text:
Archive for the 'History of Family Court' Category
Is Family Court Reformable? a.k.a. "Woman punched unconscious at child custody exchange."
I doubt it . . . . . . .
This (red, italics, below) is my "over 1500 characters" response to an article at:
"Our Seeds to Bear Fruit in 2010: The Year of Court Reform — or Revolution."
by Laura Lynn, L.A. Family Court Examiner.
(other articles by her HERE)
I came to that post via THIS post, under:
"US (United Survivors) for Family Court Reform." subtitled "Kiss Your Rights Goodbye"
which I came to under from Rightsformothers.com, responding to another statement that it's "hoped" next year will be better. I am not into the "hoping" scenario, rather advocate some "doing" . . . . .
Family Court is not reformable — its "form" is abominable. It's doing what it was formed for, as far as I can tell.
Please scroll through the comments (most of them posted about 11 months ago) on it. The times are so much farther along than those that are building castles on the sand (in the U.S.) realize, as more and more people's homes, lives, and accumulated wealth is appropriated, while taxes are still being collected to sometimes go straight to racketeering, slush funds, and built-in systems of bribes & corruption (through the court system in particular, I'm thinking about), it's similar to, I suppose "global warming." Talk is plenteous about icebergs melting and the coastal lands being flooded. Well, this is a flood of a different sort, that is eroding the island on which law-abiding, tax-paying, citizens live, and hope that the institutions their taxes support are ethical, and doing their appointed jobs.
They aren't. And it IS your business that they aren't. Not just mine, because of "no-fault divorce" + "Fatherlessness is a national crisis" dogma have done a head-on crash in the family law venue.
i KNOW I've done my utmost best in the situation. At some point, people who are content to "support" and "empathize" with one side o the other strung out in this system, have to get good and mad and start not taking sides with one parent, or the other, but demanding to know what is being done with the part of their wages going to their (a) city, (b) county (c) state and (d) federal government. Let alone (if the shoe fits, wear it) (e) local faith-based organization.
A man punched a woman unconscious during a custody exchange. Reported as "Woman punched unconsious" or police tasered a man. In fact, it sounds like a FATHER punching a MOTHER in the face, and probably with children witnessing their Mom get punched unconscious by their father in a public place. But the headlines sanitized this (her "state" of being unconscious associated with "child custody exchange" as if it was that exchange's fault, or hers. The puncher (or alleged puncher) was removed from the headlines, just as the word "mother" is virtually removed from association with family and children in public policy these days.
However, when it comes to a disaster happening, then the word "woman" (was she a mother?) IS allowed to be associated with "Child custody exchange" as if as a ('unconscious' a.k.a. subliminal reportring) warning to other mothers not to confront a Dad during these situations….
Last night it made national news (not TV, though) that a man punched a woman unconscious in a "custody exchange." He was arrested and charged with a felony, but as far as I can tell, only because he also resisted arrest afterwards, AND happened to do this probably within walking distance of the local police station, AND several people called 911 , witnessing it. The sanitized version of the "dispute" can be found in only a few places online– but here it is:
This is where blogging these things gets one sick in the stomach. Gagging on Google, I guess:
The phrase "a man punched" brought these results:
Trying to get my actual article, I refined the search to:
"a man punched a woman in the face during custody exchange"
Readers may note, while I got the intended article, the leading phrase places the (grammatical) blame on the woman. The man didn't punch (direct action) but the woman "Was punched") passive action:
Will someone please tell me why the main headlines to this search result are:
- "Police tasered a man who ALLEGEDLY punched his ex-wife in the face…"
- or
- "Woman punched unconscious."
I understand shorthand of "woman punched" for "woman WAS punched [causingher to become] unconscious." SORT of, that is. Let's talk about unconsciously reporting this with the two words "woman punched" as if she did it, or was responsible for having it done to her.
Here they are, copied:
Search Results
News for a man punched woman in face during …
- Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute
2 days agoBy Roman Gokhman WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedlypunched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers …
San Jose Mercury News – 16 related articles
Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute …Dec 23, 2010 … WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers …
http://www.contracostatimes.com/news/ci_16934218 – Cached
Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – Inside …Dec 23, 2010 … WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers …
http://www.insidebayarea.com/bay-area-news/ci_16934218 – Cached
Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – The Truth …Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute … a man who allegedlypunched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then … CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face d. …
thetruthaboutthefamilycourt.blogspot.com/…/woman-punched-unconscious- during-child.html
Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute @ pulpNews.ComDec 25, 2010 … WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers …
Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – San Jose …Dec 23, 2010 … WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers …
http://www.mercurynews.com/california/ci_16934218 – Cached
Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute « Battered …Dec 26, 2010 … WALNUT CREEK — Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers …
angelzfury.wordpress.com/…/woman-punched-unconscious-during-child- custody-dispute/?…
Child Custody Issues NowDec 25, 2010 … Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – San Jose …punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and …
childcustodyissuesnow.com/ – Cached
Woman punched unconscious during child custody dispute – TopixWoman punched unconscious during child custody dispute … Police Tasered a man who allegedly punched his ex-wife in the face during a child custody exchange and then fought officers …. Pittsburg man, 21, dies after accidental Concor. …
http://www.topix.com/…/woman-punched-unconscious-during-child-custody- dispute – Cached
The fact that (see my blog) about $one million of funding, per year, has been coming to this state precisely so that such things should NOT occur, ought to be questioned. I have. Now it's your turn.
Here's my NOT under 1,500 comment to an article almost a year old:
If my tone is too intense, then just remember — I don't go around punching people in the face when upset with them. This is First-Amendment expression. You will not find a threat in here, or a recommendation to do anything illegal. In fact, I think a passive approach to citizenship is immoral and unethical. I truly believe (and was formerly of this category of working women, and men) that we cannot hand off to others the responsibility that accrues to being a human being and a citizen — we cannot farm our our consciences on the bases that we "gave at the office" in the form of wage-withholding. That social contract was broken long, long ago.
This is just my response to reading these comments on the day after Christmas. I have decided that "christmas" no longer exists for me, and shouldn't. It's just a source of danger, and pain for people stuck in these systems, based on family (when half don't have one anymore) and materialism (when the legal system has bankrupted, some, drained others, and no end in sight). Also even thinking about it, seems to be a waste of time, at some level. For a literary parallel, perhaps see Watership Down. And think in terms of herds, and flocks. The flocks and herds survive, domesticated, by sacrificing those on the outskirts, while they are fleeced, pruned, and used to support the managers of the herds and flocks.
In the US, we are, however, PEOPLE, and until we collectively start acting as such, (and insisting our children not be also treated in herds and flocks through the local school systems, as caste-sorters, while the teacher's unions are among the most powerful entities around) we are going to lose collectively the human spirit and what freedoms, if any, the last generation stood up for.
The commenter "Rebel" has a good question that I asked, too. As I understand it, the Jeffrey Elkins of the "Elkins Task Force" was a disgruntled father. Trust it to this group of affiliations to take the father's side, when it is in the middle of one of the wealthier areas of the United States, and there are still domestic violence femicides and family wipeouts going on, in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties, in San Francisco, and San Mateo — it almost doesn't seem to matter which county when it comes to some of these matters.
While many know and blog about the AFCC, I'm surprised so few people pick up on the series of federal grants to the states, dating back to 1996, that provide "Access/Visitation" to a single state agency (in California, it's the Judicial Council; other places, the Attorney General's office, or some single other agency) to "facilitate" more noncustodial parents' (translation: Fathers') access to their children, via mediation, supervised visitation, parenting education classes (limited in CA to these three). This series of grants in effect set up a series of slush-fund receptacles and undermine the legal process, putting it centrally in the (distant) Secretary of HHS hands nationwide. Among the nonprofits that various judges and/or family law attorneys have in place to "help" the rest of us incompetents and nincompoops (sic) live, after having produced offspring and separated, is one called "Kids' Turn" that is itself a pretty good international marketing scheme.More on that by — well, look it up yourself, dang it! — or "familylawcourtscom" (Bonnie Russell blog). Another set of schemes that are supposedly helping women such as myself include the Family Justice Center Alliance, starting in San Diego (Casey Gwinn), second, up here in Alameda County, and I read there's now even some in the UK.
Simultaneous — and apparently at taxpayer expense — state after state has been (for years now), and following the Republican Contract with America, the Clinton Compromise (PWORA), and the Fatherhood Executive memo of 1995, and a whole lot more — doing state-based "fatherhood commissions." The one in Ohio I found recently actually targets counties with "female-headed households" and is so entwined with different branches of government, I'd have to say, safely that whether one is a good and upright Dad, or a good and upright Mom, you're screwed….. These favor the less than ethical….
What's even more offensive, is the collaboration between DV agencies and the Family Law system (which I interpret basically as a mental health-based business racket); the local DV nonprofit does "triage" and shunts cases off to the family law venue, where they are dropped like a hot potato. Meanwhile, a (mother, OK?) going into court self-help center will find lots of AFCC publications, and will most likely NOT get a call-back (I didn't) even if trying to file a restraining order, again, from the agency who has it's brochure out there.
I got curious about the history of the family law system, per se, when it began stripping me of my protection and my life through repeated OSC's based on hearsay having real "strange" conclusions. Even my own kids saw through it quickly, aged, middle-elementary, and reported this to me. It was immediately apparent that facts were of no interest. My entire life (over 40 years of it at the time) had been "deleted" and was irrelevant to the process.
……I believe the Elkins Task Force was a farce. Only a token effort to allow public participation (though some was), took place, and after about a third of my adult life in this area, half fighting abuse in the home, the other half fighting legal abuse AND the other ways of attacking my life personally for the crime choosing to be single and alive rather than married and a statistic involving children, and ex, and who knows who else. … The question posed is good — is there a connection between that Elkins and another Elkins?
We have GOT to get back to the UNalienable rights (for men and women both) set forth in the Declaration of Independence. We have a right to stay alive. The Bill of Rights (also radically and repeatedly violated by these procedures) also affirms our right to self-defense. But if we seek legal remedies to effect that self-defense, we're screwed, financially, and as to our independence.
The Conciliation Code that automatically declares that ANY custody dispute between parents puts their kids under the jurisdiction of the courts (documented plenty of places: Google "Cindy Ross," NAFCJ.blogspot.net, or the graphics-low, data-rich site http://nafcj.net (who has been lobbying against organizational corruption through this system since 1993, in DC area and networked across the US) — is a power grab by institutions over growing children, in the name of some ethereal amorphous definition of "family." I even found a constitutional definition of "family" at one point.
There is no question about this: Legislating family over individual rights, and among them the right to stay alive, is next step slavery/theocracy. And, after studying many of the grants systems (and acknowledging many others have studied all different aspects of the courts), the only conclusion I can come to is that they are hazardous to he average person's health, and all of our economic health. These people do NOT uphold the Constitution or respect it, overall, or as a group.
One question I have to pose is whether the AFCC represents the majority of the judicial, family law, mediator, therapist, custody evaluator etc. (ad nauseam) employees/professionals — or is there a significant group of NON-AFCC members who have any clout in the courts?
One look at the origins of this racket (which I do on my blog, based on others' work plus my own, under "Shady Shaky Foundations of Family Law" post….) shows it's based in financial fraud of the IRS, and the taxpayers from the very beginning (as best I can see, I'll qualify for my own protection).
There are now probate scams relating to judicial things, and affecting elders too. THere seems to be no exit from this drain on the economy.
I have a family member in government down there, and if I wasn't shocked enough at the family law system (going through it), I was moreso at the arrogance, attitude, and dishonesty from this particular member. I take it as typical for the context, and necessary to survive in some circles.
I understand Yaffee has now retired…SickofCorruption, I want to know about the movement you are talking about — if it relates to a boycott, please try to contact me, as I think only this type of "I won't sit in the back of the bus!" will work. I have been driven out of my profession, out of my kids' lives, and into dependency after getting OUT of my marriage, OFF welfare and back INTO my profession, close to solvency, before the 3 years of a restraining order had expired.
In the seven years since, things have continued to escalate the more I took any stand. It has affected and reversed significant physical emotional health gains I made because I threw a battering husband out of the household, but not him, out of our children's lives. I cycled through phones and jobs since the day the restraining order renewal was consolidated with a divorce and custody action. The ex didn't want either custody (not being able to afford to house the kids, and he was dependent on my support during marriage also, for his own business, for bills, and for whatnot. The guy was simply not self-sufficient as a person, although he had been prior to marriage, as far as I could tell.) and has made it clear since (after trying on at least another cohabiting relationship, and was kicked out of that, or left it — possibly because she, too, had some minimum standards — and wants me back, causing trouble all last year, on this end, and hazard.
I don't give up easy, and researched, called, networked, WORKED, negotiated things on this end, and often enough had to repeatedly negotiate simple things like rides, when a car was down; keeping phone on, when credit had been ruined (in the marriage), and every time some utility went off, another major deposit was needed to turn it back on. However one looks at these things, they have a real financial impact and diagnosis.
There is no question anymore in my mind that our U.S. Government is trafficking in what they call "our" children (eliminating parentage), and the courts are a real venue for separating them from one, or (ideally) both parents. the parents, being so traumatized, are then mental-health diagnosed for actually responding to these outrages, and quarantined. I literally twice had law enforcement trying to get my kids into a foster care of CPS situation while I had a standing court order as to custody, no crimes or violations of it on the record, and I was myself successfully teaching other people's children with good recommendations from their parents, and still receiving a referral from time to time on that basis.
