10,000 Morgenthaler, Jill (D-IL) House $5,600 Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL) House $5,000 Foster, Bill (D-IL) House $5,000 Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL) House $5,000 Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) House $4,000 Johnson, Timothy V (R-IL) House $3,000 Shimkus, John M (R-IL) House $3,000 Rush, Bobby L (D-IL) House $2,500 Costello, Jerry F (D-IL) House $1,500 Gutierrez, Luis V (D-IL) House $1,500 Lipinski, Daniel (D-IL) House $1,500 METHODOLOGY: The numbers on this page are based on contributions from PACs and individuals giving $200 or more. All donations were made during the 2008 election cycle and were released by the Federal Election Commission.
Feel free to distribute or cite this material, but please credit the Center for Responsive Politics.
NEA is listed under “Heavy Hitters.” Another is American Federation of Teachers, Described thus, same site:
American Federation of Teachers
The American Federation of Teachers represents 1 million teachers, school staff, higher education faculty and other public employees. The federation also has a health care division, which represents health professionals and nurses. As one of the leading education groups on Capitol Hill, the federation lobbied heavily on President Bush’s education plan, beating back attempts to attach pro-voucher amendments.
I colored the comment “blue,” predominant in the organization — see these charts, on Summary page, of a 20-year trend (1990-2010):
These charts speak VOLUMES — perhaps even more than the TAGGS.hhs.gov (database) sites, which taught me so much about why courts won’t do their legally assigned jobs, as per state laws and organized (as to superior courts in California at least) by counties. The reasons appear to reside with Federal Faith-based Welfare Policies, backed up by the bribe (OK, OK, I’ll downgrade the term to “bait”) of federal aid. Magnificent benificence in our best interests, of course to supprot all this conflict of interests). Then, when the whole operation is centralized, whoever can buy the top leadership gets the whole spoils –sorry, I mean, country.
Given how much of this talk has a hidden “Jesus” basis, I have to say it’s a real leap of faith to think it’s the same one as in the Bible. THAT Messiah, right after receiving his initial anointing, to qualify, first had the 40-days wilderness test, and to TURN DOWN the offer of the kingdoms of the world in exchange for worship of his Lord’s arch-enemy. He did indeed turn it down, whereupon he was asked to go commit suicide off a tall tower — and declined. (cf. ousted fathers with religious belief in their divine calling to rule their families who, when challenged by the U.S. — or local law enforcement — to “restrain” how they do so, actually DO commit suicide, sometimes taking a few with them. Unlike Jesus, who some of these men profess to be serving, they prefer killing innocents, to — even if innocent themselves — suffer public demotion in this family-worshipping society. Think about it …) Search “temptation” in any gospel at any on-line bible site if you’re unfamiliar with the account. Matthew 4, Luke 4, relate this one.
While on the topic of dealing with NEA and AFT expenditures on Democrat candidates to preserve the status quo on raising the nation’s young, I am reminded of rhetoric such as “No Child Left Behind” — a phrase vague enough to be noncommittal about where these kids are going — and “Race to the Top” (WHO is going to be on that particular escalator?) — let me add that the FIRST temptation the earlier Jesus resisted was to do magic tricks to prove his
identity as the Son of God:
Turn these stones into bread.
Just remember, in social contracts endorsing any centralized empire or high, high, religious tower, no matter what religion it DOES represent, it does NOT represent the one of the Jewish Messiah born into a nation under Roman rule and worshipping at a magnificent temple, with influence of Herod, which was going to be razed and burned — possibly under disgust with religious zealots, and their refusal to worship, well, the “empire” — within a generation (70 A.D. about 40 years) of his crucifixion for, most likely, being perceived as a threat to it AND to religion of his time which had accommodated too much to being in an occupied mode. Another zealot, Paul — as multicultural and multi-lingual for his time as many — ended (per the account) his life in a Roman prison, sometime within that 40-year time span.
Now — 2000 years or so later — her comes a multi-faith couple with three kids, and the current philosphy that children cannot tolerate conflict well, and will have a psychiatric breakdown if it continues — when applied to the education marketplace, also attempting (I can only presume, seeing these OPENEYE.org charts as to the NEA and AFT contributions to politicians — I could educate BOTH my children better, single or married, on the size of the average AFT (alone) contribution to a (Democrat) candidate in the year 2008 — IF I were not trapped in the family law system cycle of ongoing conflict, for profit. My own background is not intolerant of other religions, just of stupidity and poverty forced onto my family in the name of either “fatherhood” or “conflict is bad.” That’s ridiculous: Murder is bad. Theft is bad. Conflict with gravity is encountered with the act of standing up — it’s part of life and strengthens muscles and mind, up to and just beyond breaking points of what one thought one could handle.
Look at AFT Top Contributions (nationwide) in the 2008 elections. As you look, remember, these are largely (all?) themselves public servant and employees paid by taxes from parents and nonparents alike. Although the largest agency expenditures are now, I believe, HHS, the Dept. of Education is indeed a significant budget item and has been changing the work landscape for over a century in the US, resulting in us trailing the world in “developed” (?) countries, and leading it in imprisoning mostly men, mostly black. Then — from the same source, or budget — millions per year go to promote marriage, fatherhood, and help incarcerated fathers, again, disproportionately black, get back to their children while producing the next generation of rapists, murderers, and angry young men, not counting those sent off to war by middle aged men who need more money for something or more.
The entire social contract can really, only be sustained by collective force and dumbed-down indoctrination. And the natural instinct of MOTHERS to protect their young has to be dismantled to buy into it. See http://www.psychohistory.com (a recent find, I’m still reading it) in case this viewpoint sounds too eccentric to tolerate.
OK, here is AFT, 2008 election, main candidates: #1, It takes a Village Hillary, #2, Change agent Obama:
Top Recipients
| Senate | Clinton, Hillary (D-NY) | $37,725 |
| Senate | Obama, Barack (D-IL) | $30,638 |
| House | Cazayoux, Donald J (D-LA) | $25,000 |
| Senate | Martin, James Francis (D-GA) | $20,000 |
| House | Richardson, Laura (D-CA) | $20,000 |
| House | Foster, Bill (D-IL) | $15,250 |
| House | Carmouche, Paul J (D-LA) | $15,000 |
| House | Carson, Andre (D-IN) | $15,000 |
| House | Childers, Travis W (D-MS) | $15,000 |
| Senate | Franken, Al (D-MN) | $13,500 |
| Senate | Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH) | $13,500 |
| House | Udall, Mark (D-CO) | $13,500 |
| House | Udall, Tom (D-NM) | $13,500 |
| Senate | Warner, Mark (D-VA) | $13,500 |
| Senate | Durbin, Dick (D-IL) | $12,400 |
| Senate | Merkley, Jeff (D-OR) | $11,500 |
| Senate | Dodd, Chris (D-CT) | $11,000 |
| House | Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY) | $11,000 |
| House | Tsongas, Niki (D-MA) | $11,000 |
| House | Arcuri, Michael (D-NY) | $10,250 |
| See all recipients | ||
| Name | Office | Total Contributions |
|---|---|---|
| Obama, Barack (D-IL) | Senate | $30,638 |
| Foster, Bill (D-IL) | House | $15,250 |
| Durbin, Dick (D-IL) | Senate | $12,400 |
| Bean, Melissa (D-IL) | House | $10,000 |
| Costello, Jerry F (D-IL) | House | $10,000 |
| Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL) | House | $10,000 |
| Hare, Phil (D-IL) | House | $10,000 |
| Morgenthaler, Jill (D-IL) | House | $7,500 |
| Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL) | House | $6,000 |
| Callahan, Colleen (D-IL) | House | $5,000 |
| Davis, Danny K (D-IL) | House | $5,000 |
| Footlik, Jay K (D-IL) | House | $5,000 |
| Seals, Dan (D-IL) | House | $5,000 |
| Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL) | House | $4,750 |
| Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL) | House | $3,500 |
| McMenamin, Joseph E (D-IL) | House | $2,500 |
Notice Illinois Candidates above: I have quite a bit about Congressman Davis on this blog, by way of Fatherhood and “Moonification” connections (Unification church — Marriage promotion, etc.
Chicago Mayoral Candidates (some of them) bolded above. This city is far more important to national issues than many of us (families in the court system) realize. Its mayor since 1989 is about to be replaced in 2011. The NEA and AFT have spoken … in 2008, at least — Davis first, Rahm, second. The article below cites that an Election Commissioner is possibly going to challenge Emmanuel Rahm voting; the ssame article states he has a James Meek connection, who one may file under “Obama.” If the name “James Meek” means nothing to you, remember, that the meek shall inherit the earth — not this one, though: Can “the meek” assemble this many in one place?
“A significant number of registered voters from the city of Chicago are serving both in the White House and several Cabinet agencies,” Lance Gough, executive director of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners, wrote in the Nov. 17, 2009, letter, which contained absentee ballot applications for Emanuel to share. “All Illinois voters now have the right to cast absentee ballots, whether or not they may be in their home counties on Election Day.”
In January, Emanuel signed and returned an application for an absentee ballot, according to a copy provided Thursday by his mayoral campaign. It was presented as evidence that the former Obama aide and North Side congressman should be considered a legal resident of Chicago.
e is expected to face a challenge over whether he can legally be on the ballot to replace retiring Mayor Richard Daley due to laws that require candidates to be residents for a year before the Feb. 22 election.
“It shows that the board considered him to be a Chicago voter,” Emanuel spokesman Ben LaBolt said.
Election attorney Burt Odelson said he intends next week to file a challenge to Emanuel’s residency aimed at keeping him off the ballot. Odelson is advising a rival candidate, state Sen. James T. Meeks, but said he is not representing Meeks in the ballot challenge.
Rahm — North Side
Meeks — South Side
Chicago elections are a “to-watch” for all concerned citizens, Red or Blue or inbetween/other, Black or White or inbetween/other, as witnessed by the meteoric rise to power of this Administration, and plans for more meteoric transformations of the landscape likely to produce fear-based backlash similar to the backlash to feminism has. Either way, while promising less welfare state, it’s likely to produce more of it.
HERE is a report on Emanuel Rahm’s Mayoral kickoff, also mentioning megachurch Baptist pastor James Meek’s candidacy: and I hope to soon kickoff this post, which appears to have grabbed my attention as the screen dribbles out letters about one per second...
November 6, 2010
COALITION SELECTS CONGRESSMAN DANNY K. DAVIS AS CONSENSUS CANDIDATE
November 6, 2010. Chicago, IL. The day after Mayor Daley announced his decision to not seek another term, Chicago’s Black aldermanic caucus met and created a process by which they would select one consensus candidate who would best represent all of Chicago. The caucus expanded into a group called the Chicago Coalition for Mayor – comprised of elected officials, diverse religious groups, several youth organizations, labor union representatives, community organizations, business owners and professionals.
After two months of organizing, implementing strategies, research, and interviews, the Coalition voted to select Congressman Danny K. Davis as the consensus candidate for the Mayor of the City of Chicago.
And now here’s evidence that indoctrination IS OK when neither wife, nor husband, nor mother, nor father is doing it — but Big Brother: to Opt-out or NOT to opt out? A search shows that this debate involves more than parents, students, and the school board: <a href=”http://www.bilerico.com/2010/08/focus_on_the_family_focuses_on_schools_will_we.php”>”Focus on the Family Focuses on Schools — will we?”</a>
Courtesy, a group called “BILIRUCO – Daily Experiments in LGBT Living”
// //
The Bible’s I Corinthians 13, the “love” chapter, concludes that, in the context of eternal life, three things will last forever — Faith, Hope, and Charity. Prophecies, magic tricks, and marrying (and divorcing, and electing which religion rules the land, til no habitable land remains…) will not.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Alienation Ain’t Going Anywhere —
NOTE: This continues my last post. Curious about Lauren v. Ted, I went and fetched it.
The evidence before me demonstrates a pattern of willful and calculated violations of the clear and express dictates of the parties’ Stipulation of Settlement,” Ross wrote in Lauren R. v. Ted R., 203699-02.
To review, the reporter, reviewing the ruling:
Supreme Court Justice Robert A. Ross in Nassau County ruled that the mother, Lauren R., willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating the elementary school-age children from her ex-husband, Ted R.” (cite, below)
Ex-Wife Ordered Jailed for Alienating Children From Father
I SAID, INCREDULOUS:
Let’s look at ” willfully violated a court order by deliberately alienating“:
Did the court order mention not alienating — or was the court order about visitation? One is clear-cut. The other is a psychological assessment, less clear-cut, and gives judges a free license to call in the obedience-training authorities. Whether or not it is “deliberate” or as a consequence of moving on in life, is a matter for a mind-reader. Excuse me, “mental health professional,” a field I no longer respect (and this is probably why).
What kind of world do we (as a culture) want? One of action crimes, or thought (intent-) crimes ?? Guess which one you have here?
Only if the court order specifically SAID “don’t alienate” (which is too broadly worded to be enforceable, anyhow) is “deliberately alienating” a violation of it. However, this appears to be referring to failing to comply with visitation/vacation schedule, but doing it in a mean way. I believe that a Law Journal, of all places, should keep those issues separate. So should stipulations and custody orders, but often they don’t, setting the parents up for repeat litigation.
