Parkland Again Faces Tragedy After Apprent Suicides Trauma Doesn t Just Do Away by Lori
Why?
Well, I have one line of reasoning — that at that place is a family courtroom around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officeholder anywhere can merely about get out of absorbing domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to abort, and letting it land in the family venue. Ditto with CPS. But even if they didn't, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest. If they Do arrest, the DA'due south have immense discretion not to prosecute also.
WOMEN's JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES
Santa Rosa, California
(a site I quote beneath, and refer to ofttimes enough) I come across has written an October 2011 letter to:
Dearest Feminist Law Professors:
I'grand a women'south rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to finish violence against women. I'm writing because we're stumped, and we need your aid.
My opinion: these feminist law professors and women, in many respects, have for over a decade completely ignored the function of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see championship) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence constabulary, kid abuse law, in fact near criminal laws of any sort for women who accept given birth. And women who give nativity, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.
In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get costless from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her. And, if at that place's a Title Iv-D kid support lodge effectually, even if he doesn't want to bother her, the county can and volition go later on that family and those kids anyhow. That's My take on it. So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal. And I've talked to some of them (including in my expanse). Nevertheless, this writer has a point:
The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout nearly of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don't have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor exercise women accept any legal correct to enforcement of the laws, nor whatsoever legal remedy or redress when law and prosecutors neglect to enforce the laws.
As such, the laws are meaningless to u.s.a.. However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.
. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of constabulary enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are almost overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, nether-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.
Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the reverse, mode too many constabulary and prosecutors don't want to do these cases. They know they don't have to practise these cases. They know a million means to get rid of these cases. They know nobody tin hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American police. Non surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.
We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police force and prosecutors don't do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and disengage whatsoever stability and safe we and the women have attempted to secure.The freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without acceptable law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And so they are double doomed by the void of any legal crusade to agree unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And so, all too ofttimes, she is expressionless
Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the "Judicial Ghetto of Family Constabulary." It is this Ghetto that has to exist addressed if "violence against women" is to terminate. To date, nosotros are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no thing how nurturing Dad is. As such, this arena, that ghetto, Too has to be addressed, or equally an obstacle to life itself for those in information technology, removed:
Nosotros urgently demand your aid.Not in the judicial ghetto of family unit law where victims of violence against women are besides frequently shunted to fend for themselves.
Why Not? Why should women take to fend for themselves in a biased system — because thats where it typically goes after any ceremonious restraining order (see VAWA, beneath) is put in place. Mayhap if there'd been more "feminist law professors" who'd gone through leaving DV As MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now. Not saying that it wasn't a tough uphill battle to start with. But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journeying; just treated like information technology in these circles!
Only in criminal police where the state itself must have responsibleness for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can't solve this trouble without yous.
Equally a first stride, please pass this on to colleagues yous think would most fervently fight to create a women'south right to justice. And so consider joining in yourself.
Give thanks y'all for your concern.
Marie De Santis, Director Women'southward Justice Eye Centro de Justicia para Mujeres
mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org
Nosotros like to believe that criminal law e'er applies when crimes are committed (the championship lists some of the crimes which comprise "Domestic violence" and "Child abuse" and narrate the lives of people who sometimes, later on years enduring these things, terminate up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a class of institutionalized extortion).
BUT — when a case is labeled "loftier-conflict" or "custody dispute" of whatever sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a unlike court — which is non a real court, it's a concern enterprise. (See this blog. See other Non-federally-supported blogs or articles.
For example go this ("johnnypumphandle, re: Los Angeles "Public Do good Corporations Supported past Taxpayers" Not just ALL the people walking through the halls — just the real manor — the halls themselves, apparently are oft role of this enterprise! Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don't know. The family court is in a separate building from the chief (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county. That alone should have caught our attending. Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, "Family Justice Centers" as part of a National Alliance movement (meet "One-Stop Justice Shop" posts, mine).