There's a book (written a while back) called "Transforming Abuse" whose language speaks to me, and another one, written by a policeman (Christian) called "Refuge" and acknowledging some of the violations of personal rights, and resistance within law enforcement to acknowledging this crime. Another one, don't be mislead by the title, but by a Patricia Romano, "It's Not Your Fault" talks about attuned relationships.
This type of abuse (either between spouses, OR of the government institutions to individuals) repeatedly disrupts relationships, including people to themselves, to their kids, to their work lives, to their landlords (if renting), to their banking institutions, and to their sense of any safety or place to function in our society without ongoing disruption and exposure to these things. To watch an elderly parent be robbed of his or her land and assets in the meantime, as children also are no-contact, is severely traumatizing, and in a third world country would certainly be categorized as a human rights violation, or a form of torture — which it is.
After I got out of the dangerous relationship (FYI, my only one, too) I was very determined to have boundaries, and not compromise them. Immediately, almost every entity I (or I and my daughters came from) pushed for more and more compromise, til the back was against the wall. this includes policeman after I called 911 to get my ex away from the home on a non-visitation weekend. This includes my refusing to take arbitrary orders about our daughters, or me, which had no legal basis in the court order (not to be confused with total inflexibility, but there are times you know it's about giving orders, and not a real need).
Finally, over the edge, the guy simply grabbed our kids from my custody on an overnight, and with his girlfriend, falsely imprisoned them, holding them truant (while declaring in court they weren't even enrolled in a school), and at a location he'd refused to reveal to me the prior year, even after I'd in court gotten a judge to require that I be told where my kids were, on visitations, being their sole physical custodian. At every point of this process, it was made clear that one side (litigant) was to be taken on hearsay, at face value, and that no evidence I provided (and I did) was relevant. A minor's counsel (I think that was the term) was brought in AFTER felony child-stealing (not prosecuted), and I swear this woman did not read the case file. I was given a psychological diagnosis (by this attorney) before she met me, and after I had asked her (despite the trauma of a recent child-stealing event and work loss related) to define her scope of service — what WAS her role. She refused to define, and didn't respond when I forwarded to her (and called about) a minor daughter's having suddenly forwarded me an Amber Alert about a young girl the same age as herself.
When this family law has a mediator's form that reads "child-stealing" along with "domestic violence" along with "child abuse" as if it were "what color are your eyes, and what's your date of birth?" on the intake form, while the same state's Penal Code calls child abuse, child-stealing, and domestic violence (at certain levels) crimes (felony or misdemeanor), we have an inherent conflict-of-interest between family law and criminal law.
These are not going to be resolved, because their vocabulary, their intents, and their guidelines are absolutely in conflict with each other — while the AFCC et al. state the "high-conflict" relationships are the real criminal. Not people — "relationships."
I hope readers will forgive the length of this comment, but I am really hurting at this time; what a challenge to live an ethical life in these situations, when most people's lives require actual relationships — with community, with courts, with employers/clients, with the IRS, with so many entities that comprise how we live.
I think that if the judiciary are themselves operating as if on a black market (see Richard Fine, etc. exposes — also see, FYI, Joseph Zernik, DDS) — they are literally forcing the populace to do the same to handle them. We cannot have a double standard of justice in this country — and THAT is the most important thing. If elected officials are not ethical, but can't be outed– then we are to do what our Declaration of Independence declares, and handle our own business independently of their "intrigues." Too many people are dependent on the myth that some integrity exists in these quarters.
I am at the point where I can't stomach reading a lot more about all this corruption: I acknowledge it. I believe that laweekly (referenced above) has a lot to say, there is a Ron Kaye in the L.A. area who has outed a lot of ethical irregularities in city finances/politics. Plenty of people are. the question is, what to do about it?
(sigh…). Again, "Rebel" whoever you are, those are good questions. I have no idea who Laura Lynn is, but thanks for blogging and good luck to you. I'e also be interested to contact, as I have an ex on the loose (income unknown — because he has an outstanding child support arrears coming in, and he ssems to be alive, I gather he's below the radar on his income, or soaking some other elderly woman somewhere of income, while pushing middle-aged envelope himself without having held a "real" job since I married him or a legal business as it turns out, in his trade (that i've been aware of). I don't want to live off this guy — I want him OUT of my life, and my life back, and until these boundaries are re-established, it's been made clear to me that any more I take, in life or towards life, will be countered, and has been.
Written by someone who has been told to shut up, disappear, and drop off the face of the map, and recently so, by people who have committed crimes (as best I understand the word) against society (because they are violations of the Penal Code), my mother, myself, and my daughters, over a period of time. This was supposedly for everyone's benefit, but in the bottom line, it boils down to $$$ and not much else. One reason I keep narrating is that at some level, I don't know how safe I am, and I want a gol' dang track record, even if I sound like an idiot in the process of it!
Here's that article on "Woman Punched" — although she GOT punched in the face…allegedly..
Here's a yahoo link to 1550 North Broadway in Walnut Creek and the Walnut Creek Police station at 1660 North Main (just looked it up): the distance is .1 min by car or .15 miles: Kudos to the police for coming quickly to the scene of the "alleged" crime — it was in their backyard…almost.Distance1.Start at 1550NBROADWAY,WALNUTCREEK going toward LINCOLNAVEgo 220 ft2.Turn on LINCOLNAVEgo 292 ft3.Turn on NMAINSTgo 266 ft4.Arrive at 1660NMAINST,WALNUTCREEK, on the
Time: 1 mins, Distance: 0.15 mi
There are federal funds to the states to make sure that this thing does not happen. I've not got time to track down Mr. Don West and his unnamed wife, but I wish HER well, and I wish men would figure out that punching a woman in the face, or a 14 yr old girl, is inappropriate. Be thankful we don't punch back so much, because we understand (if we have kids) that this family law system packs its own unique punch to us, as mothers.
"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>>
Engaging 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 Community
The 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 !!!
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
H. B. No. 349
Representatives 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., Smith
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.
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..
"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.
(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 (W) 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 posts
Moss 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 Fraud
Written 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
|Clinton, Hillary (D-NY)
|Obama, Barack (D-IL)
|Cazayoux, Donald J (D-LA)
|Martin, James Francis (D-GA)
|Richardson, Laura (D-CA)
|Foster, Bill (D-IL)
|Carmouche, Paul J (D-LA)
|Carson, Andre (D-IN)
|Childers, Travis W (D-MS)
|Franken, Al (D-MN)
|Shaheen, Jeanne (D-NH)
|Udall, Mark (D-CO)
|Udall, Tom (D-NM)
|Warner, Mark (D-VA)
|Durbin, Dick (D-IL)
|Merkley, Jeff (D-OR)
|Dodd, Chris (D-CT)
|Gillibrand, Kirsten (D-NY)
|Tsongas, Niki (D-MA)
|Arcuri, Michael (D-NY)
|See all recipients
|Total Contributions
|Obama, Barack (D-IL)
|Foster, Bill (D-IL)
|Durbin, Dick (D-IL)
|Bean, Melissa (D-IL)
|Costello, Jerry F (D-IL)
|Halvorson, Deborah (D-IL)
|Hare, Phil (D-IL)
|Morgenthaler, Jill (D-IL)
|Jackson, Jesse Jr (D-IL)
|Callahan, Colleen (D-IL)
|Davis, Danny K (D-IL)
|Footlik, Jay K (D-IL)
|Seals, Dan (D-IL)
|Schakowsky, Jan (D-IL)
|Emanuel, Rahm (D-IL)
|McMenamin, Joseph E (D-IL)
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
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.
Tricks, or Treats? Decide before Tuesday, Happy Halloween..
Some of my better comments are found on "Rightsformothers.com" a site that became necessary to reminds us that this word exists in relationship to families — hard to tell, from this (or, previous) Administration's usages:
"An Event to End Violence Against Women."
This afternoon, we marked Domestic Violence Awareness Month with the President and Vice President by highlighting the Obama Administration's unprecedented coordination and cooperation across the entire government to protect victims of domestic and sexual violence and enable survivors to break the cycle of abuse.
Is that even a credible promise? Violence against women (not to mention men) has been going on for milennia.
It's the coordination and cooperation part that frightens me…especially in combination with equally (if not moreso) "comprehensive and coordinated" efforts to stop the social crisis of fatherlessness — blurring the separation of powers, the different branches of government represented at each President's oath of office (in which one PERSON represents the Executive branch, and one PERSON represents the Judicial branch, and NO PERSON represents the legislative branch — but the oath is to uphold the Constitution.
I believe those days when went down for the count somewhere between 1913 and the development of the Internet.
Children suffer, too. Joe Torre, legendary baseball manager, spoke today about growing up in an abusive household; being afraid to come home when he saw his father's car parked in front of the house; and how he found refuge in baseball.
Issues like this one remind us that there is still work to be done if we're going to make the promise of America real for every American – including women. That's why, last year, President Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls. He gave the Council an important mission – to make sure that all federal agencies consider the needs of women in every policy, in every program and in every piece of legislation he supports. Because of our focus on women and girls across the Administration, we have unprecedented coordination in the fight against domestic violence.
Today, the Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Treasury, Labor and FDIC announced new initiatives to protect victims of abuse and provide resources for families and communities to prevent abuse. Domestic violence and sexual assault are not just criminal justice issues – the scope and far-reaching effects of violence require a coordinated response across the Federal government.
The initiatives announced and highlighted today demonstrate a broad, comprehensive response to reducing violence against women. Specifically, these concrete actions include steps to:
- Protect Children and Break the Cycle of Violence
- Improve Legal Protections for Victims of Domestic Violence
- Increase Sexual Assault Arrests and Successful Prosecutions
- Help Victims Regain Housing and Financial Independence
Those are just a few of the steps we're taking. But the bottom line is this: No one in America should live in fear because they are unsafe in their own home – no adult, no child. And no one who is the victim of abuse should ever feel as though they have no way to get out. We need to make sure that every victim of domestic violence knows that they are not alone; that there are resources available to them in their moment of greatest need. As a society, we need to ensure that if a victim of abuse reaches out for help, we are there to lend a hand.
That's not just a job for government. That's a job for all of us. Thanks to all of you for the work you do in our communities. This Administration is going to stand with you in this fight every step of the way.
Additional details on how the Obama Administration is working to end violence against women can be found by downloading the fact sheet: Obama Administration Highlights Unprecedented Coordination across Federal Government to Combat Violence Against Women (pdf).
Valerie Jarett is Senior Advisor to the President and Chair of the White House Council on Women and Girls
Yeah, well — here's the FATHERHOOD.GOV/Press Releases
"I care about Men, Too" version:
October 18, 2010
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse and Ad Council Show Fathers the Critical Role They Play in Their Child's Life (2010)
October 8, 2009
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, and the Ad Council launch new PSAs to inspire a new commitment to responsible fatherhood (2009)
June 1, 2009
Ad Council and National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse Join ESPN to Encourage Fathers to "Take time to be a dad today" (2009)
June 13, 2008
The Ad Council and the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse Launch New Public Service Announcements (PSAs) to Coincide with Father's Day (2008)
That Oct. 18, 2010 announcement perhaps illustrates why announcing the intent to (garner the female vote) came so late in the game, before the voting booths open next week. Here it is — the whole page:
Washington DC, October 18, 2010 /PRNewswire/ — Nine out of ten parents believe there is a "father absence crisis" in America, according to two national surveys by the National Fatherhood Initiative. To inspire fathers to become more involved in the lives of their children, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) and The Advertising Council are launching a new series of public service advertisements (PSAs).
The new PSAs feature American Indian, Asian American and Hispanic fathers and their children in an effort to speak to all fathers and potential dads in a national campaign that was launched in 2008.
According to the NRFC, children who live without their biological fathers are on average at least two to three times more likely to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents. Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior and avoid high-risk behaviors.
Was it acknowledged — in the Event to End Violence Against Women (or is it merely "abuse"?) that many times biological fathers are the perpetrators of such abuse including actually killing their children and/or wives?
So which is it — there is a way OUT of abuse, when perpetrated by a father? Or the absence of a father is the CAUSE of abuse? Well, it really depends on which audience is being addressed — by the same Administration, and same Executive Branch department called "Health and HUMAN services."
"These new PSAs continue the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse's tradition of delivering messages that inspire dads to give their children what they need to succeed: their time," said Roland C. Warren, Media Campaign Director of the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse.
Created pro bono by C-E (Campbell-Ewald), the new TV, outdoor and Web PSAs emphasize to fathers that "the smallest moments can have the biggest impact on a child's life." The PSAs conclude with the campaign tagline, "Take time to be a dad today" and direct fathers to visit www.fatherhood.gov or call 1-877-4DAD411 for parenting tips, fatherhood programs and additional resources for fathers. New Spanish outdoor and Web PSAs were produced in collaboration with Hispanic Communications Network (HCN).
"We are proud to continue our work with the Department of Health and Human Services on this campaign that is helping fathers recognize the critical role they play in their children's lives," said Peggy Conlon, president & CEO of the Ad Council. "These lighthearted and touching PSAs will demonstrate to all fathers that the time they spend with their children can make a significant impact on their lives."
"It has been our privilege to be a part of this worthwhile endeavor," Bill Ludwig, chairman and CEO of Campbell-Ewald said. "We want to inspire a new commitment of active fatherhood with an engaging message to fathers that even the smallest moments can have the biggest impact on a child's life, while capturing the hearts of viewers everywhere."