I wanted to know, was “not alienating” built into the court order (incredible as it seems, the answer is YES, this time. I say, “Houston, we have a problem!”)
Seeing this ruling, I felt readers should see how this is done, and who the judge quoted, and in general pick up on the practice of (OPINION ALERT. The rest of this paragraph is my feelings. Of course, much of this blog is — excepting the data research, charts, dockets posted, and news articles, etc…. But especially this next “rant” is a sound-off)
making custodial mothers (physical custodial/joint-legal) — apparently because they are women — responsible for relationship, even if they’re in a new one. This means, that somehow, any new man in the life, can’t “father” a children if it would, say, jeopardize their previous father. Put this in the pot and see how this blends with the fatherhood crisis. The biological Dad (presumably) is out of the home, and a remarriage has taken place. The systems of laws clearly influential in this ruling, were originally (Or, as slid through Congress) aimed at low-income fathers (which the “access/Visitation” policy literature, not to mention the “fatherhood” literature, assures us is the real problem. If it’s not the REAL Dad in the home, (even if there’s another father figure), those kids are screwed for life. Also, it’s important to encourage LOW-income fathers to be persuaded to pay their child support; and the way to do this has been declared, in policy brief after policy brief, is to use the children as a carrot, removing the child support enforcement as a stick, but keeping it there just in case. Theoretically.
This example is “replete with” language and references exhibiting this policy. While Lauren R. may or may not be a nice person — for all we know, she’s a B _ _ _ ch — the practices stand, and she has been threatened with weekends in jail for her behavior.
My CMA:
LINKING, COPYRIGHTs, Etc. – — the link to this opinion is on yesterday’s post, and here is:
Lauren R. v. Ted R.
NASSAU COUNTY
Family LawNew York Law Journal
June 07, 2010
Copyright © 2010, ALM Properties, Inc.
ALM = “American Lawyer Media”
Let me COMPLETELY CMA (that’s CYA with a pronoun change) on posting so much of this opinion here:
Disclaimers: I believe that posting this is legal and within the copyright use (general, limited) as my link on this blog states. My purpose in posting here is to illustrate, for general purposes and information:
- HOW this judge reasoned,
- how the stipulation was written, and
- who this judge cited, in jailing [or threatening to] an alienating EX, which court personnel were called in — and for how much*** — to get their piece of the action BEFORE she was threatened with jail and/or custody switch (?) (the ultimate threat) and
- What “remedies” are considered available (in NY, here) for Bad Moms (and presumably Bad Dads) in violation of DIVORCE-RELATED CIVIL DECREES
- how GENDER-NEUTRAL, mostly, the “parental alienation” is in theory, but gender-specific, in practice, it seems (my challenge to readers yesterday stands — find me a man treated this way by any court for the same reasons) — and in short,
- HOW our country moved from the “rule of thumb” (diameter of switch with which one could beat one’s wife, hear tell) to the Judiciary rules and case precedents, etc. (remedies for, rather than beating, just emotionally terrorizing into compliance, or making it clear that the authority of the bench could indeed throw more weight around if compliance isn’t good enough for any woman/slut who remarries (or, doesn’t) with kids and doesn’t do it well, etc. . . . . to demonstrate, and set an example (per HIS attorney) of how very few inches forward we have moved in the past century, vis-a-vis mothers who don’t retain their men… . .
(pause to remember the originally intended VERB of this supremely compound subject sentence…..)(oh yeah, it’s coming…)
ARE RELEVANT TO OTHER PARENTS. IT IS VALUABLE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC… As such, I hope I don’t get put in jail for putting this information up.
***“defendant’s counsel, $11,287.50 for Attorney for the Children’s fees, and $19,833.32 for Parenting Coordinator fees,”
To obtain the access so as to answer my initial questions (how could “not alienating” be in a court order?? and why wasn’t the custody interference sufficient?), I had to subscribe to this New York Law Journal. So will you, for pay, or as I did “Free Limited Access,” which means that in exchange for free, they collect data from me and can potential send me marketing material. Being in a good mood, I allowed this. “Free” anything, on-line,” is kind of like a FREE lunch, Food Stamps, Free Legal Services, or Free Restraining Order Clinics. Either you pay, or, you fork over some of your data for the privilege of accessing these things. So, I’m not linking the title today — see yesterday’s post — ,because who knows if my particular link leads to my particular self, which I don’t feel like putting on-line today, particularly after some commentary on the judge’s commentary that reading it inspires (like, “causes to well up”) within my soul.
My CMA, ct’d.
From what I can tell on the Permissions page, my purpose here is not any of those listed: I am not republishing it in a book/ebook for educational or promotional use. I am not republishing it in a print or electronic PUBLICATION for informational or promotional use. I am obviously not photocopying it (don’t you, either!) I am not sending it in an email. I am not republishing it in a marketing MATERIAL because I am not marketing anything. I am advised to click HERE for any other potential use, and that “HERE” says that about 3 different entitites (Rightslink(r), Incisive Media, and Copyright Clearance Center.com) are all in on the action of protecting Judicial opinions from being too widespread without someone being paid for this, and able to trace it.
Speaking of DIGITAL CLEARANCE ISSUES . . . Consider this an ALERT. I make it maroon, as it’s a “parenthetical” to this post.
While I am on this topic of DIGITAL CASE INFORMATION (although this is an ALM publication, and the New York Law Journal, something else — opinions are published in it, I gather — and case dockets, caes information totally another category, today, I ran across THIS concern, expressed by a man in Los Angeles. The fine print here is supplemented from some REAL detailed research, related, on the Justice System [All of it, including enforcement Sheriffs, etc.] in Los Angeles County, which he has called an “Extra Constitutional Zone,” while wryly commenting that the similar behavior is found in courts across the country. However, this article is about digital storage of case information, and compromises in the system as a human rights crisis. Read the fine print, he’s right, I bet:
THIS is a VERY brief, readable summary of the situation, which I am still mentally processing, of automated court systems, beginning in the 1980s, 1990s: “COMPUTERIZED or CON-PUTERIZED” (8/18/2010) — thank you, Janet Phelan, and Dr. Zernik. This is momentous — and a separate post…Here’s a clue to the extent of the problem:
Amidst the rumblings that “equal justice under the law” is being applied selectively and unequally, a new charge is now being levied against the courts, coming from an unlikely source. Joseph Zernik, 54, Ph.D., is a molecular biologist and former college professor. Born in Israel, Zernik came over to the US in 1983, to attend the University of Connecticut where he subsequently received his Ph.D. in molecular biology He was later to work as a professor –first at the University of Connecticut and later at the University of Southern California. Along the way, he also studied computer systems and orthodontics.
By the way, this is the kind of background — more than social scientists and psychologists (or attorneys) that is likely — when attention is given to the legal processes — and systems — in the courts — that can help us. The analytic and systems expertise (logic, in other words) beats rhetoric and reframing every time. I feel… Marshall McLuhan {1911-1980…hover cursor for descr.}warned us that the MEDIUM was the MASSAGE {hover cursor for descr.}(long ago) — this talks about the impact of the MEDIUM (of digital case records) on our legal process.
Beginning in 2002, Zernik began to scrutinize government and corporate data base systems, first in schools and later in banks and in courts. In 2007, he began researching how court computer systems, such as “Sustain,” installed at the Los Angeles Superior Court and PACER/CM/ECF, installed at the federal courts, have circumvented some of the basic and fundamental processes which we have previously taken as sacrosanct.
Around 1985, the Los Angeles Superior court installed “Sustain” as its first civil case management system, to replace the previous paper-based operations. The federal courts began computerizing their systems around the early nineties, according to a spokesperson for PACER, which is the Public Access system of the federal courts, developed under the guidance of the Administrative Office of the US Courts. Actually, the federal court installed TWO systems. One, called PACER, was for general public access. The other system, CM/ECF, is accessible only for the court itself and for court authorized attorneys. However, even on such attorneys restrictions of access were placed and authorization was granted only to view certain records.
In other words, alleges Zernik, there are now two separate systems in place –one for the public and one for the elite tier of lawyers and officers of the court. The courts therefore created two docketing systems, separate and unequal, and asserted the right to segregate persons into one system or the other. As a result, the public right to inspect public documents was severely mitigated. The spokesperson for PACER stated that there were indeed two systems in place, one for public access and one for filing.
Apart from the obvious issues raised by two separate systems which are apparently functioning for different tiers of individuals—the public on one hand and the lawyers and court officers on the other– Zernik uncovered further cause for alarm. When the court systems became computerized, the common law practices also altered, subtly and nearly undetectably. . .
BACK TO NASSAU COUNTY, NY a.k.a.,
How an ANTI-ALIENATION DIVORCE STIPULATION led to a Mom ordered to jail for violating it.
Justice Robert A. Ross
Decided: May 25; 203699-02
The continuing jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to modify or annul its custody and visitation judgments and orders, is set forth in Domestic Relations Law §240. Such authority is similarly provided to the Family Court pursuant to Family Court Act §467. In post judgment proceedings regarding a modification of custody and visitation, the standard is the “best interest of the child,” when all of the applicable factors are considered. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89.
Roughly translated, these two courts’ authority to mess with (alter) either parent’s life continues until all children reach majority, or some other worse event intervenes, which we hope it doesn’t. Think about this when conceiving children. Er– guess that advice is not too practical, how about BEFORE conceiving children.
Parental access, commonly referred to as “visitation,” is an important right of the non-custodial parent and the child. See, Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170.
Roughly translated — the word “parent” and “noncustodial parent” obscures the purpose of these rights (rights?) — as seen by why women like me have to write blogs like this. The switch from mother and father to “parent” is not straightforward — it’s obscuring gender bias. Even the Wikipedia definiton of “noncustodial parent” forwards reader to the US Dept. of HHS site, “Fatherhood.hhs.gov” where, after the TOP left square, which reads
2006 Initiative / TANF Reauthorization
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 {{See 1996 for where this originated}} provides funding of $150 million each year for healthy marriage promotion and fatherhood. Up to $50 million each year may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.
{{well, treating ex-wives like this may send a message to women not to, ever, become an ex-wife. Your life may not survive marriage, but it’s equally unlikely to survive leaving a marriage, at least emotionally intact. So in SOME sense, pushing this, nationwide, can — like threat therapy — warn married women not to mess up..This policy, essentially, is the welfare state mentality’s answer to the welfare state mentality, if you can follow the logic there.}}
one can scroll down to
Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support
About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father. The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but
Yeah, a BIG BUTT…
(Bighorn sheep charging) . . . The LAWS. . .. BUT . . . . (in contrast with the LAWS, we have a new concept, FEDERAL FUNDING to STATES to help them develop PROGRAMS….to “help.” They just want to “help”….
the Federal Government does provide states with fundingto assist in the development ofprograms that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.
{{note — though found on “fatherrhood.hhs.gov” this refers to funding to help noncustodial PARENTS. See Dombrowski. See “rightsformothers.com.”. . . I never did see why so many people (women, in particular) fail to acknowledge that these A/V programs are related to the child support system. The federal government says they are….
OK, one more grammar review before i move back to this ruling: This program, the ACCESS VISITATIOn NONCUSTODIAL PARENT and CHILD language, as cited (years ago) on FATHERHOOD.HHS. GOV says it this way. The STATES’ LAWS . . . . BUT the Federal Funding to STates to develop programs. Laws – – — BUT, . . . . Federal Funding. Laws — BUT — Federal Funding (to counteract the laws, to “help” the laws. Well, if the Feds are helping with existing Laws, why then is the word “BUT-T-T-T-T needed to describe the system?? . . . Also, (convenientlly for this end), motherhood.gov doesn’t mention to mothers going into the courts to look here for the 2nd half of the States Laws (which they focus on), BUT > T > T > T…
I’m driving this in, because what follows here is full of legal cites, and precedent, to justify the situation. But his language will soon reveal, alienation, alienation, alienation . . . .
In a scenario where one parent is demonstrated to have interfered with the custodial rights of a parent, a number of mechanisms exist [see, Scheinkman, New York Law of Domestic Relations, Second Edition, §23.14] to aid in the enforcement of custody orders and judgments, including:
1. Criminal Sanctions, pursuant to Penal Law §135.45 and 135.50;
2. Suspension of alimony or maintenance, pursuant to Judiciary Law 750,753;
3. Tort action for custodial interference;
4. Orders of Protection, pursuant to Domestic Relations Law §240
While the most factually apparent ground to change existing custody arrangements involves physical danger, the act of alienating a child against a parent presents a nefarious form of conduct that must be met with careful consideration and immediate, comprehensive remediation by a Court (see, Zafran v. Zafran, 306 AD2d 468; Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893). A change in custody should not be permitted solely as a means for punishing a recalcitrant parent (see, Lew v. Sobel, supra), but always requires due consideration of all of the other custodial factors. See, Robert T.F. v. Rosemary F., 148 AD2d 449.