I reviewed this material advisedly before, it takes a while to sink in. It will Not sink in if all you encounter mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants. In order to "See" straight, one needs to see and be willing to call up in terms of corporations, tax returns, and greenbacks flow. And something relating the words "taxpayer" with "tax-exempt." As the site says:
Nosotros take again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation –Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bail guarantees past the law firm ofO'Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed past this scam, since at that place is no accountability for the coin andNO TAX FORMS Accept EVER BEEN FILED!
Key in this EIN#
to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Grooming Establish — which does business organization with and takes business concern FROM the court, evidently — is still marked "electric current" when no (null, zippo, zilch, zilch at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it's filed with the IRS? Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what? Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):
Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation
The Relationship Training Constitute (RTI)is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* past David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and inquiry in the field of human relationship development and relationship enhancement.
Because — in the 7 years (at to the lowest degree) it's been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.'s grouping has non bothered to file information technology's (by law) annually required tax return with the country (Notation — which provides the California Chaser General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list authorities funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I tin't see from at that place OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or "foreign" (out of country) corporation.
On the other manus, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is disquisitional of the San Diego Family Courtroom Practices — has twice received a "file your dues" letter of the alphabet, which you can search at the same charities link, above. It has no EIN# because it hasn't registered notwithstanding.
| Entity Number | Date Filed | Condition | Entity Name | Agent for Service of Process |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| C3284403 | 03/09/2010 | Active | CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN | CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL Practise Business IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE |
I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or "4") should fulfil the requirements of information technology. However, at that place seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — beneath the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad K. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Manufactory (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put upward a website most all this, plus filed a adjust, which was simply the correct thing to do. In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to keep their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an endeavor has been made at obtaining interest, likewise. Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and then the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit condition. Here'southward the link to "San Diego Court Corruption."
And so, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I gauge not filing with the state is "close enough forjazz The Function of Attorney General." And also close plenty for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, besides.If our Navy was run this fashion,we'd be losing a lot more than wars.
RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-fine art training programs for mental wellness professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the handling models that we accept been developing and publishing for over 25 years
So, don't try to tell me the courts and chaser general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration. A letter of the alphabet has been sent to this clemency, and its site claims it's approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!
(the logos of approving organizations).
Approving Organizations
By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:
| David B. Wexler , Ph.D.,Diplomate IABMCP | |
| Manager, Relationship Training Institute, San Diego, California | |
International University of Behavioral Medicine, Counseling and Psychotherapy (grouping registered in Dallas, TX in 1979, EIN has 11 numbers # 17523304719. Unremarkably it'due south nine or 12):
| Proper name | Taxpayer ID# | Cipher |
|---|---|---|
| INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS | 17523304719 | 75225 |
The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it'due south registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 " Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions.." It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.
| 2010 | 751726710 | International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother | CO | 1980 | 06 | 31,455 | ane,402 | 990 |
Dr. Wexler anyway, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…
I likewise note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly… Just RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them role of the personnel bill. The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the existent manor, of the courthouses themselves? Reading on:
August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles Canton Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g.Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (besides many to name or to find). The Crusaders think that at that place are over a dozen of these 'Public Benefit' Corporations hiding in LA County. If you lot are aware of any of the others, drib us a line.
These companies are established asTax exempt 'charitable trusts' nether the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4).They direct millions of dollars merely are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles Canton Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for$632 one thousand thousand, but as notwithstanding has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they accept issued outstanding securities for this corporeality.
They accept established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, nonethelessthey take no employees. All work is washed 'outside' on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.k. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. Every bit an instance,O'Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.
Is this a donation?Somehow, I think O'Melveny & Myers are non providing legal services for complimentary.
The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.
Who answers the phone? A canton employee, doing 'role time' piece of work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.
How are bills paid?We take a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he volition receive a check for $4,730 and a like corporeality will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see,the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and 4 other underwriters accept guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.
So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today? Well, for one, I enquiry TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don't — written report on, including the various elephants in the room…
I'chiliad not the just one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to mutter nearly, and a source of funds to gear up websites and conferences (advertizement nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a ceremonious — or fifty-fifty criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will non quickly Disengage, even if neither parent asks them to!