Since its launch in 2008, the Fatherhood Involvement campaign has received nearly $97 million in donated media across television, radio, outdoor, print and digital. Per the Ad Council's model, the PSAs will run and air in advertising time and space that is donated by the media.
Through HHS, the federal government supports responsible fatherhood in diverse ways. Because engaged fathers strengthen families and contribute to healthy outcomes for children, many HHS programs integrate support for fathers. These include Head Start, child support programs, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. HHS also supports programs that focus on responsible fatherhood, such as the Promoting Responsible Fatherhood grant program administered by the Office of Family Assistance.
National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse
The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) is funded by the Administration for Children and Families' Office of Family Assistance's (OFA) efforts to assist States and communities in promoting and supporting Responsible Fatherhood. Primarily a tool for professionals operating Responsible Fatherhood programs, the NRFC provides access to print and electronic publications, timely information on fatherhood issues, and targeted resources that support OFA-funded Responsible Fatherhood grantees. The NRFC Website also provides essential information for other audiences interested in fatherhood issues. The address for the NRFC website is www.fatherhood.gov.
The Advertising Council
The Ad Council is a non-profit organization with a rich history of marshalling volunteer talent from the advertising and media industries to deliver critical messages to the American public. Having produced literally thousands of PSA campaigns addressing the most pressing social issues of the day, the Ad Council has effected, and continues to effect, tremendous positive change by raising awareness, inspiring action, and saving lives. To learn more about the Ad Council and its campaigns, visit www.adcouncil.org.
C-E (Campbell-Ewald) is one of the nation's largest advertising, direct and digital communications agencies, with offices in Detroit, Los Angeles, San Antonio, Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, New York, and Washington, D.C. A part of The Interpublic Group of Companies (NYSE:IPG), C-E partners with a score of national brands, including Alltel Wireless, Carrier, General Motors, Ghirardelli, Kaiser Permanente, Olympic Paints and Stains, OnStar, Remington Arms, USAA, United States Environmental Protection Agency, United States Mint, United States Navy and the United States Postal Service.
Media Contacts:
Vincent DiCaro
National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse
(240) 912-1270
Lisa Cullen
The Ad Council
(202) 331-5052
Pat Baskin
(586) 558-7200
// div').removeAttr('style');
In response to President Obama's call for a national conversation on responsible fatherhood and healthy families, learn how you can join the President's Fatherhood and Mentoring Initiative.
Información en Español
En respuesta al llamado del presidente Obama para una conversación nacional sobre la paternidad responsable y las familias saludables, aprender cómo usted puede unirse a la Iniciativa Presidencial de Padres y Mentores.
$("div.accordion, div.mediaAccordion").accordion({
header: ".clicker",
collapsible: true,
autoHeight: false,
active: 0 });
if ( $.browser.msie && parseInt($.browser.version.substr(0,1))
Geesh — which way should I vote? Which side of the agenda should I advocate for? Let's see: It's not about MEN, it's not about WOMEN — it must be about FAMILIES. Violence is not a gender issue, after all is it? Let me go check one of the largest nonprofits around (branch in SF, California and I think in Washingon, D.C.), the FAMILY Violence Prevention Fund — and see how they handle the discrepancy between abuse is caused by (men) and abuse is caused by (absence of biological Dads in the home), supposedly, and more initiatives will end both of those:
National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence
WOW — talk about brilliant marketing strategy — just combine them both. (Note, I have actually looked at the funding behind this group, at least on "usaspending.gov" and noticed certain years it skyrocketed — and the language change to accompany it. I also noted, corresponding with the increased federal funding (plus other very conservative foundations) the DEcreased usages of the word "mothers" in relationship to their own children. Do a search — check that out. Well, here's that Institute. Like MOST Institutes (or, for that matter, "initiatives") they are electronically and training-oriented. This sets up the technical infrastructure, the grants stream, and searching for young innocents to indoctrinate — and marginalize some of us who have become middle-aged trying to escape the Family Court Traps.
ublic and Private Partnerships:
The NIFDV has been supported by public and private partners including the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Ms. Foundation for Women, the Office on Violence Against Women, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Family Violence Prevention & Services Program, Administration on Children and Families.
This project is being developed in partnership with other national organizations, such as the Center for Family Policy and Practice, the Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community, the National Latino Alliance to Eliminate Domestic Violence, Mending the Sacred Hoop, the Domestic Violence Resource Network, and the Minnesota Center Against Violence and Abuse.
The National Institute has three core elements:
- Training and Technical Assistance Leadership Academy
- Program Practice and Development Center
- Information Clearinghouse
Fatherhood has proven to be a powerful tool to reach men in understanding the effects of family violence. There is much to learn in this area and we need to move cautiously forward. Safety for women and children remain the focus and center of our work. By working with fathers in breaking the cycle of abuse, we will enhance the safety and wellbeing of their partners, children, grandchildren and future generations yet to come.
Fatherhood is a "tool" — interesting usage — a tool to reach men.
"Fatherhood" is a concept; it's a word, and it's a market niche, any more.
"We need to move cautiously forward."
Well, yeah – tools can be dangerous.
Everyone knows that — right? Here's from "cornbeltcarving.org" and General Tool Safety — the last few rules:
- Never try to catch a falling carving tool. Carve in footwear strong enough to protect your feet from falling tools.
- When sanding, use a dust mask, never blow, and protect your eyes.
- Never let children "play" with your tools or leave them alone in your workshop.
- Do not use any tools while under the influence of medication, alcohol, or when fatigued.
- Keep your tools in good working order, and keep your work area organized and clean.
In this information age, "WORDS" are tools. They do things such as pry kids loose from parents, dollars from working adults (for grants to support concepts like these, and institutes like these — NONprofits..), and the thinking process from humanity into hands of the experts that can't decide whose kids are whose, or how to treat adults like adults: for example, with consequences for assault & battery behaviors such as loss of access to do it again. These mentalities USE children to TRAIN fathers to become less violent — to me, that's no different from using them as bait.
Let me run that last NIFDV paragraph by again:
Fatherhood has proven to be a powerful tool to reach men in understanding the effects of family violence. There is much to learn in this area and we need to move cautiously forward. Safety for women and children remain the focus and center of our work. By working with fathers in breaking the cycle of abuse, we will enhance the safety and wellbeing of their partners, children, grandchildren and future generations yet to come.
Grammar Quiz: "We, Our" usage — who's the "WE" ??? By working with fathers in "breaking the cycle of abuse" (see first grandiose promise, top of this post, and "Event" to End Violence Against Women) — We will ENHANCE the safety and wellbeing of their . . .
Hmm. Remember my post on the "-INGs" of the DV Industry? The job never gets done. It's always beING done.
Vocabulary Quiz: (a.k.a. "Where's Waldina"?)
Presumably — so far — to make a child, or a family with a child — for every BIO father [BIODads are the obsession of the fatherhood crisis movement; this can be hell on really fine stepDads who attempt to form a relationship with BioMoms], there is usually at least one corresponding mother — whether biological birth-giving, surrogate, etc.
So — where's the word "mother"? How many words are used to substitute for the word "mother"?
Answer: 2: women, and partners.
I find that odd — there's a social, linguistic taboo on using the word "mother" in public policy.
the word "father" receives major funding, as well as the word "family" and the word "children" or the word "partner."
Hence, smaller, and privately-sponsored (or free) sites like "Mothers of Lost Children" or "RightsforMothers" have to sprout up and hope to make a difference.
Meanwhile (while you were sleeping) at least according to PBS, MIT and the Artificial Intelligence groups are trying
to make bipeds, including for military purposes, of course. No, I'm not nuts (I think!):
People working in the MIT Leg Laboratory are legged locomotion enthusiasts of all stripes. They represent several disciplines, including electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, computer science, physics, biomechanics, and aero/astro.
Alumni of the MIT Leg Lab:
- Marc Raibert founded the Leg Laboratory in 1980 and directed it through 1995. The Lab was originated at CMU when Marc was Associate Professor in Computer Science and the Robotics Institute, and it moved to MIT in 1986 when Marc became Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and a member of the Artificial Intelligence Lab. He is now president of the company he co-founded, Boston Dynamics, Inc.
Makes me think that this Armageddon may actually come, and soon, whether from divine or purely human destiny. It is against human nature to put nine months into a child, nurse it, and then drop it off for social experimentation and/or the next generation of cannon fodder. I think the powers that be realize this and have a sick need to — yes — use women for incubators (til technology catches up) and make sure that mature mothers don't get to both protest violence and retain regular contact with their offspring. We can indeed multi-task, and what a waste of time to compartmentalize and streamline every facet of human life for economy and "safety,"and convenience — for whom?
Well, enough for this protest…
My Smartass Comments might just be Sound Advice:
(To be continued):
A collection of commentary, some that displays better on other sites:
Source: My post, Jan 2010 – on the Educating of America (high-profit, sterile, captive audiences).
The cost of Moral Reconation Therapy and what the "Duluth Model" actually is… Know what the Kool-Aid actually is.
Source: Rights for Mothers Post, and commentary (3 comments so far, I have 4th in moderation)
Put Yourself in TheLoop(21.com) for some Common Sense
Is the Black debt problem really self-inflicted?
A message of "financial responsibility" overlooks the historical and social factors that contribute
By: Jamelle Bouie | TheLoop21 (Add to your loop)
Mon, 10/25/2010 – 00:00
In the middle of the 20th century, for example, when federal agencies provided billions in home loans, blacks intentionally were excluded. As such, millions of African Americans were kept from building equity and passing on wealth to their children and grandchildren. And this is to say nothing of the economic isolation and educational disintegration that closed most pathways to middle-class life for countless black people.
Unfortunately, the problem of debt is destined to get worse in the next few years. The recession has absolutely devastated African American families; nationwide, the unemployment rate for blacks has hovered at 15 percent for more than a year, while billions in savings have been wiped out by the financial crisis and collapse of the housing market. As of December 2009, according to a recent report by the Economic Policy Institute, median black wealth has dropped 77 percent to $2,100. Insofar that African Americans have made any gains toward closing the wealth gap, they have been virtually eliminated by the recession.
Pastor Soaries' message of personal responsibility and uplift is understandable, and for some communities — maybe his own — absolutely necessary. But for the black community writ large, it isn't enough to say "be more responsible" or "don't spend your money on frivolous things." No, when it comes to wealth and debt, the problems facing African Americans can't only be ameliorated by individual effort.
In this world, it's no shock that debt is a serious problem for African Americans; with so little wealth available, African Americans are far more likely to lack the assets necessary to survive during hard times. Indeed, according to the IASP, at least 25 percent of black families had no assets to turn to in times of economic hardship. And in the absence of assets, credit is often used as an emergency resource.
This stands in contrast to the image Pastor Soaries presents about African American debt. That is, he sees it as simple irresponsibility, "we still do payday loans, we still do rent-to-own, but you see, we'll drive shiny cars and we'll wear designer clothes, and we have all the appearances of doing well, but we won't admit that we're broke."
But this isn't true; the problem of African American indebtedness has its roots in Jim Crow, and the century-long effort to keep blacks from accumulating wealth and finding prosperity.
Get a Grasp on How Hypocrisy Happens (Religion helps…)
Phyllis Schafly Lives (2002/2005). Yes, it IS possible with a straight face to protest VAWA funding and not mention fatherhood funding, of approximate same lifespan:
"Time to Defund Feminist Pork — the Hate-Men Law"
- If Congress is looking for a way to return to principles of limited government and reduced federal spending, or to help finance the expenses of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita without raising taxes, a good place to start would be to reject the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) sponsored by Senator Joe Biden (D-DE). It's a political mystery why Republicans continue to put a billion dollars a year of taxpayers' money into the hands of radical feminists who use it to preach their anti-marriage and anti-male ideology, to promote divorce, to corrupt the family court system, and to engage in anti-family political advocacy.
- Accountability is supposed to be the watchword of the Bush Administration, but there's been no accountability or oversight for VAWA's ten years of spending many billions of dollars. There is no evidence that VAWA has benefited anyone except the radical feminists on its payroll. The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on VAWA in mid-July, but no critic of VAWA was permitted to speak.
- VAWA was first passed in 1994 after the feminists floated such bogus statistics as "a woman is beaten every 15 seconds" and "80% of fathers who seek custody of their children fit the profile of a batterer." {{NOTICE: cite absent}}
- VAWA encourages women to make false allegations** and then petition for full child custody and a denial of fathers' rights to see their own children. VAWA promotes the unrestrained use of restraining orders, which family courts issue on the woman's say-so. {** see 2nd link from top for a great "false allegation" and theatrical imitation of blood in Dombrowski case — musta been a false allegation, right?} {{Family courts don't typically issue those civil restraining orders, at least what I've sen. They help remove them, though…}}
NOTE: In Texas, one source I read said the HHS budget was one-third of the state budget. I think it's time to change that.
No, I"m not going to talk about Daubert. I just like this explanation: Found at:
Why Theoretics?
Theoretics: the field of study which utilizes creative thought, disciplined logic, and the current knowledgebase to develop credible scientific theory.
by Dr. James P. Siepmann, Editor-in-Chief
Though there are many courses at our colleges and graduate schools to teach us how to undertake and perform experiments for the various realms of science, there is a notable lack of courses to teach us theory development.