Note. I’m not checking the cites. Any attorney should. What the heck is “Judiciary law?” (above). And I’ve never heard of a TORT for custodial interference, I thought family law was out of the realm of torts. Maybe NY is different than the other coast, where I live. But, if it was the same, it would still take an indignant judge to sign an order.
I love the ‘While . . . . physical danger [See, “Girl, Interrupted” Kristin Stillman] [“phsyical danger might cause a child to die, or suffer injury, (by contrast, this language says, a far , far worse) ALIENATING A CHILD is NEFARIOUS!! and requires immediate, comprehensive remediation. {{see “DastardlyDads.blogspot.com” for what is NOT “nefarious conduct,” per judges}} I also have to “love” the judge’s dismissal of “most factually apparent ground” in favor of “punishing a recalcitrant parent.” So much for “best interests of the child” — the motived is to punish a recalcitrant parent…. I’ve never heard “recalcitrant” used of an adult before. It means, literally, to “kick back.” Merriam-Webster definition give an Antonym (opposite) as the desirable state of women in this culture, this world, and with the help of judges, precedents, Federal programs, and rulings like this, surely they will return to this Edenic state:
Good grief!!! Recalcitrant has been used (in this example) of an employee, and a youth. Well, welcome, parents, to that category! The problem with recalcitrance is, a parent becomes:
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….
Any sentence starting with “While” followed by data, or a statement of a situation, etc., is setting up the reader to consider that data LESS important than what follows, while declaring to the reader that this author at least weighed the pros and cons, but feels that the “while” side is less important than what’s upcoming. For a great example of this, look above, and the 2006 Access Visitation program blurb doing essentiall the same thing, only in a “This BUT that format.” “access/visitation is a matter of State & family law, the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT funds programs. . . . . etc.” Here, since the part in the while section is going to be overcome, it is vaguely worded and only gets one cite, prob ably someone suing the City of NY over a disastrous custody situation result. Maybe I’ll look it up. If this was a death, and this judge referred to that death as “the consequential future effect of this determination,” what does that say about this judge’s decision-making process?
Check out this case — and how UNrelated it is , on the surface, to the divorce case here: My cites (I’m not an attorney) are not 95 NY2d 95,100 (which sounds like an opinion), but show which case was cited. The divorce here resulted from a NY Medical Examiner’s initial diagnosis as an infant death as homicide by blunt instrument head trauma. At the time, the couple was married, and put through hell, particularly the father, who was fingered for this. Later, a re-examination of the child’s brain showed a brain aneurysm. Lauer v. City of NY sued over this. At the very high risk of losing reader’s attention here, I’m going to cite the (UNpublished) opinion on-line, so we see what the 10 words preceding a Supreme Court judge’s proclamation that willful interference with a custody order raises a strong probablility of parental unfitness:
2 No. 59
Edward G. Lauer,
Respondent,
v.
City of New York, et al.,
Appellants.
2000 NY Int. 62
May 16, 2000
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.
Julian L. Kalkstein, for appellants.
Peter James Johnson, Jr., for respondent.
KAYE, CHIEF JUDGE:
On this appeal we revisit a familiar subject: whether a member of the public can recover damages against a municipality for its employee’s negligence. Here we answer that question in the negative.
The Facts
Three-year-old Andrew Lauer died on August 7, 1993. That same day, Dr. Eddy Lilavois, a New York City Medical Examiner, performed an autopsy and prepared a report stating that the child’s death was a homicide caused by “blunt injuries” to the neck and brain. Although the report indicated that the brain was being preserved for further examination, the following day a death certificate was issued stating that Andrew’s death was a homicide. Based on the Medical Examiner’s conclusion, the police began investigating what they thought was a homicide, focusing primarily on plaintiff, Andrew’s father. Weeks later, on August 31, 1993, the Medical Examiner and a neuropathologist conducted a more detailed study of Andrew’s brain. The report, prepared in October 1993, indicated that a ruptured brain aneurysm caused the child’s death, thus contradicting the earlier conclusion. The Medical Examiner, however, failed to correct the autopsy report or death certificate, and failed to notify law enforcement authorities.
Meanwhile, the police department’s investigation into Andrew’s death continued. Some 17 months later, in March 1995, after a newspaper exposé, the autopsy findings were revised, the police investigation ceased and an amended death certificate was prepared. As a result of this incident, the City Medical Examiner who had conducted the examination resigned.
Plaintiff and his estranged wife subsequently commenced separate actions. Lisa Lauer’s action against the City of New York and Dr. Lilavois, seeking damages for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, was dismissed. In affirming the dismissal, the Appellate Division held that her allegations failed to establish “that she fell within any recognized orbit of duty upon which liability may be based” (see, Lauer v City of New York, 240 AD2d 543, 544, lv denied , 91 NY2d 807). {{ALWAYS RECOGNIZE THAT “ORBIT OF DUTY ON WHICH LIBABILITY MAY BE BASED.”}}
In the present action seeking $10 million in damages against the City of New York, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Lilavois and the Police Department, plaintiff alleges defamation, violation of his civil rights, and both negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. He claims that defendants’ conduct–including the Medical Examiner’s negligent performance of the autopsy, failure to correct the erroneous report and death certificate, and failure to disclose that Andrew’s death was not a homicide–“precipitated the destruction of [his] marriage * * * forced him to sell his home and leave his neighborhood, and caused him to become the object of public scorn, humiliation, ridicule, embarrassment, harassment and contempt throughout the City of New York.” He further alleges that he “sustained severe and debilitating emotional distress, emotional anguish, anxiety and mental suffering.”
On defendants’ motion, Supreme Court dismissed the defamation and civil rights causes of action, but allowed plaintiff to pursue his emotional distress claims. A divided Appellate Division modified Supreme Court’s order (see, 258 AD2d 92). All of the Justices agreed that the defamation and civil rights claims were properly dismissed. They also unanimously concluded that plaintiff’s intentional infliction of emotional distress claim warranted dismissal; that any causes of action based on performance of the initial autopsy were immunized as a governmental exercise of discretion; and that the Medical Examiner’s failure to correct the reports and accurately inform the authorities were “ministerial” acts. The Appellate Division divided, however, as to whether plaintiff could maintain a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress based on those ministerial acts, a majority concluding that he could.
I don’t know if this was a custodial-father case, but the judge citing it here is TWO parents suing the city for damages on the basis of a Medical Examiner’s mistake, and failure to inform them of it. Wife was estranged at the time her appeal was she in 1993? Certainly there are more relevant cases in NY since then, however this judge cites one referring to an infant’s death, bad enough, being deemed a homicide, and tearing up the family’s subsequent decade as “consequential effect” before getting down to business, which is going to be ordering a recalcitrant, alienating ex-wife to jail. Here’s the sentence, again:
While mindful of the consequential future effect of this determination (see, Lauer v. City of New York, 95 NY2d 95, 100), ….
inasmuch as a Court’s finding of willful interference “per se raises a strong probability that the custodial parent is unfit” (see, Young v. Young, supra; Glenn v. Glenn, supra), whena pattern of alienation by the custodial parent is proven in any prior proceeding, that alienating conductmust [emphasis added] be considered and addressed by the Court in any subsequent proceeding involving custody/parental access. See, Audobon v. Audobon, 138 AD2d 658; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305. Also, see CPLR §4213[b]; Robert T.F. v. Rosemarie F., 148 AD2d 449.
Apparently 4 cites re: alienation are given. 4 to 1, weighing in on the nefariousness of alienation, and it as a basis for action in subsequent custody/parent access proceedings. Wonder if any of those involved a woman as the injured party..
I too think that parents unable to comply with custody orders EXCEPT for good cause (like, death threats — google “Judge Lemkau,” in California, or similar cases in almost any of the 50 states). However, in my case, it meant nothing, even though I’d been repeatedly bringing this up, and myself as a custodial parent (sole physical only) was fit, and never deemed unfit, til — when complying with a court order, my kids disappeared — overnight. And no court or law enforcement (or anyone else) did anything about it. That principle haveing been now thoroughly established, no subsequent court orders were obeyed more than coincidentally, including custody/visitation. At this time, I knew nothing of these programs to help with “Access/visitation” although I specifically (a year before kids were taken) asked a judge for a safer exchange alternative. . . .. However LAUREN & TED’s court order/Stip. is so vague and overbroad as to be ridiculous. At least the part cited here.
The doctrine of res judicata bars the issue of whether alienation occurred in the subsequent change of custody hearing ordered herein. See, O’ bdoherty@chat.nyc.amlaw.corp Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d 353, 357; Matter of Waldman v. Waldman, 47 AD3d 638; Braunstein v. Braunstein, 114 AD2d 46, 53; Town of New Windsor v. New Windsor Volunteer Ambulance Corps, Inc., 16 AD3d 403. {{HOWEVER}} Considering that parental alienation of a child from the other parent has been determined to be “an act inconsistent with the best interest of the child (Bobinson v. Bobinson, 9 AD3d 441; Stern v. Stern, 304 AD2d 649; Zafran v. Zafran, 28 AD3d 753; Zeis v. Slater, 57 AD3d 793), and that it has been proven in this contempt proceeding – – the “strong likelihood of unfitness” becomes a “factor” that must be considered in the change of custody hearing ordered herein.
Parental alienation is tied with UNFITNESS as a factor, although res judicata on alienation cannot be an issue in this custody change (as I get it). I tried to llok up “Brian v. City of Syracuse, 54 NY2d (etc.) but so far, it’s mostly this case, a slap in the face that lists the wife as the “Ex-Wife from hell” and is featured on “Parental Alienation Canada.” Father’s Rights groups are rejoicing, and someone even took out a “laurenlippe.com” website where you can see the collateral press damage. Maybe I jumped on the wrong bandwagon here, but I am reading that divorce stipulation, and it just doesn’t look fair.
Protraction or delay in parental alienation cases often serve to reinforce the offending conduct and potentially undermine any remediation that a court could fashion with appropriate therapy, parent coordination, and/or, a change in custody. See, Steinberger, Father? What Father? Parental Alienation And Its Effect on Children, NYSBA Family Law Review, Spring 2006;
{{At least this is honest, and says “Father” and not just “parent”}}
Johnston, J.R., Children of Divorce Who Reject a Parent And Refuse Visitation: Recent Research & Social Policy Implications for the Alienated Child, 38 Fam. L.Q. 757, 768-769. Under the circumstances of this case, this Court’s finding of a willful violation of an existing order of custody in the form of parental alienation requires a prompt evidentiary hearing to determine whether the children’s best interests, under the totality of the circumstances, warrant modification of the previously entered custody order. See, Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89; Corigliano v. Corigliano, 297 AD2d 328; Martin R.G. v. Ofelio G.O., 24 AD3d 305; Carlin v. Carlin, 52 AD3d 559.
J.R. Johnston is probably Janet Johnston. I have a post (older) of Lundy Bancroft debating some of her assessments as failing to identify potential abuse — on this blog.
So much to say, so little time. Well, I told you, “Alienation” ain’t going anywhere!
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By Order to Show Cause dated December 14, 2007, defendant sought an order to have the plaintiff held in contempt for her willful and deliberate failure to comply with the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 30, 2003, in that she allegedly interfered with his right to frequent and regular visitation with and telephone access to the parties’ children, D. and N.; and by alienating the children from the defendant through numerous acts of disparaging the defendant to the children. {{Parts A 7 Parts B}} The Court granted defendant’s motion by its Amended Decision and Order dated September 9, 2008, to the extent that a hearing was ordered. This contempt hearing was held before me on May 15, 21, July 13, 15, 16, August 3, 4, 5, 6, 17, 18, 19, September 17, 2009, January 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 19, February 3, and 22, 2010.
If she dished out hell, surely this scheduled was some of it back. How could a single hearing occupy so many days? Because someone can pay an attorney to be there, constantly? or two attorneys? And they put the rest of us through hell/mediation because the courts are clogged? 12 hearings in 4 months, summer 2008, then a year break (no summer vacation for THIS custodial mother with her kids), a ruling Sept. 2008 ordering a hearing and a year break. A hearing Sept. 2009, a season off court and 10 hearings in TWO months…Poor people don’t get this, but this is affecting poor people.
The parties’ Stipulation of Settlement was incorporated but not merged into the parties’ Judgment of Divorce (Stack, J.). Pursuant to the unequivocal terms of the Stipulation, she was prohibited from “alienating the children from the defendant, plac[ing] any obstacle in the way of the maintenance, love and affection of the children for the defendant,” or to “hinder, impair or prevent the growth of a close relationship between the children and their parents, respectively, or cause others to do so.” Moreover, in sharing joint legal custody of the children, she was specifically required to consult with the defendant regarding decisions affecting the children’s education, health and religion. That Stipulation also clearly provided that each of the parties was to “exert every effort to maintain free access and unhampered contact,” “to foster a feeling of affection,” and not to “do anything which may estrange the children from [the defendant] or injure the children’s opinion as to the Father which may hamper the free and natural development of the children’s love and affection for the [Defendant].”
