Friday

Why Do We Need Domestic Violence Shelters?

Have you ever asked why we need domestic violence shelters? We have many shelters for women throughout the U.S., and yet, it is supposedly not enough. And apparently we need more for men, because there really aren't many.

If men have been getting abused all along, where have they been going?

Women go to shelters in order to seek safety from danger, but that threat has to be imminent--likely to occur at any moment; impending. At what point does that imminence expire?

Do we want a group of women [and children] who are in imminent danger all together under one roof? Wouldn't this situation put the other women--survivors and employees--in more imminent danger?

If a woman has a child by the perpetrator of violence, how can she ever be out of imminent danger without severing complete contact with either her child, or the perp?

Is it cheaper to house all survivors together and hire and train employees to support such a facility, than it is to give survivors the money to flee from danger and reestablish themselves?

When the imminent danger expires, if ever there is such a time, is the woman now safe? If so, how is that safety maintained?

Why are all the survivors locked up, hiding, isolated, invisible, and the perpetrators are living freely, integrated into society?

Where have all the abused men been going?

Perhaps they "successfully" integrate back into society, rising above their victimhood status, parading their masculinity along with the perpetrators.

And the women, are perpetual victims.

This is the way it has been set up so that women never get to participate fully as citizens, policy setters, and lawmakers.

Thursday

MONEY is Helping Pedophiles and Batterers Get Child Custody in Family Courts, in California and Elsewhere

First, let me thank Peter Jamison for his extensive article California Family Courts Helping Pedophiles, Batterers Get Child Custody . Please, go read it. Understand that what he describes is not unique to the State of California.

I want to point out a couple of things in Jamison's article:

First, let's talk about Amy Baker who works in the New York/New Jersey area. Actually, I have talked about her plenty of times:

Amy Baker and Parental Alienation Syndrome: Is This What Scientific Research Looks Like?


The Ever Expanding Parental Alienation Theory: Amy J. Baker's Research Revisited 

Amy J. Baker and Parental Alienation: Behind the Veil of Ignorance

According to Jamison's article, Baker appears to think that parental alienation syndrome has been given a bad name because it has been misused in isolated instances. But on what evidence does she have to base such an opinion? (See the aforementioned articles to see what kind of science she uses) Is there a national case registry of family court cases which have involved the use of alienation theories? The cases that do make national attention are limited for several reasons, including the liberal use of gags orders on mothers who are involved in the system.

Glenn Sacks, another PAS promoter quoted in Jamison's article, states that courts are biased against fathers. Biased against fathers how? Maybe the rest of the sentence in the article was supposed to explain it:
"and are overly protective of moms and punitive of dads when handling abuse allegations"
So does he mean that family courts are biased against fathers in cases involving domestic violence? Many state gender bias tasksforces have consistently found that the courts were biased against women. From where does Sacks get his information? This is the deliberate misinformation that father's rights advocates use when speaking to the public. They use general statements like, the courts always award custody to moms, to hype up their support, without specifying or clarifying that 1. most men don't "fight" for child custody and 2. most women are still the primary caretakers of children--thus it would make perfect sense that the majority of women "win" child custody. If the mom is "the real parent" it is usually quite obvious. Sacks also supports a presumption of joint custody in child custody cases when there is often no evidence of equal or shared parenting within the intact relationships (nor is proof required, or sought). The bias isn't in the court's decision making in this case, the bias is in the assumption that joint custody is always good for every child.

Former judge DeAnn Salcido provides evidence of how the misogyny embedded in patriarchal thinking permeates the family court system--a system which unsurprisingly represents society's attitudes at large:
I was basically told to be suspect of anyone claiming abuse," she says. "I had senior judges telling me, 'Be suspect. The dad probably has a new girlfriend, and the mom's upset.'" The concept of parental alienation, she says, arose in private discussions "all the time" among court officials who espoused it.
And it is "professionals" like Amy Baker and spokespersons like Glen Sacks who continue to support this thinking with pseudoscience.

Not to mention, how do you think all of this continues? Look at the universities and nonprofit agencies that support and employ these court players.  Look at the funding of these organizations. Our dear old tax dollars. See Let's Get Honest for a wealth of money trail information.

Saturday

Marketing to Survivors of Domestic Violence

It appears there is an entire industry that profits from the misery of women who have been in abusive relationships and are desperately seeking justice in the court system that is supposed to protect them and their children. For many of them, that justice will never come because they are unaware that with all the knowledge and understanding they are seeking for themselves, the system which holds the power and makes the decisions could give a flying fuck about them and the books they are reading.

What purpose does a book on domestic violence and the law serve if it is not a required reading for every family law judge?

What purpose does this book serve if the judges are not required to follow the laws that are referenced? If the judges are not held accountable for their actions?

What purpose does this book serve if a book with opposing ideas (ie parity in domestic violence) is being promoted and distributed to judges simulataneously? A book which confirms beliefs that they already have and thus subjects them to confirmation bias?

How many books must we come up with before mothers get their children back? Will we need a second edition?

Are these books any different from the ones that came out decades ago, when this same fight was still going on?

Who is advertising this book? And to whom? It seems that the mothers are the ones doing all the marketing for these books, in hopes that some attorney, or some social worker will take heed. Mothers are doing the work of promoting the books without getting a percentage of the sales. This scenario isn't even as good as Amway/Quixtar; there is no small kickback because the only reward that is worthy, is the return of her children.