Theoretics is a field separate (albeit integrated) with experimentation, not only because good theory development is actually quite complex and intricate, but also because the people who make good experimentalists rarely make good theoreticians and visa versa. Theoreticians usually possess a more creative and unbound mind (e.g.. Einstein) while the experimentalist maintains a more meticulous and practical mindset (e.g. Edison).1 Rarely are the creative theoretical mind and the meticulous experimental mind contained within the same skull. So what we currently have are experimentalists trying to do theory development, and (excuse my candor) not very well.
Not only do most science journals require the focus of a paper to be an experiment or a statistical analysis of data, but about half of all the scientific articles published today contain at least one error of theory, either in logic or form. This is not acceptable. The implementation of Theoretics' principles need to be done prior to any experimental undertaking, not only because it puts the "cart before the horse" but it will also help to determine the experimental methodology that should be used.
{{In Social Science, Psychology, etc. areas – errors of form can be seen in language, or grammar. One of my pet peeves is calling all the children of the nation "our children" — when the "our" present are a select group of policymakers, and many parents of the nationa are unaware of this group's existence. This defies biology…}Or repeatedly asserting factoids as if they were scientifically data, when the studies supporting that have identifiable funding interested in obtaining certain conclusions. Is Psychology Science? NO, it is not! It's labeling plus deduction plus a bit of prophecy, and eliminates per se factors that many people consider real (and act on as if real), to wit, spirituality. A scientific theory that has repeated exceptions is not a valid one unless those exceptions are accounted for, etc. AND, this aturho is very likely not talking about the judicial realm — but stateing that in so-called "scientific" realms, there are still errors of theory, in logic or form, about 50% of the time. What he's saying is, the publication of an article doesn't mean that it's necessarily a valid theory.}}
Theories also change over time, and are occasionally proven invalid later, and discarded. When theory is used to support forced POLICY, then we have problems — big ones. People who had "theories" to support their policies included Hitler, racists, and others. In case you wondered, yes I AM referring to "fatherhood.gov" and associated paraphernalia.
Theory can also be the subject of a paper by itself, and I would submit that such "papers of theory" advance Science* much more than "papers of experimentation". In order for a theoretical paper to be worthy of publication though, it must be able to remain valid in light of current scientific evidence and also be able to explain such data at least as good as the theory that is currently accepted.
Most of today's journals consist of papers where an experiment is undertaken in order to validate a single argument hypothesis.** Such papers are undertaken to define or redefine some minuscule aspect of a sub-sub-sub-(and so on)-division of Science. Worse yet is that the more encompassing new theories are usually shunned unless they fall within the special/general relativity and quantum theory realms and are written by someone whom academia deems acceptable (papers today are usually accepted based upon who wrote it, rather than its merit)
**Parental Alienation, anyone?
Let's Talk about: The Unification States of America, Islamic Gender Apartheid, and why Family Law operates like a cult
Public mockings of even judges are tolerated on-line in the West.
We had best appreciate this liberty while some of it exists and start recognizing perhaps why this is tolerated as other systems fall into place. For example this same digital world has a double-edged sword, affecting basic processes in the judicial system, (google Joseph Zernik or Janet Phelan, or see my recent posts) and compromising basic concepts of due process, and of the states/federal distinction. Technology, technology, technology! often extinguishes and changes politics. If some cartoons go online, small deal in the larger picture.
Remember, the U.S. being the world's largest jailor, supposedly to stop crime — what if crime ceases? If immigrants are expelled? Will the buildings go empty and those jobs shift to another sector of the marketplace?
We are allowed to mock several things on-line, with cartoons, but I feel the situation is further along than we realize. While others are less affected, those stuck in the courts often exhibit many of these symptoms:
1. Extreme identity confusion
2. Dissociative states – "floating" (getting triggered back into cult mode)
3. Panic and anxiety attacks
4. Depression
5. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (P.T.S.D.)
6. Psychosomatic symptoms (headaches, backaches, asthma, skin problems)
7. Problems with decision-making- dependency
8. Retarded psychological development- loss of psychological power
9. Guilt
10. Fear
11. Sleep disorders/ nightmares
12. Eating disorders
13. Sexual problems / Sexuality Issues
14. Lack of trust/ fear of intimacy and commitment- personal & work
15. Harassment and threats from group {{Again, that's not a internal psychological problem, but an external experience that can cause such problems. In short, this is what cults, or gangs, DO if obedience is challenged, or disloyalty feared.}}
16. Grieving loss of friends, family
17. Spiritual "rape" of the soul
Common Psychological Problems
of Victims of Cult Mind Control
Some people will be stronger, and maybe less susceptible to such controls or threats; their strength sometimes makes those who don't stand up uncomfortable, and as such, group attempts to monitor, marginalize, slander, or silence others often increase.
What do Scientology, cults, gangs, and other subjectyourselftoourgroupmentalityorelse have in common with each other, with the family law system, and with, say Islamic gender apartheid? Or, woman-hating ultra-right conservative Christianity, for that matter? Already the parallels between domestic violence experience and the war vet (as to trauma) have been made.
How it's done in some cultures:
Women the Future of FreedomThe liberation of Europe's Muslim women is the best way to encourage assimilation into Western society, but the opportunity is being wasted.
One of my heroines is Samira Ahmed, a 24-year-old girlishly pretty woman with large, brown, doelike eyes, dark, curly hair and a smile that seduces even the gloomiest of faces to lighten up and smile back. Besides her good nature, she is inquisitive and has a strong will to be her own person. Born to a family who left Morocco in the early 1980s and settled in The Netherlands, she is one of 10 children.
In the (northern) summer of 2005, I attended her graduation ceremony at a training college in Amsterdam. Samira received a diploma for pedagogy and a record 10 score (the highest possible) for her thesis.
This is the celebratory side of Samira's story, for there is also a tragic side
. . .
On Samira's stand none of her family showed up: no brother, no sister, no cousin, no nephew, no niece. Two years earlier, Samira had to sneak away from home because she wanted to live in a student house like her Dutch friends Sara and Marloes. At home she had shared a bedroom with some of her siblings and had no privacy at all. Every move she made in the house was monitored by her mother and sisters; outside the house her brothers kept watch. They all wanted to make sure that under no circumstances would she become Westernised.
Samira had endured terrible physical and psychological violence at home. Her family always had a pretext to question her, go through her stuff and forbid her from setting foot outside the house. She was beaten frequently. There were rumours in her community that she had a Dutch boyfriend. The beatings at home became harsher. Samira could bear it no longer and left. Soon afterwards, in the summer of 2003, she got in touch with me. I went with her to the police to file a complaint against her brothers, who had threatened to murder her. According to them, Samira's death was the only way to avenge the shame she brought upon the family for leaving their parents' house.
The police said they could do nothing to help her except file the complaint. They said there were thousands of other women like her and it was not the police's duty to intervene in family matters. Ever since she left, Samira has been in hiding, moving from house to house and depending on the kindness of strangers. Mostly she is brave and faces life with a powerful optimism. Samira reads her textbooks, does her homework, and turns her papers in on time. She accepts invitations to student parties from Sara and Marloes and makes an effort to enjoy herself.
Sometimes, however, she has a sad, drawn look on her face that betrays her worries. Once in a while she just weeps and confides that she wishes her life were different, perhaps more like the lives of her Dutch friends.
How awful that her own, large family, could not rejoice with her successes, in fact threatened to kill her for it.
Her worries are far from over, though. She has no money; she has to find a job, and with her Moroccan name that will be far from easy in The Netherlands; she has to find another new place to live; she lives in an unending fear of being discovered by her brothers and slaughtered by them. This is no joke, for in just two police regions in The Netherlands (The Hague area and the southern section of the province of South Holland), 11 Muslim girls were killed by their own families between October 2004 and May 2005 for "offences" similar to those committed by Samira.
In other words, in some cultures, such independence is punished by simply killing them: "honor killings." Existing as a (female) individual outside the family is anathema. Their honor is worth more than her life. Think that's only Islam, or radical Islam? By the end of this post, you might — as I do — realize that while presently, maybe so, that's not the PLANNED future of the U.S. or other countries…to each its own slavery institution.
In my mind, there are three categories of Muslim women in Dutch society. I suspect that this distinction applies to other European Union countries with large Muslim populations as well. First, there are girls such as Samira: strong-willed, intelligent and willing to take a chance on shaping their individual futures along a path they choose for themselves. They face many obstacles as they try to assimilate in Western society and some may lose their lives trying to attain their dreams.
They chose — had to, to live with their own consciences, perhaps — "live free or die."
Second, there are girls and women who are very dependent and attached to their families but who cleverly forge a way to lead a double life, and…
The third group are the utterly vulnerable. Some of these girls are imported as brides or domestic workers from the country of origin of the immigrants with whom they come to live. Some are daughters of the more conservative families. These girls are removed from school once they attain puberty and locked up at home. Their families get away with this form of modern slavery because the [EUROPEAN] authorities rarely take notice of these young women. The girls have often been brought up to be absolutely obedient: they perform household chores without question. Their individual wills have been bent to the servitude taught at their parents' house and put into practice in their husbands' homes or the homes of the people who import and enslave them. They can hardly read or write.
When they marry, they generally bear as many children as their individual fertility allows. When they miscarry, most of them view this as God's will, not as a lack of proper health care, which they are usually prevented from seeking because of their families' religious reasons.
Now, at the risk of alienating readers through length, or offending them through graphic description, I"m going to continue to post what this author, writing for AEI (of all places!) reports. Perhaps some of the qualitative parallels between this and MUCH of our family law system — or some of the most hated headlining cults or individual cult family situations (<>a father in Austria keeps a pregnant daughter in the basement, <> a married couple in Antioch, California, keep a young kidnapped, repeatedly raped girl in the back yard sheds, where she has two girls, raises them out back there (becoming a woman herself) helps him with his print business, and is finally sprung 18 years later when a female security officer at UC Berkeley recognizes the children acting "odd" (Garrido/DuGard), costing California taxpayers $20 million in damages, but at least all are alive ; <>a young woman in Colorado is forced to father 4 kids starting too early, by her mother's "ex," loses custody of them, temporarily regains custody of them, and is later forced to give them up to foster care and PAY the government, because the government's charges to her, she cannot pay (search: "Girl, Interrupted!" or "It's a Cryin' Shame")– will begin to show. <>A woman in Houston, Texas area is forced into a shelter, but but the courts insist Dad get visitation; four kids die. . . Here's, from this same article:
The biggest obstacle that hinders Muslim women from leading dignified, free lives is violence–physical, mental, and sexual–committed by their close families. Here is only a sample of some of the violence perpetrated on girls and women from Islamic cultures:
- Four-year-old girls have their genitals mutilated: some of them so badly that they die of infections; others are traumatised for life from the experience and will later suffer recurrent infections of their reproductive and urinary systems.
- Teenage girls are removed from school by force and kept inside the house to stop their schooling, stifle their thinking and suffocate their will.
- Victims of incest and sexual abuse are beaten, deported or killed to prevent them from filing complaints.
- Some pregnant victims of incest or abuse are forced by their fathers, older brothers, or uncles to have abortions in order to keep the family honour from being stained. In this era of DNA testing, the girls could demonstrate that they have been abused. Yet instead of punishing the abusers, the family treats the daughter as if she had dishonoured the family.
- Girls and women who protest their maltreatment are beaten by their parents in order to kill their spirits and reduce them to a lifelong servitude that amounts to slavery.
- Many girls and women who can't bear to suffer any more take their own lives or develop numerous kinds of psychological ailments, including nervous breakdown and psychosis. They are literally driven mad.
- A Muslim girl in Europe runs more risk than girls of other faiths of being forced into marriage by her parents with a stranger. In such a marriage — which, since it is forced, by definition starts with rape — she conceives child after child. She is an enslaved womb. Many of her children will grow up in a household with parents who are neither bound by love nor interested in the wellbeing of their children. The daughters will go through life as subjugated as their mothers and the sons become — in Europe — dropouts from school, attracted to pastimes that can vary from loitering in the streets to drug abuse to radical Islamic fundamentalism.
{My bolding certain phrases is not to diminish the others, but to point out my theme of attempts to stifle the will, and psychological affects of it, including suicide. Also, these practices ensure the next generation will also endure subjugation, making total enslavement easier through physical AND mental control.}}
European policy-makers have not yet understood the huge potential of liberating Muslim women. They are squandering the single best opportunity they have to make Muslim integration a success within one generation. Morally, governments need to eradicate violence against women in Europe. This would make clear to fundamentalists that Europeans take their constitutions seriously. Now, most abusers simply think that Western rhetoric about the equality of men and women is cowardly and hypocritical, since Western governments tolerate the abuse of millions of Muslim women when they're told it's in the name of freedom of religion.
Note WELL those last comments — in the non-Muslim households of the West, this is tolerated (in different forms) under the name of the supremacy of family. This has a theocracy root, and makes a mockery of the constitutions. Either the constitutions exist, and women, or fringe/marginalized populations are equally people, or they do not, and as such are a fraud, misleading women who hope that they were real, only to find out, "not for you."