I think most cases are set up for failure from the start. Mine was. Domestic violence precipitated the separation (no divorce action even involved. Despite this, frequent visitation (more than frequent), and so vaguely written a visitation order as to guarantee difficulties around exchanges. Joint legal custody — one cannot do “joint legal custody” with an abuser; there is no “we” anywhere in there. Case in point, the DV. Even before divorce was ever initiated we were handled as though it was just a family squabble, even though a restraining order AND kickout was granted.
Here, Ted apparently was fore-armed to protect any “emotional abuse” by how it was worded. Her own divorce stipulation had a strict prohibition on it, worded in very similar terms to a restraining order; in fact, it in effect was one. The phrase “or cause otehrs to do so,” is in protective orders. If we were a fly on the wall, and read the whole stipulation, would there be ANY prohibitions on the father? The admonition to “both” parents not to estrange the children’s opinion of the Father” is a contradiction. Why would the Father estrange his own children? That makes no sense. The stipulation “not to do ANYTHING which MAY estrange the children from (Dad) or injure their opinion of the Fatehr” — good grief. A woman is to predict their possible response to anything she does or says, at all? How can a court order a party to “foster a feeling of affection.” Define, please !!!
To sustain the defendant’s application regarding contempt, he must demonstrate that the plaintiff has violated a clear and unequivocal court order which actually defeated, impaired, impeded or prejudiced the other party’s rights (see, Great Neck v. Central, 65 AD2d 616) or were calculated to affect those rights (Stempler v. Stempler, 200 AD2d 733). The movant must meet this burden by clear and convincing evidence (Bulow v. Bulow, 121 AD2d 423). The Court may not hold a party in contempt where payment may be enforced by other enforcement procedures (Wiggins v. Wiggins, 121 Ad2d 534), unless such remedies would be an exercise in futility or ineffectual (Farkas v. Farkas, 209 AD2d 316). Upon a finding of contempt, the Court may impose a period of commitment to jail (Powers v. Powers, 86 NY2d 63) or fine, or both.
In this instance, a lawful court order, in the form of a Judgment of Divorce incorporating the parties’ stipulation of settlement, was in effect. The plaintiff was shown to have actual knowledge of its terms. Ottomanelli v. Ottomanelli, 17 AD3d 647; Freihofner v. Freihofner, 39 AD3d 465; Kawar v. Kawar, 231 AD2d 681, 682. This order of parental access was not only in effect before and during the hearing, but unsuccessful efforts were made during the course of the hearing to utilize counseling and parenting coordination to remediate the alienating conduct of the plaintiff. See, Lew v. Sobel, 46 AD3d 893. See, also, Judiciary Law §753; Massimi v. Massimi, 56 AD3d 624.
. . . .
THE COURT’S ROLE IN ADDRESSING ALIENATION
Differing “alienation” theories promoted by many public advocacy groups, as well as psychological and legal communities, have differing scientific and empirical foundations. However, interference with the non-custodial parent’s relationship with a child has always been considered in the context of a “parent’s ability to encourage the relationship between the non-custodial parent and a child,” a factor to be considered by the Court in custody and visitation/parental access determinations. See, Eschbach v. Eschbach, supra. Our Appellate Courts recognize such factor, as they have determined that the “interference with the non-custodial parent and child’s relationship is an act so inconsistent with the best interests of a child, as to, per se, raise a strong probability that the offending party is unfit to act as a custodial parent.” See, Leistner v. Leistner, 137 AD2d 499; Finn v. Finn, 176 AD2d 1132, 1133, quoting Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380, 384-385, appeal dismissed 44 NY2d 851; Matter of Krebsbach v. Gallagher, 181 AD2d 363, 366; Gago v. Acevedo, 214 AD2d 565; Matter of Turner v. Turner, 260 AD2d 953, 954; Zeiz v. Slater, 57 AD2d 793.
Where, as in the instant case, there is a finding of a willful violation of a court order demonstrated by a deliberate interference with a non-custodial parent’s right to visitation/parental access, the IAS Court, as a general rule, must schedule an evidentiary hearing before making any modification of custody. See, Glenn v. Glenn, 262 AD2d 885. See, also, Entwistle v. Entwistle, 61 AD2d 380; Young v. Young, 212 AD2d 114; Matter of LeBlanc v. Morrison, 288 AD2d 768, 770, quoting Matter of Markey v. Bederian, 274 AD2d 816; Matter of David WW v. Lauren QQ, 42 AD3d 685; Goldstein v. Goldstein, 2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 08995 [Dec. 1, 2009].
. . .
“In vivid testimony, the defendant recalled how the plaintiff willfully prevented him from exercising his rights to visitation with the children from November 4, 2007 through December 21, 2007”
This is approximately one month and some weeks. It is NOTHING compared to what mothers have suffered, often for years, and often without remedy. While it’s wrong, I note that the father filed an OSC by December 14th, and got action on it quickly. I wonder, in those many, many hearings, whether Mom got to testify at all.
Here’s a paragraph of the judge judging her by her emotional affect in the courtroom, and interpreting it:
Plaintiff half-heartedly testified that she wants the children to have a relationship with the defendant. Her view of the defendant’s role was a numbing, desired nominality, evident by her actions that were without any semblance of involvement by the defendant – – notwithstanding the clear joint custodial provisions. At critical points in the cross-examination, plaintiff was noticeably off balance – – hesitating and defensive – – with answers that dovetailed to either narcissism, or, a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct. The plaintiff was dispassionate, sullen, and passively resistant to the alienating efforts of the plaintiff. ***The continued litany of instances of alienating conduct, turned repression of the defendant’s joint custodial arrangement into farce.<+> The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein, was as daunting as it was indefensible.<*>
She is wrong for being off-balance, hesitating, defensive (this is a hearing of a contempt, and protesting it is her proper stance as a litigant! Being “defensive” isn’t wrong in this situation! And anyone might hesitate in giving an answer in court! Particularly a mother being grilled…
However, a judge throwing around psychological interpretations and language, as if they were FACT (“answers that dovetailed to narcissism or a poor grasp of the affects of her conduct.”) — this is testimony outside his expertise. (Unless he switched “effects” to “affects”). He’s trying to sound psychological, and misused the words: “Affects” characterize people, not conduct. He’s over-reaching, and over-interpreting. Here’s yet another evidence of “interpretation” of effect (results) as per se being evidence of a single cause, when most effects of any sort can have more than one, or multiple contributing causes:
The fact that the children were as angry as they were with the defendant in November and December, 2007, demonstrates, in my view, that efforts to alienate the children and their father were seemingly effective. The children demanded that defendant meet “their” demands before they would permit him to visit with them again. They demanded that defendant permit N. to attend F. A., that he withdraw his objection to their participation in therapy with their mother’s therapist
Is it possible that they were angry because they could not attend F.A. or wanted to participate in therapy? While as minors, they do not get to “demand” anything of their father as a condition of visitation, this judge states that their anger is evidence per se of efforts to alienate.
I’d be sullen too, in any such hearing. But this judge holds it against her. The sentence between *** and <+> makes no sense. The litany was from the father. So, if the “litany” turned (repression of joint custody) into something, then the “litany” was the agent of making a farce. A litany is a religious term, and involves recitation.
“The endurance in recounting instance upon instance of alienating conduct herein was daunting” — i.e., Poor, brave, Dad, enduring severe emotional pain by having to recount how many times his rights were disregarded.
Poor brave Dad brought the custody action; someone helped this hearing on — and on, but recounting facts is innate to bringing any action. Also, I wonder why these facts weren’t simply written out in a Declaration supporting the OSC. Why the courtroom drama? No kudos to him for having to recount his own emotional pain. The grammar goes like this, of that sentence: “The endurance . . . . . was indefensible.” Endurance is good. The situation requiring this endurance is what the judge considers indefensible. ENDURANCE — good. INDEFENSIBLE — bad. Basically, the judge is offended.
In this paragraph “reading” the mother, the judge has mis-used “affects” and “litany,” diagnosed “narcissism” (without quoting the counselors in the case, assuming one was actually qualified to diagnose, and had done so, but based on HIS reading of it) and is starting to get his words mixed up. Maybe that’s one of his “affects.” Selfishness is a character trait. “Narcissism” is a different, more extreme term so over-used, it’s almost become meaningless except to reveal a speaker who thinks him- or herself a psychiatrist. DSM has become mainstreamed in MSM (mainstream media) and shows up in legal opinions. to lend an air of expertise or authority.
These kids will probably do OK, relative to others in similar predicaments. I bet they are fed, and they are well-educated. Consider (evidence of a contempt):
Another example occurred on June 13, 2009, when plaintiff quietly escorted D. from Alice Tulley Hall during the intermission, ignoring the instructions from the G. Y. Orchestra staff that everyone remain until the conclusion of the entire program. Plaintiff purported she was unaware that defendant attended this special program in Lincoln Center. Defendant, who was in attendance at the concert, was left waiting at the stage door with flowers for D. Plaintiff ignored his text messages questioning where his daughter was. The plaintiff, when confronted with the notion that she may have precipitously ushered her daughter away before her father was able to give her flowers, retorted to the Court that “it was not her responsibility to make plans for T.”
Daughter “D.” is in a youth orchestra which performed in Alice Tulley Hall/Lincoln Center. Whatever else goes on between her parents (and stepdad) she has exposure to some other youth musicians, concertizing, and probably is able to talk with these kids as well. She will likely go to college and have a good shot at life as an adult. The “parental alienation” promotion was (ostensibly!) not aimed at families of this income level, though clearly emotional abuse affects everyone. I have seen worse behavior among rich people than poor, it seems, and the specialty can be forms of emotional abuse. . . . . In this particular incident, it seems to me that as a joint legal custodial parent, the father, being aware of this concert, might have texted the Mom — I’d like to see her afterwards, rather than just assumed he would, although certainly that was a reasonable assumption, that kids would stay. However, as these are elementary aged kids (or were, at some point in time, there may have been any number of reasons for leaving before it was out, even despite staff instructions.).
I omitted the central narrative, including accusations of breast-fondling and CPS involvement, which was met with retaliation for reporting by CPS.
From “Parental Alienation Canada” – the ex-wife from hell
Lippe [ALLEGEDLY] often went nuclear,
launching foul-mouthed tirades at Ted Rubin in front of the girls
— calling him a “deadbeat,” “loser,” “scumbag” and “f – – – ing asshole.”
Just wanted to note: what was the standard of proof in these hearings? Because when facts are quoted minus the attribution, by a judge (i.e., who said them) they become facts, in effect. Interpreting the word “deadbeat” was brought up — who paid for music lessons? Was this a stay-at-home Mom, or a working one?
In the relationships between people to psychologize without reference to what actually happened, in its larger context, is definitely tricky ground. In a custody switch to this Dad, is he working FT and remarried? Who would care for them during the week if not? Would they then lose any child support he was paying, or is she capable of putting in for it? Did any of this make the hearing (I’d bet not).
AGAIN, my blogging here is not to say this was a nice Mom or he was a bad Dad. She has plenty of hate mail, all over the internet, and I haven’t actually found a single positive word anywhere. So, I took the opposing side, and wanted to know how the jail thing happened to this women, but men who do worse, and go on to murder, are sprung from jail. Let’s get real about this system. The reality of their initial stipulation is, it was outrageous. that’s where the damage occurred.
Well, this is a 7,000 word post, and that’s enough for one post. Again — plenty of mothers are no longer seeing their kids, court order or no court order. What are our bankrupt options?
SHARE THIS POST on...
Domestic Violence INDUSTRY Awareness Month — let’s boycott!
I’m short of time. Let’s keep this simple: STOP, LOOK, and LISTEN….
“Ye shall know them by their fruits. “
(notably absent — stoppING domestic violence.)
Excuse me, scratch that —
Ye shall know them by their “-INGS”,
—
WritINGS often have titles end in -ING and are (thus) UnendING, which tells you the process (and deaths/destructions from this) never stop…
One prime indicator you are in this industry is any word ending in “-ing” in the title. Last post, I gave you the newest, latest, “Defending Childhood” initiative. Other times, it’s Explicating Domestic Violence, and of course the latest is along the lines of “Rethinking Domestic Violence.” Even if ALl these systems fail, or if people die as a result, it’s still possible to write on
“UnderstandING System Failure” (see my post).
Apologies in advance to any expert, and diligent writer/researcher, possibly very nice individual I will insult in this post. I do mean this. Your writings are interesting, and some of them hold some water.
Please bear in mind, I looked for help the past 10 years, which was unwise. In that time, I could’ve passed the Bar, earned another degree, or probably passed three self-defense courses, which might have been a better use of my time than attending conferences on DV or reading the literature, or expecting anything funded by U.S. or (my state) taxpayer dollars — extracted on the premise that these taxes are for helping people to handle certain social ills, so the taxpayers wouldn’t have to, personally — and could continue working and paying more taxes…while organizations that DON’T (or, are funded by foundations that don’t) transform society and policy….
Here’s a sample of the “-INGS” that indicate participation in the Domestic Violence INDUSTRY, or in the backlash to it, the Fatherhood (i.e., “ParentING” literature, by its real name) Industry.