You might desire to wait at this article:
VAWA Critique
In Which a Little-Known Legal Brief Plows into Hallowed Terrain
I almost felt like a traitor (though I was certain in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA. WHY? I thought. I already know who's collaborating with these other courts. Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally then) site – I similar this site, too — explains:
Always since the U.S. Violence Confronting Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women's advocates have rallied again and once more to clinch that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats confronting the act from antagonist men's groups has left advocates with trivial inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what'southward needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. Merely a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips forth the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the well-nigh important steps we should be taking to accelerate the struggle.
"The legal brief, signed past a dozen domestic violence scholars from effectually the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Committee, emphatically makes the instance that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, merely that this failure is rooted in primal flaws in VAWA's structure and assistants. "VAWA is a limited remedy," the document states, "That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State's obligations under international law."
(it's going to talk nearly the Jessica Gonzales example, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have just fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other manner, to keep their publications, etc. coming. )
In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, "VAWA fails to attain four crucial things: one)Information technology does not provide any remedy when abuser's or police officer's violate victims' rights, 2) information technology does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, iii) information technology does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) information technology does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims." . . .
VAWA: "primarily a source of grants" which has not reduced domestic violence
The brief goes on to characterize VAWA every bit "primarily a source of grants" with non-bounden terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates naught. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That'south less than the toll of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to gainsay violence confronting women.
If the cadre of this cursory is accurate,despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. 'You can forestall, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you lot experience like it. But if yous'd rather non, don't worry about it. VAWA doesn't mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also fabricated sure there's non a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to business relationship.'
Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA's passage in 1994 to 2007 when the cursory was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government'southward claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, "Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have non been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes
This site writes their rationale:
And peradventure worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of give-and-take, debate, or protestation among frontline women's advocates. It's disquisitional for progress in ending violence against women that that word begin.
which they analyze as, and I can see this:
The Tie that Binds
VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.
Private states that administrate the VAWA grants accept implemented this requirement in various means. But typically the shelters and crunch centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given police enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling ability constabulary enforcement has not hesitated to use.
People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF). I detect that the Family Justice Alliance Middle made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I've donated, here, and off-blog) information technology'd be to this group, responsible for the website:
Experience free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women'south Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com
rdjustice@monitor.net
VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994. Past Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started past someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and at present many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the construction and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention areas of goverment. While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the contrary theories.
Then the two groups go together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to become forth, while women continue to dice afterward breeding and leaving abuse. And etc.
The DOJ Defending Children Initiative: even has an "Engaging Fathers" link:
The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such every bit "Child Protection Services" is fatuous. That'southward non what they're there for, apparently. Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining guild issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or mayhap a parent might get 1 on his/her own) in that location to prosecute or punish whatever crime.
I heard this from a adult female (grandparent) in an unidentified urban surface area, regarding her grandchildren's being in the sole custody of an abusing begetter AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (immature boy):
Hearsay #1:
At that place are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent. Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Lawmaking (WIC).
The welfare and institution code does I thing — offers reunification services to the abuser. The one and ony police force mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.
Since the theme is "reunification" (and really, let's go honest — "supervised visitation" concept comes from this field, reunification), no family unit court has whatsoever interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) "reunified" with the abuser begetter. There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (admission/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept). Supervised visitation with a sex activity offender (young) father and female parent has resulted in kid-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently. It has resulted in financial fraud on Eastward and W Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised past a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a Domestic dog in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch five. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her courtroom-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we're at it, on the Board of Kids' Plough, too. After all, it's all virtually the "Kids" and what'southward best for them, correct? How often do women whose children take been abused get put on supervised visitation for "alienating" the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, similar a schoolteacher — real live criminal action upon themselves?
Hearsay #2:
Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put information technology in custody courtroom. Neither the father or I had fifty-fifty mentioned divorce at the fourth dimension.
This female parent says she saw it on their report. I'd like to see that study. Assuming it'due south truthful, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don't take to prosecute annihilation against a parent when information technology comes to abuse of children; they tin shunt it off to family courtroom.