I respect those who take the time--which may be years--of compiling, processing, and sorting information so that it is together and accessible. Your efforts ARE worthy and you do deserve to be monetarily rewarded--especially if you are a survivor yourself. We all need income to survive. However, this is not the end all be all and is not and will not garner the results that mothers need. Unfortunately, I think you already know this. You need to acknowledge that the problem is much greater than judges, attorneys, social workers, GALs, and CPS not knowing the law, or its applications, because as they say,
Ignorantia juris non excusat
And if we hold this to be true, then what we are dealing with is system that knows exactly what it is doing. A system which is profit motivated and supported by our tax dollars. A system which is inherently biased against women because those who run it do not have our best interest in mind.

Let us, advocates and those who the system has failed to protect and has destroyed our lives, remove the funding and boycott this system until it restores human rights to women and their children.


Fiscal YearOPDIVGrantee NameAward TitleSum of Actions
2010 ACF Archuleta County Department of Human Services PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 200,000 
2010 ACF BARAGA-HOUGHTON-KEWEENAW CHILD DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC FATHERS TO DADS: A PROJECT TO TRANSITION COPPER COUNTRY FATHERS INTO RESPONSIBLE PARENTS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 250,000 
2010 ACF BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. INC. PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOODROAD TO INDEPENDENCE THROUGH SAVINGS AND EDUCATION IN VA(RISE-VA) $ 250,000 
2010 ACF CENTERFORCE HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT $ 481,555 
2010 ACF CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC ARIZONA CENTER FOR RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 500,000 
2010 ACF CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 315,830 
2010 ACF CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC. PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 250,000 
2010 ACF CHILD DEVLOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 250,000 
2010 ACF CHILDREN'S FRIEND AND SERVICE PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD-DADS MAKING A DIFFERENCEPRIORITY AREA 3, LEVEL 1 $ 250,000 
2010 ACF CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 500,000 
2010 ACF CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM $ 1,000,000 
2010 ACF CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER PROMOTING REOPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 250,000 
2010 ACF CIRCLE OF PARENTS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM $ 1,000,000 
2010 ACF CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM $ 2,000,000 
2010 ACF COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 418,832 
2010 ACF COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 $ 499,968 
2010 ACF CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 1,000,000 
2010 ACF Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD - DADS PROGRAM $ 250,000 
2010 ACF DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE $ 300,000 
2010 ACF Denver Indian Family Resource Center PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 203,603 
2010 ACF Detroit Workforce Development Department PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 500,000 
2010 ACF Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 223,808 
2010 ACF Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD CLASSES WITH INCARCERATED FATHERS. CONCURRENT WORK WITH MOTHER/CARETAKER OF CHILD, TO LEARN RESP $ 242,822 
2010 ACF FAMILY & CHILDREN'S SERVICE, INC. F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT $ 250,000 
2010 ACF FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 250,000 
2010 ACF Family Services of Westchester, Inc. FATHERS COUNT PRIORITY AREA 2:RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD MULTIPLY ACTIVITY GRANTS LEVEL 2 $ 497,812 
2010 ACF GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 225,000 
2010 ACF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 500,000 
2010 ACF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL TEXAS, INC PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 250,000 
2010 ACF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 225,000 
2010 ACF GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 250,000 
2010 ACF HEALTHY START, INC. HSI RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD LEVEL 1 - A COORDINATED EFFORT TO RECRUIT AND ENROLL FATHERS AND EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY. $ 900,000 
2010 ACF Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 500,000 
2010 ACF Indiana Department of Correction IDOC APPLICATION FOR THE PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANT FOR THE PREP PROGRAM $ 399,897 
2010 ACF Indiana Department of Correction PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 249,715 
2010 ACF Indiana Youth Institute PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM $ 998,999 
2010 ACF Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc. KISRA FATHERHOOD PROGRAM $ 499,054 
2010 ACF LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 250,000 
2010 ACF LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA FATHERHOOD AND FAMILIES $ 500,000 
2010 ACF Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry SAN DIEGO'S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE $ 268,349 
2010 ACF NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, PRIORITY AREA 3 $ 250,000 
2010 ACF NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY REGENTS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 218,335 
2010 ACF NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE REVITALIZING FATHERHOOD PROGRAM $ 172,640 
2010 ACF Native Pride THE GOOD ROAD OF LIFE: RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 297,964 
2010 ACF New York Youth At Risk, Inc. PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 225,000 
2010 ACF OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 200,181 
2010 ACF OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD $ 368,555 

Tuesday

Part 4: Questions for Richard Warshak and His Parental Alienation Syndrome...or Divorce Poison...or Whatever

Dear Dr. Warshak:

In a porn sting, FBI raids home of parent and finds images of child porn including "bestiality, bondage and other sexually deviant acts."

The parent spends time in prison.

The parent gets out of prison and files for full custody because the other parent didn't bring the kids to prison visitation.

Is this what parental alienation looks like?

http://dastardlydads.blogspot.com/2010/12/dad-convicted-of-possessing-obscene.html

Wednesday

Part 3: Questions for Richard Warshak and His Parental Alienation Syndrome...or Divorce Poison...or Whatever

If "parental alienation" existed in the the intact family (which you theorists have verified that it does occur in absence of divorce), why should it be such a focus now that the parents are separated/divorced?

And who are you going to rely on to tell you the truth about what occurred within the family:

the "alienated parent" who may have an agenda,

the "alienator" who has no obligation to tell you a damn thing,

the child who YOU are now "bringing into adult conflict,"

or people outside the family who often don't have a clue what is going on (as evidenced by the many murders that occur where the neighbors and community thought that the perp was such a nice guy

If no counseling was mandated during the relationship why should it be ORDERED after one? How does this not step on parental/family and children's rights?

And don't you think this is creating a big business for the court system? For example, in some states, parents must attend a mandatory divorce class before the paperwork is finalized. Who is raking in all this money?