(I obviously don’t mean “parenting” literature by married or cohabiting parents, but in the context of family law — see blog title…)
My sarcasm about the industry (well-merited) doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate the points raised by people in it (well, many of the points raised by people in it). What I protest is the SILENCE on the points rarely raised — which are the crux of the matter, and we poor slobs stuck in the system deserved to know earlier. Serves us right for following industry leaders before doing a background checks, or having ever become distressed — at all — in life… or having been raised in trusting nonviolent family environments, which fail to tell us how the world works, or at least the economy and the government. To this day, a real good (if uncomfortable) life consists of straining out myths. I hope my blog helps with some of the worst..
Redefining Harm, Reimagining Remedies and Reclaiming Domestic Violence Law
Margaret Ellen Johnson
University of Baltimore – School of Law
UC Davis Law Review, Vol. 42, 2009
University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-4
Abstract:
Civil domestic violence laws do not effectively address and redress the harms suffered by women subjected to domestic violence. The Civil Protective Order (“CPO”) laws should offer a remedy for all domestic abuse with an understanding that domestic violence subordinates women.{{WE WANT LAWS TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING? OR TO OFFER A REMEDY BASED ON SOMETHING?}}{{Rather, I suggest we start with an acknowledgment that they aren’t enforceable, anyhow, at leat not for long……As such, and per se, they endanger women unles respected by the person who got the civil PO. See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — isn’t this a lawyer or law prof. writing??}}These laws should not remedy only physical violence or criminal acts.{{Well, as practiced now — they often don’t remedy anything, though initially they do save lives (case in point). They are also considered less severe than criminal when kids get involved, though family law judges are notrious for ignoring criminal pasts in custody cases anyhow…Lord help the [yeah, woman , and especially any mother,] who didn’t know this, and press charges from day 1….}}All forms of abuse — psychological, emotional, economic, and physical — are interrelated. Not only do these abuses cause severe emotional distress, physical harm, isolation, sustained fear, intimidation, poverty, degradation, humiliation, and coerced loss of autonomy, {{TRUE — in fact sounds like a good description of slavery, which supposedly was outlawed...}} but, as researchers have demonstrated, [***] most domestic violence is the fundamental operation of systemic oppression through the exertion of power and control. Because CPOs are effective in rebalancing the power in a relationship and decreasing abuse, this remedy should be available to all women subjected to all forms of domestic violence. This Article proposes recrafting the civil law to provide a remedy for all harms of domestic violence and its operation of systemic power and control over women. Re-centering the narrative of domestic violence on this oppression rather than merely physical violence and criminal acts underscores the critical role of women’s agency and autonomy in legally remedying domestic violence. Too often, outside actors choose to save women’s lives to the exclusion of effectuating women’s choices about their abusive relationships.Keywords: Domestic Violence, Civil Protective Order, Civil Law, Women and the Law, Feminist Legal Theory, Gender and the Law
JEL Classifications: K19, K39, K40
Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: November 19, 2008 ; Last revised: August 16, 2010
Suggested Citation
I’m not going to fully engage with this article sounds interesting, eh? See my What Decade Were These Stories post, though — civil or criminal, the duty to enforce does NOT create a right for the protected party to demand enforcement. Bet they didn’t tell you that one at the local Family Justice Center.
Speaking of which, for CreatING Family Justice Centers — see my post “District Attorney Dubious Doings”
Speaking of which — and this is timely — see JUSTICE WOMEN.ORG (N. CA. based — same as Dr. Kelly, below — although I doubt the nonprofit organization founders can afford to fly around the country conducting trainings, like those in the industry can. And do….
Research can “demonstrate” anything, which I’m about to demonstrate.
To make my point, I’ll source another nice seminar held at this same Univ. of Baltimore School of Law, recently ….
ParentING Coordination:
HelpING High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes**
{a word about those phrases, below….}
>December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
Key phrase: high-conflict (reframes DV/CA issues), “parenting Coordinatrion” and “HELPING parents.” Yeah, right…
<a href=”http://law.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=1408” rel=”nofollow”>SOURCE: University of Baltimore Law School.</a>
That this is a marketING phrase can be seen by searching on the title — it shows up as a TrainING seminar out of — “suprise!” – afccnet.org, which I don’t feel like downloading here: (note: try search yourself, in quotes, if my link doesn’t work)
“Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes”
Or, I could search this by the Presenter, following the same Title, and trace it back to Northern California..She happened to also teach this at Baltimore School of Law.
FEE: $495 (Early Registration: $435 if paid by 10/21/10; $465 if paid by 11/4/10). MCLE & BBS (12 hrs.); MCEP (13 hrs – to be submitted for review to MCEPAA for approval, Provider #NOR045).
DESCRIPTION:
Parents with continuing disputes and litigation about their children following divorce present a difficult problem for courts, lawyers and mental health professionals, and increase their children’s risk of adjustment problems. For parenting coordinators, Special Masters, mediators, custody evaluators, lawyers, divorce counselors, therapists and other professionals who work with high-conflict families.Participants in this two-day workshop will:
- Understand the most recent empirical and clinical research on high conflict parents and their children and what makes these parents so difficult;
- Understand the hybrid nature of the parenting coordinator (Special Master) role that includes parent education, mediation, and where authorized, arbitration, and how the parenting coordinator process helps reduce parent conflict and address children’s needs;
THESE NEEDS WILL MOST DEFINITELY INCLUDE A NEED FOR TWO PARENTS — MOM AND DAD — IN THEIR LIVES, EVEN IF DAD WAS A BATTERER AND HAS A CHILD MOLESTATION RECORD. IF IT’S TOO OVERT, THEN THE SUPERVISED VISITATION PEOPLE CAN BE BROUGHT IN…
- Understand the distinctions between serving as a Special Master and therapy, custody evaluation, child representation or representing parents;
- Learn about parenting coordinator objectives, types of disputes settled, best practices, models, and critical elements in court orders or parent consent agreements;
- Understand the technical, ethical, clinical, and personal issues in serving as a parenting coordinator (Special Master);
- Learn from case examples, group exercises, and practice dispute analysis and decision-making.
About the Instructor:
Dr. Joan B. Kelly, a research, forensic, and clinical psychologist, was Director of the Northern California Mediation Center for 19 years. Her research, writing, and practice have focused on children’s adjustment to divorce, custody and access issues, using child development research in parenting plans, divorce mediation, and Parenting Coordination. She has more than 85 publications, and a classic book, Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce. Joan is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, was recently appointed to an APA ask Force to develop guidelines for Parenting Coordinator practice, and previously served on a similar AFCC task force. She is a frequent presenter and speaker in the United States, Canada, and abroad.
Co-presenter (at Baltimore School of Law training, anyhow)
Ms. Mindy Mitnick
Besides having a very unique name, especially preceded by “Ms.” —
which may (or may not) explain why she present with Ph.D. (just kids — but seriously, in the INDUSTRY, Ph.D.’s count. Being a street-savvy litigant, even with a Ph.D. in something else does NOT — as Dr. Amy Cabrillo (pediatrician) learned the hard way when she begged a judge to listen to her high-conflict, uncoordinated parent self in NOT letting her suicidal and already troubled “ex” take three children on a weekend visitation. As we know (and wasn’t THIS in maryland also??) her plea was ignored, and her three children were drowned in a bathtub. Apparently their father was indeed coordinated in some matters, such as drownING his kids. This FYI, is called a “dispute” and “high conflict,” squarely blaming Dr. Castillo 50% for not holdING her marriage together, although certainly she was complyING with court orders… …Street savvy, educated, observant, alert, honest, etc. or not — you will be cut down to size by these professionals….
(is on the Board of Directors of AFCC, who helps sponsor these trainINGs.)
Mindy F. Mitnick Ed.M.
Edina, MinnesotaMindy Mitnick is a Licensed Psychologist practicing in Minneapolis. She received a Master of Education from Harvard University and a Master of Arts from the University of Minnesota. She specializes in complex custody cases, working as an evaluator, therapist and parenting consultant. Ms. Mitnick has trained professionals throughout the country about developmental issues in parenting schedules, effective interventions in high-conflict divorce, assessing allegations of sexual abuse during divorce disputes, and the use of expert witnesses in divorce cases. She has been a speaker for the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, National Association of Counsel for Children, the National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse, the Ontario Office of the Children’s Lawyer, and numerous statewide training conferences. Ms. Mitnick served on the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Parental Cooperation and the American Bar Association working group to update guidelines for child witnesses in criminal cases. She currently serves on the AFCC Task Force on Court-Involved Therapy and is a board member of the Minnesota Chapter of AFCC.
In the training phrase above, from Univ of Baltimore School of Law:
December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
These are the key concepts to understande, as well as how the title itself is REPACKAGING and MARKETING CRIMINAL MATTERS {typically child molestation or battering, domestic violence, and/ or in some cases stalking, kidnapping, false imprisonment and in general other pretty nasty stuff that society doesn’t like — or at least says it doesn’t} AS PARENTAL” DISPUTES”
:
December 7th – December 10th, 2009 – The University of Baltimore School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts, in partnership with the Association of Family Conciliation Courts, sponsored two two-day workshops. Dr. Joan Kelly presented Parenting Coordination: Helping High Conflict Parents Resolve Disputes and Ms. Mindy Mitnick presented Advanced Issues in Child Custody: The Child’s Perspective.
We have here a prominent psychologist and educationist trainING a host of others how to view parents with a dispute. Keep in mind that some of the leading bleeding headlines you see also characterize the problem as a “dispute.” Some dispute!
The chief thing to understand about BOTH parents in any of these matters is that they can’t walk and chew gum unless a psychologist and/or divorce expert tells them how to, for a fee (see above…). Pretty soon, from what I can tell, that definition is going to expand beyond the about 50% of couples that divorce, to most of the population — except thsoe in the business of supervising them, and training others how to do so, whether this supervision is at the K-12 level, pre-school, prison, batterers intervention, supervised vsitation, fatherhood practicing, marriage-promoting, ABSTINENCE-promoting or Restraining Order Issuing level — or simply being a working PERSON FUNDING THESE EFFORTS. ….
I know we can’t “walk and chew gum” without help (although some of us were formerly surgeons, teachers, factory workers, business owners, stay-at-home Moms, working Moms, or functional in many, many other areas of society outside this world of family law…….) – because we need COORDINATION — right?
THAT link is at the CFCC level. I keep tellING people, including women in my situation, that this is the key to the puzzle, at least a major key. ….
Take a look at the -INGS in this California Courtinfo site — linking to the CFCC
Their program page includes this:
The Center for Families, Children & the Courts is involved with many projects related to family, juvenile, child support, custody, visitation, and domestic violence law and procedure. Click on the title below to find out about a particular program.
Access to Visitation Grant Program
The Access to Visitation Grant Program — I think it dates as far back as 1995 or 1996 at least — is a function of PWORA welfare reform, fatherhood promotion, and forced shared parenting concepts. It’s one of the best kept secrets around. I you read about it, you will see why there is an ongoING need for thes eprofessionals in the courts, and how YOU are (probably) paying for this, to the tune of (at one time) $10/million per YEAR, nationwide.
OK, OK, I’ll spell this out, right here now:
Overview
The Judicial Council is charged with administering and distributing California’s share of the federal Child Access and Visitation Grant funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child Support Enforcement. These grants, established under section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (Pub.L. 104–193, 110 Stat. 2258)—title III, section 469B of the Social Security Act—enable states to establish and administer programs that support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children.The congressional goal of the Child Access and Visitation Grant Program is to “remove barriers and increase opportunities for biological parents who are not living in the same household as their children to become more involved in their children lives.” Under the federal statute, Child Access and Visitation Grant funds may be used to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation [with] their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick-up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
The use of the funds in California, however, is limited by state statute to three types of programs:
Supervised visitation and exchange services;
Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
Group counseling services for parents and children.
The primary goals of California’s Access to Visitation Grant Program are to enable parents and children to participate in supervised visitation, education, and group counseling programs—irrespective of marital status and of whether the parties are currently living separately permanently or temporarily—and to promote and encourage healthy relationships between noncustodial or joint custodial parents and their children while ensuring the children’s health, safety, and welfare. The overarching goal of the grant program is to increase noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation with their children through accessible and available services statewide for low-income families who are now or have been in family courts.
Aimed at low-income families, ostensibly, it affects ALL families. particularly ones where some wealth exists are going to get soaked.
This is the best kept secret around and should be “outed” during Domestic Violence INDUSTRY Month — because the domestic violence INDUSTRY leaderes never talk about this, or a whole damn lot of other key factors at play in the c ourts.
Why should they — and ahve to go find another job? ?? What, you got to be KIDDING!
Yesterday’s post cited an article in a Northern California area (Marin County) that is getting high press, and some organizations around it (one called “Center for Judicial Excellence.”) and an upcoming audit of the family court system, supposedly. Who’s kidding whom? The eXISTENCE of this CFCC and its role in the courts, and the Access Visitation funding is not even mentioned (by name) in ALL of the comments below, which span many categories. Moreover, the ONLY reference to AFCC (and some indications a woman had actually read Marv Bryer,Idele Clark – one of the cases involved, I believe — and others) — she reads like a madwoman.