Hearsay #iii (to you — this is my case):
When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the ground of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged! When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I'd requested for personal prophylactic — refused to enforce the court lodge, mocked me, and when I realized in that location was no recourse from this coiffure, I had to allow my "ex-batterer" and the children's male parent, drive off into the sunset with children I'd raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single courtroom society was consistently obeyed for more a month, including visitation or telephone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the female parent on mother'due south day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY society.
In short, if I wasn't going tovoluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals Later existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their chore (which I afterward learned — they don't take to, even if non doing their job results in someone'south, or fifty-fifty 3 children'due south, deaths. Run across Castle Stone v. Gonzales).
Talk about "interlocking directorate" – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a begetter is accused AND found guilty of corruption in 1 sector (for instance, criminally, or child back up services) this literally causes the father to be alleged "incapacitated" or incompetent — making the child a "dependency" example. The court that the mother and then walks into is, in issue, a "dependency courtroom." The state owns her child, and if she tin can't ransom it dorsum, too bad. The ransom process is simply this: the hearings go on, and on, and on and every bit much money is extracted from the female parent, who WILL fight dorsum, until she's broke besides, if not in spirit. That'due south the plan. That's not an anomaly or "burp" of the system — that IS the program.
We have heard besides of horrendous situations, and I've reported this, ofdual electronic docketing. ("Computerized or Con-puterized?" Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting. One week afterwards she published the layperson'due south caption of this, he was picked upwardly past police without crusade and held). Nosotros've heard ofcollected but intentionally not distributed kid support,in the millions of $$ (Silva five. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine). Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the unabridged judiciary was subject to blackmail at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party. Information technology retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial organization get shut downward. (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is 20 % crooks, and X% enablers or people who tin can't themselves get out of the system because by participation, they'd exist prosecuted too. Talk about "gangs" . . . that'southward a Gang. Sometimes deals become betwixt one jurisdiction and some other, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)
Two other things which I've heard of from a non-BMCC "allow's enquire the expert source" in recent times — and over again,I nowadays this as Hearsay, but information technology'sentirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical instance file beingness kept. One is shown to the litigant when she tin afford it (which ain't e'er), or qualifies as depression-income enough to be shown it. The other is shown and hauled out when information technology comes to justifying program billing — that 1 or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their instance, under their or their kids' social security #s, and in their name.
Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this weblog (I believe I've "said my slice" on most major points) at the end of January, and get almost other aspects of life. Oh yes, and I signed the blog upwards for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!
I realize that conversational manner isn't communication, yet the data is urgent to present and go out. The "cease of January" engagement was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I programme to comment on every solar day information technology's in session. Ideally, y'all will see 1 post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may impact quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day. While I know what I know, from report, inquiry observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing information technology is another matter.
Too, the conversing with the material mode is laborious, and takes hours. Whereas in a personal conversation, say, past phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to discover more data, should they be motivated.
And so here we go:
Some people I know are headed upward again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference Nine in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic data will exist presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will exist selling (final year's hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too. This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying kid support to their child's or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.
One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who likewise will be selling her newly revised "Mothers on Trial" which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.
Still, I also know that it's not most to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit. However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I'll bet is not agape to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which likewise results in "Battered Mothers") in front end of this audience, and on which she is an expert. Perhaps she volition — as I don't remember others accept — bring up the bear upon of religion on this state of affairs in the family courts. It'due south there – -not talking most it would hardly make sense.
At the bottom of this mail, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know. The ones I don't, I'll expect up. Perhaps in the side by side post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).
And in this post, I'm going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept backside this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.
NB: I attended 1 conference in all its years, only primarily to run across mothers I'd been blogging with; I'd already realized that information technology was a marketing conference. That'due south responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general. You lot notice out who'due south saying what and evaluate information technology.
The Title of this year's conference is apparently "IS WHAT WE'RE DOING WORKING"?
HUH?
-
Nosotros who? (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)
-
Working for whom?*
-
Define "working" — what's the goal here? (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers' Perceptions?)