ALSO: there is a social need (survival, perhaps) to distance onesself from the outspoken, the rebels, and the weak and distressed. It is a hard thing to lose one's social moorings; for years, I sought to understand the varieties of silence on my own abuse, and the vicious post-separation response of my own (supposedly liberal) family to it, and utter refusal to recognize me as an individual, that strength, determination, and resourcefulness had helped me break free – as well as determination that comes from my connection to children. That connection "had" to be broken. No recognition of my accomplishments post-separation (which were significant) was permitted; my kids were trained to dismiss these also, although they kept racking up. I was eliminated in the family terminology as a person — I had no past, and my future was to be at their discretion. Having broken the emotional and economic strengths, even as I sought to replace them, it is as though the moorings of society are exposed by these "canaries in the mines." I had not experienced significant abuse or sexism (that I was aware of) as a young woman or professional — ONLY in my own marriage, and afterwards. Friends, whether religious or work, made during the marriage — none of who really intervened, or referred to any legal source for help — had to be replaced; new ones made professionally afterwards faced (second-hand or sometimes too close for comfort) the same relentless pressure I was experiencing, and no court, agency, or nonprofit was going to compensate.
I began to wonder why the experience of my family of origin was feeling like the writings of Ayaan Hirsi Ali, or of Nonie Darwish, regarding polygamy. I began to distance myself from "support" groups (while IN the abuse) to simple economic freedom resulting in permission to escape. The family courts had the system of constant contextt with my ex-abuser, so I still pushed for choice within those limits, and to stay in the profession I'd rebuilt. And – as things escalated — to switch to another "domestic violence-proof" alternative, which I had begun to undertstand — or at least believe — existed, if only certain conditions could be met, namely geographic flexibility (stalking had become an issue, and home no longer felt safe).
Once I began to see the economic forces in the family law system (typically lost in the "rhetoric"), and how psychobabble is actually just a mask for financial (corruption), plus the role of the INTERNET in centralizing the court system grants, and other things, I reported as I learned.
Part of regaining personal integrity is understanding — from one's own (evolving) choice of sources "What happened?" and "What next?" People who have not been through some sort of cult experience may not comprehend how important this is; as brainwashing is relentless unless communication can be cut off with certain people, as Samira had to do, as a brave, but largely deserted, young woman, above.
On the other hand, once you see the connections (and my tendency is towards research, curiosity, and synthesis) there really is no going back to other understandings. I also pray more these days, as analysis doens't "cut it" all, and I do believe that –while separate — emotionality and spirituality relate. I would sooner deal with a person enraged with me — and honest about (his or her) rage — than person driven by anger, yet repeatedly declaring they are not.
Below this section on "psychology" (as a means of control), is the BUSH/MOONIE/MONEY connection which (as my style is) was the heart of my post. This tells me, perhaps, WHY it feels so similar in these supposedly different venues.
How it's done in other cultures:
Outright, upfront theocracy is unacceptable in many "Western" cultures. Although, toleration of the above behavior in Western cultures on the basis of, it's a family matter, is common — note, this above was from WHICH European country? But generally, for the atheistic (supposedly) norm, there is always psychiatry & psychology to bring someone to heel.
Psychological Abuse: 3 Signs of Crazy-Making by Family, by Friend, by Enemy
(this book summary — and it is a promotion — by Dr. Jeanne King — details the behaviors — not the felt experience — of what people reporting abuse, or leaving a battering relationships (etc.) may face. As I look at it, it's practically a recipe for what the family law system does, period. If possible).
1) Your "loved one" encourages you to see a counselor with them or see a counselor of their choosing. They say you need help or your relationship with them needs help, and they want to assist in your getting the help they want you to have. Yet, you have no symptoms for which you know to warrant such an intervention.
2) Your "loved one" or the counselor chosen by, or consulted with, your loved one encourages you to self-admit yourself for a psychiatric evaluation in the absence of symptoms that disturb you. Your voluntary admission into a psychiatric evaluation is much like you taking the weapon they seek to use to compromise you and your liberties, aim it at yourself and pull the trigger.
This protects those involved in the crazy-making maneuver from any liability of falsely utilizing the system to have you committed. It's much like talking you into your own suicide, after which there is no murder, no murderers…no one to blame but you.
3) Your compliance with your own psychiatric admission becomes the condition for you to maintain rights that are being denied or being threatened to be denied. If you resist your voluntary admission into the sought-after psychiatric evaluation, then the thing you fear losing becomes the "carrot" to manipulate you to re-consider. This reconsideration re-invites you, manipulates you, to cooperate in your voluntary psychological evaluation and ultimate crazy-making maneuver.
Sounds crazy? You bet, it's crazy. And sadly, this happens more often than most mental health professionals care to admit.
If you find yourself confronted with another person's campaign to make you "crazy," certifiably so, take a hard and honest look at what's in store, before you become another victim of this form of psychological abuse.
The "Unification Connection" came up this past JUNE, 2010, as I looked at Congressman Danny Davis, in association with voting for more Fatherhood Grants at the House Ways and Means Committee website. I caught this coronation ceremony photos in a Senate Building in Washington, D.C. Say, what? ?? (Search my posts);
Note: This theme won't show up in a typical, say, NOW Family Law section, or other arenas. I don't know that even any of fellow-bloggers on ANY side of the family law crisis reporting will echo as to this theme. Then again, I'm typically the one researching the HHS grants and very upset by having the marriage forced on women after they have left violence; I am also sensitive to religious themes along those lines. The U.S. Government Grant — Unification Church connection is established in several strands: Illinois, Washington, and Arizona (N.A.M.E. being one). Ultra-conservative right-wing so-called Christian groups find out that some of this ain't Christian. We as Americans should ALl be considered bout the constant erosion of individual rights (as in the bill of Rights and in the Constitution) and we should be grown-up enough to acknowledge that that often carries a religious theme. Well, here we go:
Since the following article, and my connecting this Unification church with the Forcing-marriage policies in the United States, may sound outrageous, here's its author
Robert Parry is a veteran investigative reporter, who broke many of the Iran-contra stories in the 1980s for The Associated Press and Newsweek. Robert Parry's latest book is Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq. It can be purchased at http://www.secrecyandprivilege.com. It's also available at Amazon.com.
To see two of the DIA documents, click here. http://www.consortiumnews.com/moondocs/index.html
For more background on the Moon Organization, see Steve Hassan's Web site, http://www.freedomofmind.com/groups/moonies/moonies.htm
Bush, Moon, Money, and Marriage issues: A marriage not made in heaven:
The Dark Side of Rev. Sun Myung Moon
Part 1, Hooking George Bush
By Robert Parry
July 28, 1997
Last fall, the Rev. Sun Myung Moon's latest foray into the high-priced world of media and politics was in trouble. South American journalists were writing scathingly about Moon's plan to open a regional newspaper that the 77-year-old founder of the Korean-based Unification Church hoped would give him the same influence in Latin America that the ultra-conservative Washington Times had in the United States.
(TIMELINE: VAWA/National Fatherhood Initiative — 1994, 1995 Clinton letter, 1996 PWORA (welfare reform), 1998, 1999 Congressional resolutions regarding fatherhood, and so forth — see my site and others.).
EVIDENTLY, A Bush in the Family is worth Two in the Hand:
Given the controversy, Argentina's elected president, Carlos Menem, did decide to reject Moon's invitation. But Moon had a trump card to play in his bid for South American respectability: the endorsement of an ex-president of the United States, George Bush. Agreeing to speak at the newspaper's launch, Bush flew aboard a private plane, arriving in Buenos Aires on Nov. 22. Bush stayed at Menem's official residence, the Olivos. But Bush failed to change the Argentine president's mind.Still, Moon's followers gushed that Bush had saved the day, as he stepped before about 900 Moon guests at the Sheraton Hotel. "Mr. Bush's presence as keynote speaker gave the event invaluable prestige," wrote the Unification News. "Father [Moon] and Mother [Mrs. Moon] sat with several of the True Children [Moon's offspring] just a few feet from the podium."Bush lavished praise on Moon and his journalistic enterprises. "I want to salute Reverend Moon, who is the founder of The Washington Times and also of Tiempos del Mundo," Bush declared. "A lot of my friends in South America don't know about The Washington Times, but it is an independent voice. The editors of The Washington Times tell me that never once has the man with the vision interfered with the running of the paper, a paper that in my view brings sanity to Washington, D.C. I am convinced that Tiempos del Mundo is going to do the same thing" in Latin America.Bush then held up the colorful new newspaper and complimented several articles, including one flattering piece about Barbara Bush. Bush's speech was so effusive that it surprised even Moon's followers."Once again, heaven turned a disappointment into a victory," the Unification News exulted. "Everyone was delighted to hear his compliments. We knew he would give an appropriate and 'nice' speech, but praise in Father's presence was more than we expected. … It was vindication. We could just hear a sigh of relief from Heaven."Bush's endorsement of The Washington Times' editorial independence also was not truthful. Almost since it opened in 1982, a string of senior editors and correspondents have resigned, citing the manipulation of the news by Moon and his subordinates. The first editor, James Whelan, resigned in 1984, confessing that he had "blood on his hands" for helping the church achieve greater legitimacy. Money Talks
- But Bush's boosterism was just what Moon needed in South America. "The day after," the Unification News observed, "the press did a 180-degree about-turn once they realized that the event had the support of a U.S. president." With Bush's help, Moon had gained another beachhead for his worldwide business-religious-political-media empire. After the event, Menem told reporters from La Nacion that Bush had claimed privately to be only a mercenary who did not really know Moon. "Bush told me he came and charged money to do it," Menem said. [Nov. 26, 1996]. But Bush was not telling Menem the whole story. By last fall (Fall 1996), Bush and Moon had been working in political tandem for at least a decade and a half. The ex-president also had been moonlighting as a front man for Moon for more than a year.In September 1995, Bush and his wife, Barbara, gave six speeches in Asia for the Women's Federation for World Peace, a group led by Moon's wife, Hak Ja Han Moon. In one speech on Sept. 14 to 50,000 Moon supporters in Tokyo, Bush insisted that "what really counts is faith, family and friends." Mrs. Moon followed the ex-president to the podium and announced that "it has to be Reverend Moon to save the United States, which is in decline because of the destruction of the family and moral decay." [Washington Post, Sept. 15, 1995]
. . .
In summer 1996, Bush was lending his prestige to Moon again. Bush addressed the Moon-connected Family Federation for World Peace in Washington, an event that gained notoriety when comedian Bill Cosby tried to back out of his contract after learning of Moon's connection. Bush had no such qualms. [WP, July 30, 1996]
Throughout these public appearances, Bush's office has refused to divulge how much Moon-affiliated organizations have paid the ex-president. But estimates of Bush's fee for the Buenos Aires appearance alone ran between $100,000 and $500,000. Sources close to the Unification Church have put the total Bush-Moon package in the millions, with one source telling The Consortium that Bush stood to make as much as $10 million.
Ka-CHING! and Diatribes against individuality, especially as found among American women:
Moon's jingle of deep-pocket cash also has caused conservatives to turn a deaf ear toward Moon's recent anti-American diatribes. With growing virulence, Moon has denounced the United States and its democratic principles, often referring to America as "Satanic." But these statements have gone virtually unreported, even though the texts of his sermons are carried on the Internet and their timing has coincided with Bush's warm endorsements of Moon.
"America has become the kingdom of individualism, and its people are individualists," Moon preached in Tarrytown, N.Y., on March 5, 1995. "You must realize that America has become the kingdom of Satan."
In similar remarks to followers on Aug. 4, 1996, Moon vowed that the church's eventual dominance over the United States would be followed by the liquidation of American individualism. "Americans who continue to maintain their privacy and extreme individualism are foolish people," Moon declared. "The world will reject Americans who continue to be so foolish. Once you have this great power of love, which is big enough to swallow entire America, there may be some individuals who complain inside your stomach. However, they will be digested."
During the same sermon, Moon decried assertive American women. "American women have the tendency to consider that women are in the subject position," he said. "However, woman's shape is like that of a receptacle. The concave shape is a receiving shape. Whereas, the convex shape symbolizes giving. … Since man contains the seed of life, he should plant it in the deepest place.
"Does woman contain the seed of life? ["No."] Absolutely not. Then if you desire to receive the seed of life, you have to become an absolute object. In order to qualify as an absolute object, you need to demonstrate absolute faith, love and obedience to your subject. Absolute obedience means that you have to negate yourself 100 percent."
In case we're not clear, this was addressed to women, particularly any woman who wants to become a mother.
A fellow-blogger, "rightsformothers.com" posts alternating photos at the top. ONE of them reads — on a sign held by a man: "Women are not Incubators."
Well the man who wants to improve upon Jesus' model (NB: who was respectful towards women) disagrees. And so, increasingly, does Federal policy towards mothers as seen in the family court programs subsidized by federal grants, many of which go to faith-based institutions. What happened?
I also wonder, if this same "spirit" has not entered into mainstream very conservative Christianity — slavish obedience. "God wants to use you, too." While shunning works well for dissidents (there's another church somewhere nearby more suited to your tastes), in the past about 10-15 years, I've seen it get worse — not better — on confronting domestic violence (i.e. wife-beating to ensure dominance) in the ranks of individual congregations.
ABSOLUTE OBEDIENCE, No PRIVACY — Sound like family court Archipelago yet?
One-World Theocracy
Despite growing disaffection among many longtime followers and other problems, Moon's empire still prospers financially, backed by vast sources of mysterious wealth. "It's a multi-billion-dollar international conglomerate," noted Steve Hassan, a former church leader who has written a book about religious cults, entitled Combatting Cult Mind Control. At his Internet site, Hassan has a 31-page list of organizations connected to the Unification Church, many secretively.