HEY — when you type on a computer, are you constantly aware if it’s DOS or WINDOWS or Apple based? (obviously that’s not my field of expertise)? Are you translating binary code? Probably not –right? But how would it work if someone hadn’t designed that to start with?
Now let’s talk about the INDUSTRY. It’s SELF-REPLICATING THROUGH UNENDING TRAINING, enabled in great part by this wonderful INTERNET.
Them that can, DO. Them that can’t, teach it’s said. Well, there’s SOME truth to that ..
Trust me (or don’t) — it’s important to understand this system — and it’s a model for other similar ones.
Remind me, some day, to publish my English to ING-lish guide to these marketING systems posing as “help” to uncoordinated parents in a dispute, or the restrainING order mills.
Don’t get me wrong — I wouldn’t be alive today without one. But it most certainly upset a LOT of people, and (except that I’m still alive typing) they have more than gotten even for the indignity…
EVERY balance sheet has a + and a -. But a business sense says, that in relationships, your – may very well be my (or my cronies’) +. Failure to realize this is setting onesself up. When it comes to altruism, it may be a factor, but I’d bet it’s generally not the primary one in most ongoing relationships. Self-interest is part of human nature. Most people, nowadays, in the US (probably safe to say) do not raise their own food or defend themselves. So, what fields is everyone going to?
And where are the intellectuals going to make an honest — scratch that — make A living?
We don’t have royalty over here, so one has to go somewhere… Social Sciences, Psychology, TeachING . . . .CoordinatING, managING, etc. Where is the endless supply of customers coming from?
What better database than people who get into troubled relationships (domestic violence) and try to get out (divorce) but have children before they do (parenting). It takes a global village, right?? ThinkING — now that’s got to be taught also…
Did I mention PublishING? that’s a prerequisite for Ph.D.s, isn’t it? At least to get started, and retain a reputation.
The question with any policy ending with the word ING is — who is between and among?
Uniformly, almost, I find it is between or among professionals in one field (or another) getting their act together about how to describe and deal with People who are Not Present. In otherwords, the US’es in any field discuss the THEMs. In this way, groups that were formerly an Us/Them dichotomy (the most obvious being the Fatherhood/Domestic Violence groupings) pat themselves on the back for collaborating — on how to scam the new “THEMS,” which is, as I again say, the poor slobs who still think that law means law, and not psychological therapeutic jurisprudence for fun (theirs) and profit.
And we indeed are a consumer society — or else the sky will fall. How can and who can be forced into consuming psychological, parenting, and other counseling they neither need, want, nor are going to follow? Only someone in severely compromised situations. Voila, Family Law System. ….
HENCE, the FINANCIAL balance sheet often reveals much more than any custody evaluation. I’m all in favor of it, when it comes to reform. Personally, though I’d favor boycott where possible, and watch out, where not. Women’s groups should learn from men (but not forget that gender issues remain, and always have been there) and men should learn from women when we’ve had enough; you are going to be out on your ass, and if these policies keep up, up until the invention of the artificial womb or human clone, we are going to recommend our daughters stop giving birth; except that we love them, some of us sometimes regret that we did, to spend an entire childhood like many of them have had to — half in abuse, and half (possibly still in abuse) in the income-draining court system.
(I love you, girls… . . . Love, your real Mom…and you are why I ever bothered with this blog. I wanted you to know what was, and what wasn’t certain people’s fault — and NONE of it was yours, ever. I also want to warn you what’s ahead if you don’t gain your own wisdom about your own past someday, I hope soon — or when you’re ready to. Sorry I can’t mention you by name, but I bet you’ll recognize my writing style….)
Lies are always wrong, and intentional deceit. The largest lies were not from either parent (though I DID NOT!) but from the policymakers in washington, D.c., and others who framed legislation to make a joke out of the court process, and for their own pocketbooks…If I had left earlier, given these policies, I likely would not have even seen you grow half up…
Make SURE you know your travelling companions in life, and choose the best ones you can in any situation. Never take things for granted, and try to study the wider systems you are in. Specializing is rewarding (and builds good discipline and attentiont o detail), but professions change rapidly. As women, you need to know some feminist roots, and where feminists have forgotten the “fundies,” and both, fighting, have forgotten the history of this country and the world.
ALWAYS, always, the love of money is the root of evil, and generally speaking, highest emotions in life are about that, and possibly social status and access to sex (which money, plenty of it represents). Remember that the net time some legislator or anyone else (such as a preacher) tries to lecture you about your personal habits. . .. Don’t go into marriage if you do, defanged. it’s just not wise! That man needs to know he respects you or you’re gone, kids or no kids. Respect comes first, and equal access to finances to take off if you need to (that was my mistake, daughters).
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Rethinking Domestic Violence” ~ “Understanding Women’s Responses to it” — the Dueling Dr. Duttons
Another half-baked (but also likely half-entertaining/informative) post from 08-21-2010.
These situations are so ridiculous, anything other than (a) mocking or (b) exposing the court dockets makes me feel like a collaborator. To be honest, part of my motivation is to simply not lose the time I put into this one, looking up data. Another part is to cover up the prior half-baked (Wacko in Wisconsin Part 2) post I just published.
One thing that’s NOT half-baked is the systems in place to justify trafficking in children, one way or another, at public expense, and then when this is brought to the public’s attention (or the public tries to bring it to the government’s attention) the same personnel (probably laughing and rejoicing among themselves) simply pick a “boilerplate” demonstration grant from one of the many already in place, change a few nouns and verbs, and apply for some more grants to study the problem they’ve created — one of which is, poverty.
This is NOT a half-baked system, but a fully-cooked business plan. More on that later…
Another which is, language is becoming meaningless, at some point. ….
HERE WE GO, AGAIN:
Which would you rather understand (or Rethink) —
- Domestic Violence? Or
- Women’s Responses to it? (1992-93, but quoted plenty, along with other publications) Or,
- Thinking Errors that Cause System Failure, * Or,
(*from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence recent conference in Anaheim, CA)?
- This Woman’s (my!) Response to the Thinking Error that Assumes the System actually IS Failing (I believe it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do. The “failure” depends on one’s POV (point of view). For example, if I sell you some land under the Brooklyn Bridge, I profited and you didn’t. Long ago some people sold the Island of Manhattan. That was not profitable for them. Another flavor of what I think is on the link above advertising for the NCADV conference where this occurred. Scroll down to LetsGetHonest comment on the whole deal.
The two Doctor Duttons are not, in fact dueling, and may or may not even be dealing with each other. But their Research — and by now we should know our 3 Rs: Research comes with Rhetoric, Right?
One thing both of them are doing, as well as researching, is publishing (this IS what Ph.D.s do, right?), and unlike women and men stuck in the court system, or violent relationships (or poverty), not perishing. Even though, if YOUR life depended on knowing which was more correct thinking, they would stil probably continue to research, publish, and not perish. IN fact, both are prominent, and what they write is worth reading, probably. Anyone who has got to Ph.D. had better publish.
One thing EVERY woman in a battering relationship, especially with children, and about to go for help, ro to the courts, or a child support order, or to a nonprofit agency on one side or the other of rhetoric, is the difference of viewpoint. Women have been so socialized to go for help (particularly in certain religions), they just MISS this. Others are also socialized to be punished if they stand up and just demand it, i.e., Claudine Dombrowski et al.
Take, for example, Claudine Dombrowski.
If experts were selling books that comprised almost SOLELY of the case dockets of women’s lives after they reported abuse and actually had a child, probably the abuse would just dang STOP.
Here’s the court docket in Shawnee Kansas — it is fourteen and a half years long. The next hearing is set for october. The last hearing (yesterda [@Aug. 2010]y), she STOOD UP and reported 67 contempts of a recent court order (allowing her to see her daughter). While that contempt is not severe emotional cruelty bordering on the torture (beatings) that started the case (batter, parental alienation, interference with a custody order, or in short a pattern of simply bad behavior), Claudine’s actually going to court with the paperwork must be smacked down SOMEHOW. I”m not quite sure what bad behavior Claudine showed this time, but it seems they grabbed her cell phone. Being that she’s also been noncustodial most of the time (i gather) I’m sure her finances are being grabbed to pay child support for this circus.
It is possible to be punished for a sort of gag order that prohibits one from exercising one from exercising First Amendment Rights, to protest in justice. The place this is SO o o o . . . . easy is when a psychologist, or mental health professional, particularly anyone relating to a CHILD, is involved:
08/20/2010 – MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan, II. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Matter proceeds on review of Court’s order of January 28, 2010, establishing unsupervised parenting time for Respondent. Dr. Rodeheffer offers testimony – matter continued to a date to be agreed upon for additional testimony. Court finds that Dr. Rodeheffer’s report of May 18, 2010, has been published on the website of Respondent. Court suspends Respondent’s parenting time pending final hearing in this matter. Respondent’s counsel is to review Respondent’s cell phone to determine if there are images of report on Respondent’s cell phone – Respondent’s phone time with minor child to continue but to Petitioner’s home phone. Due to publication of report on the Internet, which deals with minor child, Court finds that there is a privacy interest of the minor child that is central to these proceedings and outweighs the public interest and orders that the files, records, and transcripts of the case be sealed until further order of the Court. J. Dykes to do order. DBD
Here’s one from April, 2009:
03/20/2009 – #86 Demand Motion filed and entered by CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI, PRO SE, FOR JUDGE DAVID DEBENHAM TO RECUSE HIMSELF FOR VIOATIONS OF CANNONS ONE THROUGH THREE BIAS AND PREJUDICE TOWARDS RESPONDENT 03/20/2009 – Journal Entry filed. DBD 03/24/2009 – ORDER APPOINTING COUNSEL FILED – DBD. 04/06/2009 – MISC. Petitioner in person and by Donald Hoffman. Respondent in person and by Robert E. Duncan. G.A.L., Jill Dykes, for minor child who is not present. Court Reporter: Digital Div. 13. Respondent withdraws motion for recusal of Judge. Court considers evidence offered through affidavit and stipulations of the parties and after listening to arguments of counsel, finds that Judge Johnson on September 27, 2006, ordered “Respondent to withdraw any and all likenesses of the minor child over which she had control that may be appearing on the internet or other public places or public access and further that Respondent was ordered not to present child at public rallies, demonstrations, newscast or otherwise publicize the child’s name or likeness in furtherance of Respondent’s efforts in the instant case”. Court found 1) based on incidents detailed in the affidavit and the stipulations of the parties that Respondent had violated the Court’s order by intentionally placing photographs of the minor child on Respondent’s website and to links accessible through the Respondent’s website and to websites that the Respondent was either maintaining or contributing to; 2) that as of April 4, 2009, the photographs of the minor child were still accessible; 3) that as of April 6, 2009, the photographs were not accessible. Court finds Respondent to be in Indirect Contempt. In mitogation, Respondent offers that photos were part of a family tribute to her deceased grandmother. Court fines Respondent $1,500 and orders her to serve 30 days in jail. Court allows Respondent to purge herself of the contempt by removing all photos, likenesses and name of minor child from the internet or any other public place or public access on which she has control by April 15, 2009, at 3:00 p.m. Respondent is ordered to pay Petitioner’s attorney fees of $600 for prosecuting the motion to show cause, Respondent is ordered to obtain a psychological evaluation by a Psychiatrist. Respondent is prohibited from filing any motions on her own unless the motion is signed by her attorney or she obtains permission of the Court prior to filing. Parenting time as previously ordered – 2 hours supervised visitation per week through Odyssey Group. Respondent currently has a P.O. Box and does not wish to disclose her address. Court ordered, and Respondent agrees, that any filing mailed to her P.O. Box shall be deemed personal service. R. Duncan to do JE. DBD 04/24/2009 – REQUEST FOR TRANSCRIPT FILED BY: CLAUDINE DOMBROWSKI
The Publishing and Not Perishing Perspective is very different from the others.
The Profiting or nonprofiting from being expert on these matters is very different from the others.
The topic of adjusting Thinking Errors (or understanding them) is very definitely swampland — and where the solid ground is very probably depends on IRrational belief systems. Do you want to correct thinking errors based on information from The Holy Spirit? Then go to Dr. Abshier, ND (Naturopathic doctor, Christian Counselor, Political Philosopher).
1) Thinking Errors: Processing Problems, Irrational Beliefs, Irrational Thinking, and Self-Defeating Beliefs: There are many nuances and variations of the various cognitive distortions. They all include some degree of error in perception, proportion, meaning, processing and judgment: The thinking errors include: irrational beliefs about cause and effect, erroneous attributions of meaning, and wrong philosophical connections about the larger play of life in history and politics.
I happen to think his fields are interrelated — a nice combo: Naturapath (do it how the Creator designed it, or as close as possible; Christian Counselor (do it how the Creator designed it, hmm… is he fundie, or fatherhood promoter? conservative or liberal?? Was Eve responsible? Was she inferior? Did Jesus change that? What’s the domination quotia in this one?) and Political Philosopher. – – I just hope he can keep them all straight and segregated during counseling.