Ask a foolish question, you volition get a very foolish answer. Human action on those answers and you become a fool. A sucker is born every infinitesimal, and I regret every minute of my own "suckerhood" which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn't think to GO Bank check Taxation RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS Kickoff, which might've had a different effect.
That'south why I believe that it'due south the "experts" that should exist sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on phase giving testimony, ideas — and decision-making the microphones. Then some of the questions they take might go some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.
The structure of this blazon of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant. They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients. Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire u.s.a. as skilful witnesses in your court cases) and if information technology doesn't work — next year we are going to practise the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback volition NOT be forepart and center, if it is allowed at all.
Seriously — that'southward how it goes. And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running. We do non have fourth dimension to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.
So anyway, "is what we (?) are doing working?"
Somehow this is going to exist stretched out into a weekend's worth of fabric? Is there a better question to ask, such equally — what can we exercise to either clean upwards or shut downwardly the family unit law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely? How many experts does it take to distract a mother's attending from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser? Why doesn't this conference ever bring up kid support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economic science?
Or, for that matters, why are non the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not every bit informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?
This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have visitor in their distress. It is Not a identify for them to actually reform the courts, or larn the most straight possible means (if any means are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case. That I can tell.
*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children. (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you lot may attend, women: Here — serve some cookies, greet possibly, and of course work child intendance, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) government minister). . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know past name, and I know those mothers are not about to stone the boat — by reporting on what you'll notice here, NAFCJ.internet, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places. Somehow that information isn't worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren't changing.
You run into, professionals (and I was 1 in i or two fields) know they're not expert in other fields and then tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field. This works Real well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma become for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves encounter fit to await at the larger film AND TELL THE MOMS Virtually Information technology.
Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their expanse of "expertise" — pregnant, case in indicate for mothers, into the family law arrangement — it becomes "non my problem" and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at nighttime (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – information technology's out of my hands at present, I did my part!
Ay, in that location'due south the rub. It's a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one "out-ed" either field's collaboration and centralization over the years. No one has done this much to date considering so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting "Child abuse, Domestic Violence" and so forth.
RE: "IS What We're Doing Working"
Hither's a brusk answer: "ExcUUse me? You * #$!- ing (kidding) me, correct?"
Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, ii children (10 & 14) into someone else's care (foster? relatives?) this week in California. The woman showed upwardly, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in common cold blood, in her motorcar.
HEMET: Estranged couple dice in courthouse murder-suicide
Authorities say the human being shot his married woman, gave chase to constabulary, then shot himself; they were scheduled to announced in family court for a hearing
BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON
STAFF WRITERS
kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com
Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM
A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife's car and fired two fatal shots, and so led police force on a automobile chase before killing himself Wed morning time, according to witnesses and law
. . . .
Costales had no criminal tape in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining society in the instance. Nonetheless, Costales was defendant of domestic violence in a previous divorce.
The two children at present aged 10 and 14, we don't know who their biological mother was –whether the adult female slumped over in her car that day, or the one-time Ms. Costales: However, they were born (do the math, run into commodity) prior to this wedlock: 2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years. Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the yr 2000.
'A HORRIBLE SIGHT'
Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the kickoff gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.
Jones ducked equally additional shots were fired, so ran over to observe Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver's seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot every bit Costales casually walked dorsum to his motorcar.
. . . She moved out, not him….
Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make kid and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to go her own vehicle.
"I demand hearing because of no income just assistance," Schulz wrote in court documents. "Living on my brother's couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their ain home and stability."
The age difference: Him vs. Her — was 17 years. We don't know this situation, but here's a adult female who never plain even SAID "domestic violence" — and yet nonetheless died asking for something reasonable. Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?). Did he seek a needy adult female with children to make up for loss of his first married woman and two sons (now adults)?
Practise second wives Ever believe the record on the starting time wives' courtroom docket?
I went to look this one upwardly at the Riverside Court, but found out that information technology's non even gratuitous to view the images, and in doing then, they volition know who is looking. Then much for public oversight from a safe distance!