"Here's a man [Moon] who says he wants to take over the world, where all religions will be abolished except Unificationism, all languages will be abolished except Korean, all governments will be abolished except his one-world theocracy," Hassan said in an interview. "Yet he's wined and dined very powerful people and convinced them that he's benign."
Hassan argued that perhaps the greatest danger of the Unification Church is that it will outlive Moon, since the organization has grown so immense and powerful that other leaders will step forward to lead it. "There are groups out there that want to use this organization," Hassan said.
Who is Hassan?
Steven Alan Hassan, cult counselor and mind control expert, is the Nationally Certified Counselor and licensed Mental Health Counselor who has developed the breakthrough approach to help loved ones rescue cult mind control victims.
A former member of the Moon cult, ex-cult members and others seek him out for specialized counseling to help them recover from symptoms other mental health professionals are not trained to address.
Unification Church and "Family" Agenda:
(excerpts from "Religious Tolerance" website — its disclaimer at bottom of page).
The Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity*** was organized in 1954 in Seoul, South Korea by Rev. Sun Myung Moon ["One who has clarified the Truth"]. Some sources say the organization started in Pusan, not Seoul. Its followers are often called Moonies by persons outside of the Association. However, this term is considered derogatory by its members, who refer to themselves as Unificationists.
**Counterpart to, or to replace, the Pope, one might ask?
Rev. Moon was born in what is now North Korea in 1920 and was raised in the Presbyterian Church. He is a Professional Engineer by training. When he was 15 years old, at Easter, Jesus Christ appeared to him in a vision, charging him with the responsibility of completing the work in the world that Jesus had started. During his adult life he has had trouble with legal authorities, having been arrested for practicing capitalism (a crime in North Korea), charged (but not convicted) in South Korea of other activities, and convicted of tax evasion in the United States. The Presbyterian Church of Korea, in 1948, felt that his views were incompatible with traditional Christianity; they excommunicated him.
In 1957, Rev. Moon published Divine Principle which is a collection of his beliefs, as written by a member of the Church. Two years later, Young Oon Kim moved to North America as a Unification missionary to establish a church presence there. Many of the members in the US expected a type of apocalyptic event in 1967. When nothing of that nature occurred, some members became disillusioned and left the organization. In 1972, Rev. Moon moved to the United States and started a major recruitment drive. A decade later, he performed the first of many mass wedding ceremonies in which more than 2000 couples were married. In 1984, he was convicted of tax evasion in the US and sent to prison for 13 months.
. . .
The third Adam was born in Korea between 1917 and 1930. (The first Adam was the individual described in Genesis; the second Adam is Jesus). He will be recognized as second coming of Christ, the perfect man. He will marry the perfect woman, and will become the "true spiritual parents of humankind". Some members of the Unification Church regard Rev. Moon and his second (and current) wife Hak Ja Han as these parents, although the Church itself has never made this claim.
The Unification Church is a profoundly family-centered Church. Members are expected to remain celibate during their youth. They are to subsequently marry, have children, and create an ideal family which contributes to world peace.
{{cf. Ron Haskins / Urban Institute / HHS "fatherhood" policies –do it for your country and your kids…}}
The Blessing or mass wedding ceremony is the most important Unification ritual. Rev. Moon matches up each couple a month (or less) in advance, selecting from among the membership. The bride and groom are expected to marry, but can decide to opt out without disgrace. A Holy Wine Ceremony is conducted before the marriage; this purifies the couple so that they are able to have children free of Fallen Nature (resulting from original sin inherited from Adam and Eve). A special Three Day Ceremony is performed by the married couple some weeks after their wedding, before they engage in sexual activity. A Pledge Service is celebrated at 5 AM each Sunday, and on the first day of each month and on January 1. They celebrate four major seasonal days of celebration:
True God's Day, True Parents' Day, True Day of All Things. Chil II Jeol: Declaration Day of God's Eternal Blessing True Children's Day Foundation Day for the nation of the Unified World
. . . Other disturbing allegations:
Unification Church Books and Publications:
The Unification Church's main religious text is the Bible. It is seen as teaching truth, but is not viewed as truth in itself. It is only a partial revelation. Rev. Moon's interpretations of Christian beliefs and additional revelations from God are contained in the book Divine Principle, which was written in Korean in 1959 and translated by Young Oon Kim in 1959. The Church publishes the Unification News, and Today's World.
They also publish a newspaper, the extreme-right wing Washington Times. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC): "The Washington Times is relatively small (circulation 102,000) and money-losing (it's been estimated that its backer, the Unification Church, has spent more than $1 billion to keep it going over the past 22 years). But its influence cannot be measured in those statistics. President Reagan once described it as his favorite paper. The first President Bush said it 'in my view brings sanity to Washington, D.C'." President George W. Bush gave a personal tour for top staff of the Washington Times during 2005-JAN.
Marian Kester Coombs, wife of managing editor Francis Booth Coombs, has had at least 35 news and opinion pieces published in the Times. SPLC quotes excerpts from some of her articles:
America has become a "den of iniquity" because of "its efforts to accommodate minorities." White men should "run, not walk" to wed "racially conscious" white women and avoid being out-bred by non-whites. Latinos are "rising to take this country away from those who made it…[the] Euroamericans." Muslims are "human hyenas" who "smell blood" and are "closing in" on their "weakened prey," meaning "the white race." Blacks, are "saintly victims who can do no wrong." Black solidarity and non-white immigration are imposing "racial revolution and decomposition" in America. The whole of human history as "the struggle of … races." Non-white immigration is "importing poverty and revolution" that will end in "the eventual loss of sovereign American territory." Muslims In England "are turning life in this once pleasant land into a misery for its native inhabitants."
According to the SPLC, the Washington TImes has published articles taken from white supremacist hate groups, anti-Semitic ads for a book called "For Fear of the Jews," and an ad from a key Holocaust denial group. 8
Conflict of interest declaration:
The author of this essay was able to attend a convention on religious tolerance and freedom in Washington during the 1990s. The meeting was sponsored by the Washington Times, which is owned by the Unification Church. Airline fares, meals and accommodation were heavily subsidized by the Times.
Although the constitution of Singapore guarantees religious freedom to its citizens, it has banned the Unification Church. See: "Infringement of Religious Freedom" at: http://members.tripod.com/~teopl/ and "MERCILESS REPATRIATION " at: http://members.tripod.com/~limcm
This site is almost too much to handle. Nevertheless:
W.'s Christian Nation
How Bush promotes religion and erodes
the separation of church and state
by Chris Mooney
The American Prospect, June 2003
n November of 1992, shortly after Bill Clinton was elected president, a telling controversy arose at a meeting of the Republican Governors Association. When a reporter asked the governors how their party could both satisfy the demands of Christian conservatives and also maintain a broad political coalition, Mississippi's Kirk Fordice took the opportunity to pronounce America a "Christian nation." "The less we emphasize the Christian religion," Fordice declared, "the further we fall into the abyss of poor character and chaos in the United States of America." Jewish groups immediately protested Fordice's remarks; on CNN's Crossfire, Michael Kinsley asked whether Fordice would also call America a "white nation" because whites, like Christians, enjoy a popular majority. The incident was widely seen as exposing a rift between the divisive Pat Robertson wing of the GOP and the more moderate camp represented by then-President George Herbert Walker Bush.
Fast-forward a decade. Republicans have solved their internal problems, and the party is united under our most prayerful of presidents, the born-again believer George W. Bush. Though not originally the favored candidate of the religious right-John Ashcroft was-Bush has played the part well. Virtually his first presidential act was to proclaim a National Day of Prayer and Thanksgiving; soon he appointed Ashcroft to serve as attorney general. Since then the stream of religiosity from the White House has been continuous.. . .
. Clinton also showed immense political sympathy for religion, but he didn't nominate a slate of right-wing judges who could give the law a decidedly majoritarian, pro-Christian bent. And Bush has gone further than that. From school-prayer guidelines issued by the Department of Education to faith-based initiatives to directives from virtually every federal agency, there's hardly a place where Bush hasn't increased both the presence and the potency of religion in American government. In the process, the Bush administration lavishly caters to the very religious right groups that gave us the dubious Christian-nation concept to begin with.
Consider Bush's faith-based initiative. In October 2002, the Department of Health and Human Services doled out $30 million to ~ 1 religious and community groups as part of the faith-based program. Sure enough, $500,000 went to Pat Robertson's religious charity Operation Blessing. In addition, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a grant of $700,000 went to the National Center for Faith-Based Initiative, founded by Bishop Harold Calvin Ray, who has declared church-state separation "a fiction." Another $z.' million went to Dare Mighty Things, a group affiliated with Chuck Colson, a Watergate felon turned evangelist who tries to convert prison inmates to Christianity and has the ear of the Bush administration. All of the religious recipients of Health and Human Services grants were connected to Christian ministries, mostly evangelical ones.
These grant allocations suggest that while Bush may not say he's forging a Christian nation, at the very least he's blending church and state to fund Christianity. And Health and Human Services is just one government agency now engaged in promoting faith-based initiatives. Under Bush, notes Americans United Executive Director Barry Lynn, the departments of Justice, Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services and Education all "are issuing regulations, guidelines and other directives that promote religion." Bush has also placed influential religious-right figures in his administration. Consider a few little-noticed examples. David Caprara, the head of AmeriCorps/ VISTA, directed the American Family Coalition, a faith-based social-action group affiliated with Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. Kay Coles James, a staunch anti-abortionist who was formerly a dean at Pat Robertson's Regent University and senior vice president of the Family Research Council, is now director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management, which monitors the federal workforce.
. . .
I don't think Bush has set out to reshape church and state relationships, but by doing the kind of politics that he's been doing, there are some strong implications," says the University of Akron's Green. Those implications were summarized, in their most radical form, by Pat Robertson in his l992 book, The New World Order. There, Robertson wrote, "There will never be world peace until God's house and God's people are given their rightful place of leadership at the top of the world." America is certainly on top of the world, and with George W. Bush in the White House, religious conservatives are standing there with him. ~
In case this is NOT sinking in, it goes approximately like this: Unification Church (mass, arranged marriages, propagate and help save the world; woman as object/incubators, America as kingdom of Satan because of individualism, 100% obedience, one-world religion, mega-riches behind this, and well, SOMEONE has to be the head of that)(oh yes, and certain ethnic minorities — particularly Muslims, Latino — are devilish, dogs…) + BUSH (faith-centered initiatives, backed by the HHS grants, abstinence, marriage, fatherhood, we are a Christian nation, and Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times is great reading ….) . . . . And we got "Dubwa Trouble."
From "Metamyth – KoreaGate: Conservative Financial Ties to Billionaire Cultist Sun Myung Moon.
The Unification Church has funded, usually furtively, various conservative groups in Washington. One conservative insider told me over ten years ago that many Americans would be shocked at how much money for conservatives in Washington comes from Moonies.
It is rather anomalous that many political conservatives, and especially politically conservative Christians, work as closely with the Unification Church as they do. There should be more voices warning against the lies of Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church. Does character matter?
David Becker, editor of the Christian Religion and Politics Digest
The enormously wealthy Reverend Sun Myung Moon has powerful friends in Washington and he uses his influential newspaper, the Washington Times, to keep these friends supportive of him. Moon has skillfully used the fear of Communism to gain powerful allies and to intimidate threatening foes. What few do not understand is that Communism is really not an issue with Moon, it is merely a banner which Moon uses to rally a large enough force to exert a powerful influence on society.
Rev. Sun Myung Moon may preach that he is the Adam and the Christ reincarnate, but he has been accused in a 447 page Congressional report with bribery, bank fraud, illegal kickbacks and illegal sale of arms. He was also accused of attempting to secretly build nuclear weapons for Korea. A Congressional report also indicated that Rev. Moon's Unification Church was founded by a director of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, Kim Chong Pil, as a political tool in 1961.
The House report states, "Kim Chong Pil organized the Unification Church while he was director of the ROK (Republic of Korea) Central Intelligence Agency, and has been using the church, which has a membership of 27,000, as a political tool." Kim was among the inner core of Army officers who led the coup that brought President Park Chung Hee to power in 1961. The Moon organization denies any ties with the Korean government or intelligence community.
In 1977 Congressman Donald Frazer launched an investigation into Moon's background. The House Committee report states that it uncovered evidence that the Moon organization had systematically violated U.S. tax, immigration, banking, currency and foreign agent registration laws. The investigator for the report commented, "We determined that their primary interest, at least in the U.S. at that time, was not religious at all, but was political, it was an attempt to gain power, influence and authority." But after the inauguration of President Ronald Reagan all investigations were halted. Moon was Vice President George Bush's guest at the inauguration and was a major financial contributor to the Washington conservative establishment.
A federal investigation into Moon's finances led to a 1982 trial on charges of conspiracy and filing false tax returns. Moon was sent to the federal correctional institution in Danbury, Connecticut. He remained there for 13 months.
The Moon organization has spent an alarming amount of money in the United States in an effort to influence the government. More than $800 million has been spent on the Washington Times, alone. Most of Moon's money comes from Japan. For almost 20 years there have been consistent reports that one of Moon's most important financial supporters and advisors is Ryoichi Sasakawa. Sasakawa describes himself as "the world's richest Fascist".