Are you a “design, quality, or manufacturing engineer or manager,” who needs to understand why people, unlike materials, often screw up, causing system failure? Then take this 2 – 4-day organization/management course:
Eogogics.com (“the science of knowledge sharing”)
Root Cause Analysis of Component Failure: Understanding Human and Engineering Factors for Improved Product Performance.
Design, test, and maintenance engineers; failure analysts; technical purchasing agents and supplier quality engineers; and engineering managers looking to integrate the lessons of failure analysis into a more comprehensive design operation, and procurement process
The standard presentation of this course assumes background in mechanical or materials (metallurgical) engineering. However, with some tailoring, the course can be understood by an audience with a bachelor’s in any engineering discipline
Are you a Computer Software person who doesn’t want to see another Y2K bug scare? Or a plain old person who wants to know why we had to go through that? Then go to:
Systems Failure is a role-playing game written by Bill Coffin and published by Palladium Books in 1999. The fictional premise for the game is that during the “millennium bug” scare . . .
A report investigating the causes of system failure in a software context, and highlighting and classifying those causes.
The Google search of this shows a title remarkably similar to the NCADV conference title, above:
Understanding System Failure And The Thinking Errors Which Cause · International Space Station’s Cooling System Failure Raises Long …
scitechbox.com/topic/system–failure – Cached
Which I find interesting, and revealing. For one, how original is the thought coming out of it? For another, systems that systematically fail to do what they SAY they want to do may have had another intent to start with. Either that, or two types of systems may have merged, and the antibodies in the one rejected the other, causing “System failure.”
Actually, this is exactly what happened in the family law system. You cannot add JUSTICE based on PROCESS based on Constitution and Bill of Rights with Mental Health Practitioners (for one, it’s illegal to experiment on human beings, and abhorrent. For another, IS psychology a science? I say, no. It’s a language set and interpretation of reality….). The Family Law system is a merger of (at least) two systems — legal & mental health. That’s simple fact — see AFCC. The other “invisible agent” in the matter (unless one has eyes to see it) is the child support system, i.e., the financial factor. That’s another fact — see “Access Visitation Funding” and a site ending *.gov.
So this system is indeed a hybrid — like a mule. Mules are great for work, strong and stubborn, but they have to be bred — they are sterile and can’t reproduce. They get a lot of work done, though… Same deal with this system. It CANNOT reproduce justice with a bunch of immune-to-accountability and READILY subject to conflict of interest (or bribes) professionals, and private clubs and conferences where they meet and prepare a strategy to throw on the whole system.
Perhaps by now readers have figured out MY system, and that I am playing games with Google in order to show similar phrases in different contexts (applications). That happens to be MY response to a decade in this system. It’s part of my STOP, LOOK and MOCK policy (see above post responding to the Thinking Errors post). I really do hope some will STOP, LOOK , and THINK. It beats rocking back and forth in a chair with grief, or shaking with PTSD, or sitting within range of someone who has now determined that such behavior is a thinking error which needs an Rx — which one of their business allies has been marketing. It makes me happy, and with luck, will offend someone and cause a quick BLINK of THINKING about what such systems have done to our Constitution and Courts.
Here’s one that’s a little closer to the topic — someone analyzing PTSD patient’s / trauma survivors’ “Thinking Errors.”
[PDF]
THINKING ERRORS THAT LEAD TO FAULTY CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ONE’S ROLE …
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat – Quick View
We have identified fifteen thinking errors that can lead trauma survivors to draw faulty … Obliviousness to totality of forces that cause traumatic events. … Failure to recognize that different decision-making “rules” apply when time is …. have conscious control over their autonomic nervous system. …
This ARTICLE IS 1997, .
Handout 10.4: Thinking Errors, Faulty Conclusions, and
Cognitive Therapy for Trauma-Related Guilt by Edward S. Kubany, Ph.D., ABPP
Published in National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Clinical Quarterly (1997, 8, 6-8). Reprinted in Trauma Response (1998, 4, 20-21). This article is in the public domain.
THE FIRST PAGE IS INFORMATIVE:
“There is growing recognition that trauma survivors’ explanations of their involvement in trauma may contribute to posttrauma symptomatology and interfere with the process of recovery (1,2,3). These explanations often revolve around cognitive aspects of guilt, which is conceptualized as an unpleasant feeling accompanied by a set of interrelated beliefs about one’s role in a negative event (2,4,5). My colleagues and I have identified four cognitive dimensions or components of guilt, which include (a) perceived responsibility for causing a negative outcome, (b) perceived lack of justification for actions taken, (c) perceived violation of values, and (d) a belief that one knew what was going to happen before the outcome was observed.
Considering this Cognitive Therapy, which correlates trauma such as combat veterans, rape victims, battered women, and incest survivors, — the latter three which FREQUENTLY are in this system — addressing the trauma and helping them correct thinking errors saying they were responsible for it — and, on the other hand, the Family Law (and sometimes Family) systems which, quite literally, blame the woman for her abuse (or minimize it), blame her for not maintaining a child’s attachment to the other parent (but fail to do this the other way round when a noncustodial Dad has won a custody switch in court) can cause some real Cognitive Dissonance (and more business for other therapists). Let me express this as a formula:
TRAUMA-BASED HEALING APPROACH + FAMILY COURT PICK A PARENT TO BLAME approach = INCOMPATIBLE = CYCLE OF DISTRESS = GOOD FOR $OME BU$INESSE$.
Add to this:
This therapist just said, trauma victims can NOT predict outcomes (so much for instinct, let alone pure prophecy). I don’t agree – I accurately predicted my daughters were going to be snatched, based on instinctive and ongoing assessment of the patterns around me. They were. I couldn’t predict exactly when or how, and I didn’t have the wherewithal to stop this. I accurately understood before it happened that the officers were not going to enforce, stop, or help, but there comes a point of overload of situations when one cannot process them all and handle them all.
A major business to the courts these days IS in exactly the business of prediction. It’s called Lethality Assessment, and it’s been around a very long time. I don’t share that point of view, because it’s my life, and kids (and women like me) whose lives are being risk-assessed. I’d rather go with PROTECTION (WHICH A RESTRAINING ORDER, FYI, ISN’T, REALLY).
Imagine applying the “risk prediction” process to something as important as, say, getting (someone) pregnant.
Mary Ann Dutton
Professor, Department of PsychiatryPSYCHIATRY, RESEARCH DIVISION
Mary Ann Dutton, PhD, Receives Grant
Mary Ann Dutton, PhD, Receives Three Year Grant from National Institutes of Mental Health
Mary Ann Dutton, Professor of Psychiatry and Associate Director of the Center for Trauma and the Community, received an R34 grant entitled A First-Line Community-Based Mindfulness Trauma Intervention from the National Institute of Mental Health. The study, which will run for three years, addresses an important new area in trauma.
The overall goal is to address the huge mental health care disparity for low-income, minority women exposed to intimate partner violence by obtaining new knowledge and skills in order to develop and test an accessible, tailored, and culturally-appropriate mindfulness-based intervention sustainable as a first-line intervention or delivery in non-mental health community settings. To narrow the remarkable mental health disparities gap, three interrelated studies using different methodologies will be conducted to develop and pilot test an adapted mindfulness-based trauma intervention. The proposal has three specific aims 1) to develop a mindfulness-based trauma intervention for PTSD and other trauma-related psychological (depression, somatic symptoms, quality of life). Intervention development will include writing intervention and training manuals, developing measures of intervention fidelity, and pre-piloting the intervention for feasibility and accountability; 2) to pilot test the interventions with low-income, predominately African-American women exposed to intimate partner violence and to examine potential mediators (mindfulness, coping self-efficacy, social support) of improved outcomes, and 3) to pilot test measures of the cost of administering the intervention. This pilot study will provide preliminary data for a rigorous large scale clinical trial to examine both self-report and biological outcomes of the mindfulness-based trauma intervention.
/
OR, you could go with another “Dr. Dutton” — here:
http://www.drdondutton.com/books.htm
Rethinking Domestic Violence
“Dutton’s analysis of domestic violence research and discourse is comprehensive, refreshing, and enlightened. He has gathered the latest work from multiple disciplines to create a volume that will surely be a cornerstone of a radical, distinctly feminist rethinking of domestic violence practice.” More…
Printed in Canada
Cover design: David Drummond
GIVE ME A BREAK. If he was an imminent target of DV (or his kids were), there’d be less publishing and more protecting.
Both Duttons have valuable things to say — and when I feel truly safe, I’ll be sure to read them. Maybe.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Wacko in Wisconsin — and no, I’m NOT talking about the Parents/Litigants (published 9/15/2010, updated 7/21/2017)
Nowadays (posts published = about 715 as of summer 2017), this is how I identify posts:
Types of updates: When you see quotes within solid borders (boxed), quotes with different background colors, the borders on the post itself, or comments with dates signed: “…//LGH 2017 (LGH= “Let’s Get Honest,” i.e., me). Also the added section in light-green showing several images for some of the links (I didn’t do screenprints, let alone annotated screenprints in 2010. In general, I’m trying to better distinguish actual quotes from my commentary on them, through formatting. Wordpress doesn’t naturally enable this, so each time you see it, I’m plowing through html “gibberish” for the specific codes, and tweaking them by “div” or “blockquote” or “span” or “Table.” This takes considerable time… For image display, the “WYSIWYG” (What You See is What You Get” function is imperfect, so there’s a lot of back and forth (edit, preview, adjust, preview again, etc.) on the layout.
There may be a more efficient way to do all this, but until then, and still being basically a self-taught amateur for blogging technology, and more to the point, still just one person (focused more on content than format), that’s how it works.)… I spent some time on this post also checking for and, where possible, replacing broken links. ….. some quotation / commentary notations towards the bottom are “best guess” where I no longer had valid links.
Why bother updating older posts? — Well, the other part of this one just got five more comments, so that’s why. The other reason is the types of people that are visiting the post, based on (html-based visitor ID software) some of the organization names. In 2016 and 2017 I’ve been hard-hitting at higher levels of organized networks (nonprofit and governmental as coordinated) on on following the money, and showing how to, also giving people again, permission to question any or all of the “experts” in any category, but with the platform and basis for doing so being objective, and on “operations” level. So, although they aren’t commenting much, visitors show up from various universities (incl. Harvard), or levels of government (esp. from California, where I live and on which blogs tend to focus), and overseas (London School of Economics at least a few times, Legislative Offices, President’s Offices at UC, and so forth). Sometimes these visitors seem to match what was being posted, sometimes, not.
And other times, I have to admit, it’s just to avoid humiliation in retrospect at the formatting/condition of the earlier posting.
There was a “Part 2” on this theme published 10/1/2010:
Picking up the narrative at Oct. 1, 2010…
I dare you to make some sense of this one: Actually, by now, there are about 4 cases below: Walkers (they squeaked in, in my intro), Archibalds, Stearns (thrown in for illustration), Katz, and that one’s a doozie. ALL of them are…What’s UP in Wisconsin?
Among the “parents” involved are <>the “Bodway” family who managed to get a daughter away from a mother after divorce, being nonrelatives; <>a mother who is caught, and on probation and medication for stealing her own daughters (and drugs and a gun involved– the drugs were antidepressants for her, and the gun, not fired, was for her safety, she said), and I’m going to presume that PROBABLY <>that prominent WI D.A. who was prosecuting a DV case and trying to make it (sexting was involved) with a woman half his age, while prosecuting her boyfriend for attempting to strangle her while still married (but divorcing) probably was a parent too.
SO . .
If you still think life as normal exists somewhere within our courts, then this blogger (who I suspect is the woman in question) will sound like a nutcase. And it’s easy to discredit someone whose allegations sound like a nutcase –unless one has spent some time looking up the court dockets, which I did here.
THE WALKER CASE IS A WALKING CASE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST– PARTIAL:, here.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
“Parental Alienation” is Sign Language….Like “Domestic Violence”
leave a comment »
Don’t ask me why I decided to post this draft, revealing my thoughts the other day. I don’t feel like telling. Hope never dies that exposing verbal idiocy might result in a net reduction of it.
At least on the part of the consumers — the marketers, well, this language use is wise.
PART 1:
PARENTAL ALIENATION
The words “Parental Alienation” signify that somewhere on this earth, a certain business sector, playing on human emotions, is prospering. As does “domestic violence” “child abuse” “Children and Families” and “Fatherhood” (enough syllables, seems to roll well off the tongue), and “false allegations,” “resource center” and “batterers’ intervention,” “supervised visitation,” and the like. These noun phrases are now just part of the landscape, and have developed their own specialized biosphere, with flora and fauna.
If you were a fine-feathered, raptor, and could soar with piercing vision, specialized hearing (and feathers) and incredible adaptations for dive-bombing your prey from on high in spirals, like the peregrin falcon, or hearing it underneath the snow, like certain owls (obviously I’ve been watching PBS here), and your prey were compromised populations, you JUST might be an initiative, a conference, a collaboration, a task force, a commission, or a nonprofit organization part of one of the above.