In addition to his riches, according to author Walter Pat Choate [1996 Reform Party Vice Presidential candidate], "for more than half a century Sasakawa has been one of the primary political brokers inside Japan". Choate claims that Sasakawa is part of Japan's attempts to influence America's politics and policies. "Many of Sasakawa's and Moon's operations parallel each other. They operate in the same way, giving away money, a great deal of attention to media and media organizations which operate across national borders, and the maintenance of a very right wing conservative focus," states Choate.
Meanwhile, under religious tolerance + it's a family matter, Westward-wishing Muslim young women, watch out.
Phyllis Chesler "gets" this and I think always has, from "Women & Madness" to her present warnings about politically-correct fear of telling the truth re: Jihad, and "Palestinization" of feminism . . . As others may speak about the LGBT-ization of N.O.W. – – leaving mothers somewhat in the lurch, in the church.:
The Muslims are Coming, The Muslims are Coming
In France, young Muslims have been rioting for days—not about the age of retirement but in a display of hostility towards the French Republic; some are now describing this violence as "anti-French racism." In Holland, young Muslims riot incessantly and call out the vilest hate speech imaginable against America, Israel, Jews, Holland, and infidels—and yet Dutch politician, Geert Wilders, is still the one on trial for telling the truth about Islamic jihad because it offended some Muslims.
No, the Wilders trial is not yet over; three judges must first agree with both the defense and the prosecution who have both asked that all charges be dropped.
Meanwhile, in the United States, Juan Williams was just fired by NPR aka National Palestinian Radio for admitting that he, like so many others, including many Muslims, "feels" some trepidation when he sees Arabs in Islamic clothing board a plane.
My High Conflict with Promoting National Alliances
I usually steer clear of this group, but there have been some "Family Squabbles" affecting bloggers I do hang out with, and share data with. A little explanation, after pausing to look at the kid-artwork above about "Protecting OUR children" [WHOSE children?] [boy, that protecting children theme really sets a group apart from the crowd, including CPS, crckids.org, etc.] and to notice the "ING" in "EnsurING the rights of children and protective mothers in family court." Remember my recent post in the "-INGS" in the industry?
Who is this? well, it says, on the "About Us" page:
Lundy Bancroft is the author of three books in the field, including Why Does He Do That?, When Dad Hurts Mom, and the national prize-winner The Batterer as Parent. He has worked with over a thousand abusers directly as an intervention counselor, and has served as clinical supervisor on another thousand cases. He has also served extensively as a custody evaluator, child abuse
investigator, and expert witness in domestic violence and child abuse cases. Lundy appears across the United States as a presenter for judges and other court personnel, child protective workers, therapists, law enforcement officials, and other audiences.
Co-founder # 1 is (obviously) not a mother (which doesn't mean he can't empathize with mothers, or even protective mothers). He is a professional in this field and on the conference circuit. As such, he is in sales (see books) and in consulting (see conference circuit). My pointing this out is not a valuation of Mr. Bancroft or his work, just a mention of what business he is in.
Co-founder #2 IS a mother, a protective mother, and her profile resembles many protective mother profiles (at least the sector with degrees who married wealthy abusive husbands, as opposed to poor abusive husbands, as opposed to those who didn't marry, all of who could easily become protective mothers once they hit family law.
Janice Levinson holds a BA degree from Saint Leo University in Florida. She is a former teacher and protective mother of 3 grown children. She was a victim of the corrupt family court system for over a decade. After divorcing her wealthy and abusive ex husband, Janice had full legal and physical custody of all three children. {{That alone is unusual in these times; usually it's joint both, or joint legal and sole physical: what decade?}} By the time her youngest aged out of the system she lost custody of her children, due to family court corruption. Janice was never accused of any wrong doing as she was an outstanding stay at home mother. {{Again, representing some of the protective mother population.}}
Janice is currently a nurse working on her BSN with a background in Psychiatric nursing. {Presumably that photo is around 16 years old; kids have aged out. If she'd put her baby's photo on line with an open case, she might have been threatened with jail, like Ms. Dombroswki has been for doing this as a noncustodial mother.}
OK, so it's one Mom who knows about wealthy abusive husbands, who lost in court {{might be helpful for understanding politics, methinks}}, who knows that family courts are corrupt, and one respected professional. Now, what about this protective mothers alliance? Is it a nonprofit and does anyone in it draw a salary? Have they built upon prior SUCCESS in this field? Because many organizations already exist. When did it start?
Janice along with Lundy Bancroft co-founded Protective Mothers Alliance International in April of 2009.
- LAST YEAR?? ??? I spent most of 2009 researching information from a group that started in 1993, and validating its message. Based on that the facts checked out, I expanded that information and started blogging the "missing data" that the professionals I guess just forgot to tell me in the prior decade. Is any such newcomer going to have new information, insight, or perspectives on what already exists in this field and fails to protect mothers? Has Janic'es veteran status helped her help a single other mother avoid the same pitfall and successfully retain custody, or regain it after losing it due to court corruption? If that answer is "No" (most of ours would be also), that equals a level playing field unless something new is brought to the table.
Co-founded? Well, who approached whom first, and why? Did she attend a conference he was at? Did he advise one of her court hearings? Howsa about that anecdote?
Does "co-found" plan to be an empire? Like founding fathers? I guess so — they move fast:
Since then PMA has acquired {{Acquired? Recruited??} more than 50 state chapter leaders in 30 states and several countries world wide. They have started a PMA blog talk radio show dealing with the many issues that involve the continued abuse by fathers through the family court system. {{Again, not necessarily unique}} Featured guests on the blog talk radio show are professional advocates in the movement with a special spot light {"spotlight"}on giving protective mothers a platform to tell their story.
My Comment:
Protective mothers are very resourceful about telling their stories, and already had platforms. Two of these are called "The Web" and include (free) blogtalkradio. Believe it or not, many of us are articulate and resourceful, and some of us even strike it up with a professional here and there, as "Janice and Lundy" have (Is Janice remarried? Does Mr. Bancroft have a tolerant wife in the wings somewhere? But I guess since this PMA is a "family" it's good to have a Mommy figure and a Daddy figure around, on first-name basis to the rest of us.) Although it's nice of them to give us some things we already had, platforms, apparently allegiance is expected in return — because this alliance (and especially recruiting & acquiring all those chapter leaders, persuading them that this is a better platform than the others…) must represent a whole lot of volunteer work, as Mr. Lundcroft sounds quite busy. Aspects of this uncomfortably remind me of the Unification Church, with wise parents, family squabbles (which Mom — not Dad, who is busy elsewhere bringing home the bacon) is responsible to settle –and unruly children.
SO, I guess (based on this "About Us" description) I get it. They lean towards the professionals as the centerpiece (called PR) and (for extra credit for the professionals, and PMA that is), non-gagged-by-a-judge Moms — who are already telling their stories, first, IN COURTS, and after that, nationwide, on blogs, on talk radio, and among themselves, and some even publishing, are not allowed to do it in on talkradio and in front of professionals and move over to the PMA umbrella, instead of whatever venue they were under formerly. Again, not exactly that unique.
Janice and Lundy have started a PMA bi-monthly news letter which is another vehicle for education and exposure about family court corruption. Janice continues to move forward full force in shining the light on the truth about the many problems that children and protective mothers face in family court.
I get it. Add to the above unique qualities (acquiring a network of chapter coorinators so fast at least speaks of persuasive or efficiency!), modesty.
This post wont make sense unless one reads the comment string on this link below, with an exhortation Why Can't We All Just Get Along? from a group known for backbiting, excommunicating, and pretending there's persecution when — where is that "persecution, exactly?" I dropped by to say, "Time's Up!" on life is a grade school playground, and a nice monitor would actually make a difference; we must all behave ourselves now….
Getting me irritated sometimes brings out a string of information stored in the warehouse of my mind (from prior research). I thought it might be interested to post a (pretty much) first-run "rant" (I did pause to add links) that obviously went over comment length (4,096 characters is the common one). Rather than pare it down (what? and lose those choice tidbits and references?) I just moved the whole thing to my blog here as a post, adding a few lengths. More coherent comments may be found at "rightsformothers.com" which graphically is easier on the eyes. Those comments typically include blockquotes and links (at least three) and stay unified around the theme.
(comments thread — here's mine, that, as ever, was over "4,096" characters).
Good grief.
My intent in this comment (if approved) is to get enough people angry with me (if that helps) to check out a few non-coalition websites with a different approach than electing ONE set of leaders to speak for an entire nation of protective mothers. Remember, before USA, King George /British Empire was probably saying the same thing. "Why can't we all just get along? And keep them taxes coming, Colonies! You are British subjects, right?"… The key concept is, who is colonizing WHOM in these matters?
Here are some interesting facts (themes) I discovered after following "characteristics of batterers" crowd (thereby losing my kids, or a more to-the-point approach of connecting the dots in the family law system) for a number of years
There are all kinds of interesting things one can learn by just NOT participating in "who's your Daddy?" (or "Mommy?") discussions — like these… Here's a book that sustained me right after my abuse and gave me a vision for getting out of it. It contains zero professional jargon, but spoke to me, and the women in it all got OUT.
Believe me, I can handle professional jargon in a number of fields; it's not all "jargon" to me. Unfortunately, the jargon in these industries frames AND limits the discussion from considering alternate viewpoints or explanations.
(google books link)
"The Evolving Woman: Intimate Confessions of Surviving Mr. Wrong." Lanigan & Blanco. (c. 2000). These are short, written by real women survivors, and give hope.
Want something else to talk about besides who's IN and who's OUT –and from women in the system, AND if you would like to do this without promoting everyone else's products for them, for free? hop on over to Nancy Carroll's blog (rightsformothers.com) and read some of its reporting, and I also comment there quite a bit (comments are post-length).
Or mine, as rough as it looks (not bad for someone's first blog and without regular access to internet, either): "http://familycourtmatters.wordpress.com" . . .. Or any number of others who cover things NOT covered in the $135 or so downloadable book recently being promoted by Mo Hannah and Barry Goldstein. I will get it, when I get $135. To spare, that is. Also see (N. CA site) http://justicewomen.org and be sure to vote in any local D.A. elections and read its section on, does law enforcement have any duty to protect? (i.e., are restraining orders enforceable).
I'll break ranks with some of my on-line friends and recommend reading — LOTS — of http://www.familylawcourts.com/domestic.html to understand — this person does– the finances behind the industry, and why you don't ask a Commission from inside any industry on almost Anything to get things done, and how particularly foolish is asking the California Judicial Council to reconsiders its ways, before knowing what those ways are. Those who were demonstrating (West Coast) with a group called Center for Judicial Excellence about shredding of mediation records in Marin County, would be fascinated to find out what the transfer of an entire (that's nationwide) computer system from PACER to SUSTAIN signifies to whether their own court orders are valid — or invalid. Makes a DIFF, folks. Google those terms, plus ZERNIK.
Guess what. This may lead you to some father's groups supporting him also, reporting on Richard Fine's wrongful imprisonment. Guess what. Anyone against corruption is on your side. Mr. Fine is, and what happened to him overlaps with our cause. Or see the lizlibrary.org, and how it's not good custody evaluators or bad ones, but what are they doing in there to start with? ??? ???? (Therapeutic Jurisprudence). . .
. . . Or, how about the thing about judicial kickbacks, and bribes. It's not like they "Just don't understand" but perhaps there are some financial reasons they don't? By the time we figure out which "Protective Mother Alliance" was the right one, (and, naturally, who is in its pantheon, and who's head god), there might be no United States — they will be Federalized, like the domestic violence movement has been, and the fatherhood movement, and the child protection industry. I was asked to join PMA because of my research skills, after copying some charts to it in the earlier days. I declined, for specific and private reasons.
Well, one reason was that a quick look at the "Guardians of Truth" newsletter (grandiose, much?) showed, I felt, that the character was more about fan clubs and social alliances (plus Mr. Bancroft's books and groupings. Notice, a fan of his writings, I have two of his books, have blogged him positively (for the most part) and have never had phone contact, or made that a high priority. However, if you want some little economic analysis behind the rhetoric, do your own audits (or visit my sites or anyone else who does this, PLUS sites ending *.gov).
Again this might be a little hard — a 1983 immigrant Ph.D. molecular biologist (Ph.D. obtained in U.S.) Dentist (picked up as a sideline? I think the guy has some brains…) in Los Angeles area (Joseph Zernik, Ph.D.) who doesn't appear to have a vested interest (i.e. a product to sell) also picked up some skills in database (computer) analysis. I just heard about this recently, so here's a few leads: "Computerized or Con-Puterized" by Janet Phelan (references also Kids For Cash and summarizes the problem), she also writes on the Probate Scams, which FYI relates to judicial corruption, i.e., kickbacks.
Guess what. Because these things keep going on, and trashing some women's psyches (yours might be, too), sooner or later they could be elder incompetents, not just maternal incompetents, as far as someone who wants the assets is concerned. There is a network of judicial/guardianship/AND real estate issues in this matter, which (if understood) will clearly state that "educating a judge" is like Russian Roulette. Not wise to play….
When an L.A. judge throws an anti-trust attorney Richard Fine (also one who uncovered some child support scams, as the L.A. District Attorney Garcetti was sitting on $14 mil of collected child support) in coercive solitary confinement for over a year (age, 69) without a warrant FROM A COURTROOM and the arrest records are later doctored — I think it's time to take notice.
So, you want "nationwide unity?" Does this mean leadership associated with this [PMA] group plan to take their products yet more national?