RAPTOR FORCE: Eagles, Falcons, Hawks, and Owls
I already brought up the concept of the Family Law System as a Giant Squid, fearsome tentacles lurking in the dar, able to tear apart ships, the stuff of mythology. Now it’s time to get the view from on high, the “Task Force” viewpoint, the elite, all-seeing, dive-bombing, never-see-it-coming social policy collaboratives (etc.).
Well, like raptors, they come in different flavors, and target different prey. But they’re all aerial artists. Some are solo, some fly in woods, some even work in teams, I learned through this show.
The owl uses sound — its ears are uneven. Its specialized facial feathers help with that.
The peregrin falcon is a dive-bomber. Specialized eye covering deflects flying sand particles, which at high speed, could sure hurt.
With birds, you can see this by their shapes, although closer look gets a finer appreciation. With humans, one has to be more sensitive to language and behaviors to figure out whether they are distressed prey, congregants meeting to figure out what to do about distressed prey, or raptors coming in for those lower on the food chain.
Some go for distressed Dads. Some go for distressed Moms. So long as the conciliation code (at least in my state) rules that ANY couple having a squabble about custody, that squabble per se gives jurisdiction of their young to the raptors. Excuse me, Conciliation Courts, a.k.a., later, Family Courts. Now, what typically distresses said Dads, or Moms, is generally the other Parent. Which brings us to “Parental Alienation.”
(1)
“Parental:”
Define “Parental.” Go ahead — I dare you.
For that matter, define “Parent.” Go ahead. I dare you, find an all-purpose word that fits all definitions, starting with the noun, before it became verbified (to parent) and adjectified (“Parental”), specified as to who has the kids (Custodial/noncustodial — a term also associated with prison, i.e., “taken into custody” as well as with winning a court debate, i.e., “custody granted.”), and finally market-niched (“Parenting classes”).
The word is already de-gendered, as if the world were not, or any of its 3 Abrahamic world religions were not.
(meaning includes “obeying.” This can get complicated in practice, as in:
In this case, the parent is childified…. and the prosecutor, in behalf of the education establishment, is parentified. Ironically, the word “educare” has a root meaning of Lead Out, not Box In (or, Stuff in, as in knowledge into people’s heads).
PARENT:
Now, like they say Eskimos have different words for snow, we have diversified words for “parent” — step-, bio-, surrogate- foster- adoptive- in addition to the older “grand-” (indicating biological). Whoever the kids in custody are living with at the time, they had better obey the Residential Parent, or the court may just switch them to the other one, or to another type of breeding ground called Juvenile Hall.
Such a diversity of language indicates a thriving business, and that obviously some parents are absent, or incompetent, or need supervision, etc. Which just goes to show who the “real” parent is as to assigning custody, but the real “parents” are as to assigning responsibility for any screwups.
Occasionally the word “father” or “mother” will show up in a new sarticle, or in a grants application, but generally, to say it’s neutral, it’s about custody rights, which means “PARENTAL.” Glad I established that. This word does NOT stand on its own when challenged — by anyone, almost — but it does mean, someone is open for business.
(2)
Alien-ation
Alien-Nation, etc.
Let’s keep this one short. I keep thinking about Arizona, where “aliens” are bad and you can be arrested for being alien improperly. So, I’d have to say that “alien” is bad in connotation, even though much business is done by resident “illegal aliens,” and in fact, some business would close were it not. Now, apart from UFO space-ship variety (promoting a different set of businesses, much of it digital, but also involving conferences…)
“Parental Alienation” is bad if a parent does it, but good if you’re in the business of protesting it, or running seminars for judges about it. The call “Parental Alienation” indicates a resonance to the AFCCNET.org philosophy that the goal is to reconcile marriages for the good of the nation. So the net value is neutral (one group of parents and affiliated associations use this term, an opposing group opposes the use of this term. This extends up into the stratosphere, where raptors flying around the Federal Aeyrie (?) can snag some grants to handle the problem, and plummet to street level with demonstration projects and initiatives. So, it’s good for them. Bad for taxpayers, I’d have to say.
============
WHO SETS THE DEBATE? The debate is not “PARENTAL ALIENATION” v . “CHILD ABUSE” any more than it is, categorically, Fathers v. Mothers, or Conservatives v. Liberals.
I see it as “teachers” vs. “taught.” My point in that last post is that I am no longer interested in the verbiage (pro/con) surrounding “alienation.” I am more interested in dishonest usage of the word “Parent” to obscure gender bias, but beyond that, I think it’s time to figure out the profit motive, and think seriously about the role of wealth (as opposed to jobs) in the larger picture. Then the networks become a little more plain to understand, beyond the rhetoric. ALthough I may not communicate it too well, an attempt is at the bottom of today’s post.
Meanwhile . . . .
Words are understood in their usage and in context, including who is speaking.
Parental Alienation is essentially a term coined to get certain things done, including therapists into the legal process, and conferences training judges (etc.) about it, into certain people’s resumes. Perfectly reasonable and pre-existing terms to describe the same thing aren’t as good a market niche. For one, “Stockholm Syndrome” or “traumatic bonding” or “custodial interference” in context might do as well. Or “brainwashing” or “child abuse.”
The debate about “Parental Alienation” is at a stalemate, but the field is full-throttle ahead, regardless of what any organization pronounces about it. It’s derailing the more important questions, and the distraction is intentional, I”m sure of it.
PART 2:
“Domestic Violence”
Domestic Violence Industry Awareness Month – My Comments on this site, responding to another Press Article, by DV Nonprofit responding to a family (he killed his kids) fatality surrounding Battered Shelter & “Unsupervised Visitation” and judge “just not understanding.”
After writing that comment (post-length, actually), I went back to TAGGS.hhs.gov and looked at how many (millions$) were going to Family Violence Prevention and Marriage/Fatherhood Promotion — in the same state. What a shocker. The real question is who is tracking BOTH sets of funding, and why not shut BOTH of them off, leaving some more funds at the local level, and perhaps some marriages might be less economically stressed, which might save lives (though poverty is no excuse for murder, nor is family “honor” !)
This blogger “gets” the grants racket. Needless to say, this POV is not circulated prominently by the DV experts.
Suggest just read the page. In case anyone wonders, I have never spoken to that blog author, I just happen to share many of the Points of View she reports (not all — for example, I’m not in favor of GPS ankle bracelets…). I suspect this will make sense to someone who has experienced some of the types of events she reports on.
It’s a long page, worth scrolling all the way through (and reading).
“Www.FamilyLawCourts.com/Domestic.”
or
To Discipline an Unethical Judge, Just Establish a Commission to Consider Whether To..
“Parental Alienation” & “Domestic Violence”
Street Level — this shows which infantry you are in.
Strategic Level – either way, it’s profit, but this is how task forces are delegate to one area or the other.
Another blogger gets this — same as above, on the business of DV — now she weighs in on “Parental Alienation” (although, the Lauren & Ted case, last 2 posts, she took the opposite side I did), it just might be worth a read.
A Nation of Stockholm Children (Aug. 2009, on Open Salon):
. . .(KEEP READING . .. . )
I’m not sure media blackout is the issue, but media spin, and a public so overwhelmed with info, they cannot process it. We do not know how the critical “operating systems” of the country actually work, including courts, law enforcement, government, and the role of religion in all this, child support systems, and the increasingly tightening of networks through the Internet.
Note: I cannot continue “teaching” (publicizing) through posts until my Internet access is up to speed (i.e., MHz very slow!). Just continue to keep in mind: The U.S.A. is the world’s largest per capita jailor, and captive audiences are captive for demonstrations of the latest theories, behavioral management techniques, or justification for (yet more) grants.
I saw a poster on a blog that says what to do, well enough:
It’s time to remember what this man did, and how he did it.
Also, to understand the INNATE characteristics of money — which is to congregate at centers of wealth, and drain from the extremities. That’s the kind of money the U.S. (at least) has, i.e., that which we BUY at interest, which will never be paid off, from the Federal Reserve. There are reasons we “have” to become a nation of consumers, and that failing to consume enough of what we really don’t need (and makes us sick, in some cases) has become an indication of “treason.” In examining the courts from the roots up, it does go to Washington, D.C., and to understand the monetary setting of policy by super-wealthy foundations and families (through government, through universities, etc.), it’s also necessary to grasp, even if dimly, that the North/South (?) division of the globe into countries forced to become export economies, rather than self-sufficient, to pay off THEIR debt — means that those products have to come back to the more industrialized countries. Yeah, I”m an armchair economist, but search “Susan George” on this blog (or just get the book) for a clue.
The Internet flattens, but access (or restricted access) to it also further segments society. The section in Maroon in yesterday’s post bears follow-up (if you can).
Here, is a description of what centrally based (and non-bona fide) money does to communities:
Now let’s think a little bit about TIME. If a person is earning an hourly wage, then TIME in court is wages lost, to say the least. What about their “psychic” emotional and other energy. including creative and thought energies, which would otherwise be put into taking care of their own basic needs, and their family’s (such as it may be, if in a divorce or custody situation). It’s GONE from the mix. In waltzes in (federally, state, then “local” meaning, a child support agency at the county level) – and says we are going to transfer income from A to B. Consider the bureaurcarcy in that, and the antagonism it creates. Families have died over this. Let me repeat. I have yet to hear of a mother murdering over child support, but their is no lack of newsprint on fathers, in this context. His basic authority and social credibility — income producing — has been challenged by the government. Meanwhile, this same Child Support agency waltzes into the newly single mother’s life, perhaps (and if abuse was involved, likely newly poor single) and says, we will interface for you. And yet, this entire system, it later develops, has been co-opted as a custody-switching agency. A federalization of basic life processes. So I say, boycott it. It’s got the power to incarcerate — or not. At will, if a mother has signed over her rights as a result off initially going on welfare. (A fact not typically made much of — but in years to come, will figure highly in any contested case…).
So, here are all these taxes going to socially engineer the country, and causing a lot of strife, and competition for working in the fields supported by this social engineering. How many of the services provided are the most basic ones that we couldn’t do without, and how many of the infrastructures and institutions created are transparent enough for the average participant to actually comprehend
I am certainly not a go-back-to-the-farm proponent, but the codependency here is too much, upon JOBS. The key difference between “job” and “business” is who keeps the profits, and who gets to deduct expenses before taxes.
People who were raised to just love what they do, and specialize in it, are called “professionals,” often, which brings up — who is going to pay for them to do what they love doing, and market it, contract it, do administration, etc. (unless people wish to “do it all” and “keep it small”?) One of the safest places to be a professional in a field that will rarely go away, is to do it for the US Government (I think). And in the courts, too.
Well, there’s a lot more to all this, but the key in the courts is where is the money moving around to, whether through professional referrals, trainings, or simply directly from litigants to fees. Multiply that to all contested custody cases involving children, per state, be aware there are 50 states (and US territories), and think about it.
There is, FYI, a two-tier court track:
1. Can afford fees. They will be “soaked;” one party may be bankrupted later, or up front, to inspire more fights.
1a. Then the therapists can come in and counsel how to reduce conflicts.
2. Can’t afford fees. These will be the revolving door cases, but because there’s such an easy way to get INTO court again, any old OSC almost will do it, and most litigant’s aren’t smart enough to move to dismiss up front (on any of a variety of grounds), these will repeatedly be brought back to court — and possibly produce a candidate for food stamps, SSI, or some other part of the welfare system to continue justifying its existence. Their data will be mined for further studies by social scientists (etc.) in remote locations.
2a. Occasionally a 1a or a 2a may result in someone going off the deep end, with a weapon. However, as this eventually causes social and economic deterioration, over a period of decades, no lack of new, fresh faces for the family law system (and associated professions).
Just a little more on “interest”:
Basically this site is reminding us that, compounding interest or not, what about taxes?
(co. 2004-2008, Evans Financial Group)
My point being, OK, OK,
be aware of the rhetoric,
but pay attention to common “cents” on where the “dollars” are going.
In some respects, could any ex be worse than this system long-term? The answer in many cases is, yes. But, maybe a civic duty is to get the field reports out, for posterity.
What are ALL the relevant elements of any situation — as best you can ascertain them.
Which of those are actionable — now, and in the long run.
What can you do not to overwhelm your personal comprehension system into “Paralysis”?
The human psyche can absorb a LOT of information (varies with individuals), but to act on it is natural. I think that overload jsut builds up tension and frustration, and a sense of powerlessness. To know what to act on, with purpose towards a certain goal, is critical to humanity. Being in systems of such chaos (and corruption) as these family law systems, is dangerous to the health. It tests character to handle it.
To give this post a semblance of structure, I’d like to conclude the way I started:
“Don’t ask me why I decided to post this draft, revealing my thoughts the other day. I don’t feel like telling. “
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
October 21, 2010 at 6:03 pm
Posted in AFCC, Biosphere, Business Enterprise, Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Context of Custody Switch, Designer Families, Domestic Violence vs Family Law, etc., Giant Squid, in Studies, Metaphors for Family Law, My Takes, and Favorite Takes, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Raptors, Vocabulary Lessons
Tagged with "Parent" explained- perhaps, AFCC, Alienation, Education, Jaycee Dugard, Linguistic Dissonance, obfuscation, social commentary, Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work..