NATIONWIDE UNITY? Examples of total tribal "unity" — or else — are found in Nazi Germany, Rwanda, and other countries with similar genocides, or "genocide-like activities."
I don't think those are good role models. I disagree frequently with women I associate with on-line. It's healthy, and sometimes even high-conflict, and productive. If any one of them had pulled this PMA style "gossip girl" or "ex-communication" routine, I'd not bother to revisit their site. Life, and time, is precious. Allocate it well. I'm only visiting this one now because I'm tired of intelligent women behaving like they weren't (no offence to any intelligent men on this list).
NB: My father was a creative thinker, a.k.a inventor. Let's not lose these qualities in our culture, OK? Without his NON-mainstream analysis of certain problems long ago, there wouldn't be Facebook, let alone Facebook security leaks, and Facebook wars. There are IMPORTANT aspects of this system that Lundy's wonderful books, much as I appreciate them, didn't tell us, and that the latest one from Civic Research Institute also won't (I looked at the [free] table of contents & front matter in detail, at least). For example, who's footing which bills for whom. You can go as psychological and "they need more understanding" as you want, but a good financial analysis (and corporation genealogies from time to time) will handle that real quick.
Searching the Title of the Civic Research Institute Offering, besides this new publication, others on the same 3 topics already existed, and are getting scholarly sites as follows:
Scholarly articles for Domestic Violence, Child Abuse and Custody
… : The impact of domestic violence on child custody … – Cahn – Cited by 290
Domestic violence and custody litigation: The need for … – Keenan – Cited by 57
Child abuse and domestic violence: Legal connections … – Davidson – Cited by 72
RE: Judges just don't understand. Yes they do. They understand, many of them, which side the bread is buttered on.
That's the educator's mantra. When will they understand? Understanding is directly related to caring; so the key question becomes, what do they care most about? Go tell the IRS "you just don't understand" and see if re-educating them about their "attitudes" works, the next time they want answers.
One thing a certain judge in Los Angeles understood clearly, is that a certain attorney was getting too close for comfort. Response? Jail the guy without filing charges, "coercive solitary confinement" on a 69 year old man, and falsify the records of arrest afterwards. Now that news is not breaking, but that PROCESS should be in the headlines, and stay in our headlights.
The irritation in my tone here represents a LOT of legwork, googling, and producing chart after chart from government sites regarding HHS payments to (a) stop violence and (b) promote fatherhood = (c) undermine the process of law in the courts. Plus an awareness of the headlines, and awareness of what network marketing looks like — and this is network marketing, only unlike some groups, we are expected to network market without identifiable, tangible profits to those we are promoting. For example, like 1% of sales, or discounts on our own purchases. If this is all about altruism and helping women, then how about donating a percent of profits to legal representation — or, teaching us how to re-purpose information already available, congregate with likeminded people, and assemble and market (for free) a downloadable ebook? And as a nonprofit? And/or consult, based on the fact that you were connected enough and smart enough to get positioned in a new market niche? **
** (really: those are valuable skills, and respected by others who exhibit them. But when Moms needing help are homeless, on disability from their injuries and STILL not seeing their (minor) kids, perhaps there is a different priority of skillsets — and information — to acquire. Like yours…)
Most people find charts "boring." I find them fascinating, when what's in them may relate to my future, or my daughters'. Or explains the "communication gap" in the courts. I almost never fail to learn something. For example, the HHS ones numbering in the million$$ and saying "Discretionary" "Demonstration" and "Non-Competing" are particularly interesting, lacking even an abstract of their purpose and with a Principal "Investigator" who lacks a web presence. How many Think Tanks does it take to grind the process of wisely choosing what to think about to a halt?
You should see what's up in Texas these days, multi-million$$ "discretionary" grants. And you should know who's getting them. I will not — I repeat NOT — give my (on-line or $$) allegiance or time to someone, particularly anyone selling something, or asking me to promote their philosophy in protecting anyone, who doesn't "show me the goods" in this industry, and who refuses to acknowledge it is an industry. When it comes to custody, show me the testimonials of success (not failure; let's not make a profession out of failures, pls.) their contact numbers, and their case activity dockets, and who paid which professionals(if any) how much in them
There are some ways to get continued attention and support (speaking for me, at least):
- First of all, if it's a professional in the courts speaking, PROOF: LET'S SEE YOUR TRACK RECORD (custody cases reversed after switch to batterer, or a challenge to get it to the abuser defeated — using your suggested techniques). If this is a NON PROFIT, I want the EIN# too, because the entire family law system got started, from what I can tell, with a slush found out of the LA County Courthouse. Give me that EIN# and first, we find out if you're honest about the incorporation (and salaries of CEOs). Anyone running a for-profit or for-PR storefront shouldn't be leading. They may follow, but they should not lead.
- Second, does your analysis account for ALL the primary principal "players" in this industry? Correctly?
- Does it allow for the possibility of actual corruption and bribe-taking? If so, it doesn't acknowledge how government works. Let's not be gullible in this matter, please. There's organized crime (RICO), and then there's government doing the same thing, only under the facade of legitimacy. Google "Dianne Masters" case in Chicago Area (these got caught, at least). Generally trafficking in drugs + children go together, and, again, a site: "http://inproperinla.blogspot.com"
- Any consideration that fails to take into account the actual (as opposed to supposed) role of the child support agency (Federal level, "OCSE") in influencing the child custody business — and compromising the laws at a state level — through GRANTS to the courts – was born yesterday, and is either likely in on something, or clueless.
- Also relevant — I'm fed up with marketing "Risk Assessment," whether the 1990s version of the more recent version, Borders & McLaughlin marketing to judges. Suppose they're right even? (They seem reasonable, MOSAIC(tm) and that) why aren't they fundraising for mace for battered women, or self-defense training? What level of risk would be acceptable for YOUR firstborn, or any others?
- I'm fed up with "Family Justice Center Alliance" concept which was essentially San Diego's Casey Gwinn's personal retirement plan, plus a $1 million grant from Verizon, in San Diego, afterwards, inflicted on the rest of us. In Northern California, the (virtually useless) 'Alameda County Family Justice Center" got funded with a $3.8 million grant, exaggerates its figures of people helped, and the Exec Director was a crony (wife) of Bill Lockyer, appointment not quite above-board, as fund was obtained by Nancy-appointemtn not quite above bboard either O'Malley, D.A. in SF Bay Area. Oakland, being about the 4th or 5th most dangerous city to live in (nationwide) perhaps the appointment of a new D.A. (who decides to a good deal which cases do, or don't, get prosecuted), maybe this criminal law enforcement CEO's appointment should be run by the local residents openly, vs. faking openly;. I'm sure other areas have the same types of issues, many of which are not discussed, but could affect life or death.
Protective Mothers need to know about these issues and just not leave them up to others. There are many things Im fed up with, but unlike a judge or custody evaluator, I'm not going to affect your case outcome. On the other hand, if you developed a shorter attention span for nonsense, there's a lot of valuable, ACTIONABLE information, right on the web. We are not in grade school anymore. There is no extra credit for barking a certain way, or barking up the wrong trees.
Unity among a "movement" is great — IF you have a good product and are totally ethical and honest about what's going on. However, how about a little free-market capitalism and discriminating consumers, among traumatized parents?
Anyone people wanting to lead should open their books. Personally, I'm in favor of smaller, more localized and focused "salt-of-the-earth" groups who know each other, and hopefully make room for blathering idiots (case in point) with an eye for the odd detail or willing to track a hot lead, as well as the more polished leadership.
Can we dump the social scientists, PUH-LEEZE? If you don't understand their role, wade through some of my site, I'll help. This is where tax $$ are going. Get also a working definition of RICO and recognize it in operation. Also, it's not for the weak of stomach. It really isn't once the scope of the issues becomes apparent. Look what Jesus did starting with 12, or the 13 colonies did two centuries ago, being out-gunned by the British Empire.
And if you want to cite the civil rights movement hear, or Gandhi, etc. Remember this word: BOYCOTT. And, be prepared; jail might be involved. I have trouble with sign-ins on comments, but FYI I"m "Lets Get Honest" at familycourtmatters.wordpress.com. The blog is a little over a year old, has international visitors, and about 26,000 ** of them so far. (Have a nice day)
** per "statcounter" which got installed before "Feedjit" to right…
This NONPROFIT (if incorporated — I didn't check) ALLIANCE is beginning to resemble, in website and behaviors (with the exception of the girl-gossip on-line mentioned above) the very same conference-circuit coalitions etc. that are getting co-opted by Federal funding, after which a centralized program theme is more easily distributed through the ranks (Training the trainers) while excluding less popular, and possibly caustic analyses that might put force many of the professionals to find a new line of work, as their role became extinct. This might put the non-mothers in the group in a better position to understand what it's like to lose something precious, irreplaceable and which one has put dedicated years into.
BEAUTIFUL WEBSITE. LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THOSE THAT GOT GOVERNMENT "TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE" GRANTS AND WHO WOULD BE QUOTED IN THE HEADLINES REGULARLY, AFTER THE NEXT SET OF FATALITIES: Notice books being promoted:
click here to order
Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men
This fascinating investigation into what makes abusive men tick is alarming, but its candid handling of a difficult subject makes it a valuable resource for professionals and victims alike. Bancroft, the former codirector of Emerge, the nation's first program for abusive men, has specialized in domestic violence for 15 years, and his understanding of his subject and audience is apparent on every page. "One of the prevalent features of life with an angry or controlling partner is that he frequently tells you what you should think and tries to get you to doubt or devalue your own perceptions and beliefs," he writes. "I would not like to see your experience with this book re-create that unhealthy dynamic. So the top point to bear in mind as you read [this book] is to listen carefully to what I am saying, but always to think for yourself." He maintains this level of sensitivity and even empathy throughout discussions on the nature of abusive thinking, how abusive men manipulate their families and the legal system and whether or not they can ever be cured. Jargon-free analysis is frequently broken up by interesting first-person accounts and boxes that distill in-depth information into simple checklists. Bancroft's book promises to be a beacon of calm and sanity for many storm-tossed families.
click here to order
The Batterer as Parent: Addressing the Impact of Domestic Violence on Family DynamicsThe Batterer as Parent takes the reader inside of homes affected by domestic violence, imparting an understanding of the atmosphere that battering men create for the children who live with them. Bancroft and Silverman show how partner abuse affects each relationship in a family, and explain how emotional recovery is inextricably linked to the healing and empowerment of the mothers. The authors cover the important but often-overlooked area of the post-separation parenting behaviors of men who batter, including their use of custody litigation as a tool of abuse. Readers also are guided in evaluating change in the parenting of men who batter, assessing risk to children from unsupervised visitation, and supporting the emotional recovery of children. Although the book is written primarily for professionals, its accessible style makes it engaging and useful for abused mothers and anyone else wishing to assist children exposed to battering.
click here to order
When Dad Hurts Mom: Helping Your Children Heal the Wounds of Witnessing AbuseCan my partner abuse me and still be a good parent? Should I stay with my partner for my children's sake? How should I talk to my children about the abuse and help them heal? Am I a bad mother?Mothers in physically or emotionally abusive relationships ask themselves these questions every day. Here, a counselor reveals how abusers interact with and manipulate children-and how mothers can help their children recover from the trauma of witnessing abuse.
click here to order
by Karin D. Huffer, MS, MFT, chronicles her 20 years of research and clinical work with LAS, a form of post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). LAS is a psychic injury, not a mental illness. It is a personal injury that develops in individuals assaulted by ethical violations, legal abuses, betrayals, and fraud. Abuse of power and authority and a profound lack of accountability in our courts have become rampant, compounding an already stressful experience.
click here to order
Unbreakable Bonds
by Dr. Cheryl Meier / Dr. Paul Meier
How can you form intimate relationships that will make your life more fulfilling?Dr. Paul Meier and his daughter Dr. Cheryl Meier show you how to reconnect with yourself, your friends and family, and God. They share important secrets on how to develop unbreakable bonds with those you care about the most. In the four sections of this book, you will discover: – Direction-recognize your deepest longings – Detection-explore why people close themselves off from intimate relationships – Connection-learn how to recognize love and how to respond to it – Perfection- find out how to develop lasting relationships If you are longing for something more in your relationships, you'll find everything you need in this practical, perceptive book to bring about lasting change.
click here to order
When Judith Herman's Trauma and Recovery was first published five years ago, it was hailed as a groundbreaking work. In the intervening years, Herman's now classic volume has changed the way we think about and treat traumatic events and trauma victims. In a new introduction, Herman chronicles the incredible response the book has elicited and explains how the issues surrounding the topic of trauma and recovery have shifted within the clinical community and the culture at large. Trauma and Recovery brings a new level of understanding to a set of problems usually considered individually. Herman draws on her own cutting-edge research on domestic violence, as well as on a vast literature of combat veterans and victims of political terror, to show the parallels between private terrors such as rape and public traumas such as terrorism. The book puts individual experience in a broader political frame, arguing that psychological trauma can be understood only in a social context. Meticulously documented and frequently using the victims own words as well as those from classic literary works and prison diaries, Trauma and Recovery is a powerful work that will continue to profoundly impact our thinking.
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
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.
Family Law
New 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:
Antonyms: amenable, biddable, compliant, conformable, docile, obedient, ruly, submissive, tractable
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,
City of New York, et al.,
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.
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' email@example.com 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!
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.
. . . .
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?