Law closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding well-nigh l people who were unable to get to their cars to get out, but the courthouse remained open up.The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to ceremonious, minor claims and traffic issues.
Why did she get out? Who knows? Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what? Where are the children going to live now? Who HAS them at present?
This was a TANF example. She was on assist — that means that merely if there has been violence, or some astringent extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father. The county wants its programs funded. If "aid" goes out, the Canton controls the drove of child support. This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems non to be any discussion over custody or visitation. This woman didn't know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts i at risk of. Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.
Suppose this man had non been but Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a existent bad mood that twenty-four hour period? Who else might have died?
Hence, we have to re-think this phrase: "Clear and Nowadays Danger." It has 3 usages.
1. In the police, unless it's been rescinded by at present — in California, a Batterer is a "Clear and present danger to the mental and physical wellness of the citizens of California." If i continues reading the law, they so talk about something like a task force at the Commune Attorney level.
ii. In Usage by AFCC, "Lack of Resources" to the family courts is the "Clear and Present Danger."
3. I experience it'southward condom to say now, conspicuously, and quite soon, that"the family courts are a clear and nowadays danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California."
So much for the domestic violence industry. It doesn't hold water in one case it'southward in "conciliation court." They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.
I fully realize that's "heresy" (just the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal constabulary and drive business organisation to therapists, etc.) just anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, Postal service-family law custody matters (similar we say, it goes, then long every bit minors and 2 parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either. I showed upwardly to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the tabular array with my ex, and from this close range, somehow "negotiate."
People want to "reform" Family Court. That's crazy thinking. It doesn't account for the roadkill.
Although I can't blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or proficient when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more than. When the state of affairs hits them, personally (evidence is that not all shut relatives or friends effigy information technology out, either), perhaps the ii + 2 will = 4. Who has it helped, and what's the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children beingness tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.? That's a system someone tin can supposedly MANAGE?
Hither'due south a summary, a post from long ago (about ane.5 years ago) which I'm amazed it still gets attention, and was today:
Toms River NJ femicide/suicide mail service-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should've hooked up with "agencies such equally ourselves"
I posted this on August 17, 2009
This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred V HOURS after the homo posted $ane,500 bail and was released. The adult female did everything right — virtually. She didn't leave her job and the area, she didn't patently know to insist that if this man was released, she exist notified (nor was she, plain) in fact, peradventure she didn't have a fast enough learning curve to empathise that in one case provoked by resistance, some men become extremely unsafe, at which point in time, information technology is imperative to stay alive — and annihilation short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job memory ahead of it.
I then in the blog talk dorsum to the various circus of people saying "it spiraled out of control" and then forth, essentially declining to analyze. THEN I go back approximately 10 years and expect at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to end domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?
In that location are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out subsequently. For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Guess, and it had been a civil restraining order.
Is it possible that this very organization of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart condom, are themselves a fail-prophylactic, which all the same cease up with dead bodies afterwards? How pitiful – in that this young? adult female wasn't a female parent yet, either- – she really could've maybe relocated. Information technology is easier for a single person who doesn't have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children'southward alter of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children fastened. Non that it's piece of cake, but it would seem LEGALLY easier. If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in mutual — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?
Simply it's not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the country.
Meanwhile: Nosotros accept a 7500 word postal service here, and beneath are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC 9.
I have to go now, just volition annotate another time on those that I know of. It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a immature woman and associated with or running "Mettlesome Kids" — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.
Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advancement.
Jennifer Collins
Carly Singer
Michael Bassett, J.D.
Ballad Pennington
Liora Farkovitz
Lundy Bancroft- author
Barry Goldstein – author, one-time attorney
Joan Zorza – DVLeap, doesn't blog family law matters
Kathleen Russell*
— *of Center for Judicial Excellence. Won't report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, only loves loftier profiles. Non a mother.
Connie Valentine (CPPA)
Karen Anderson (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain't interested.)
Phyllis Chesler
(if there were amend company I'd try and get there this year, to meet her)
Gabby Davis
Loretta Fredericks
Loretta Fredericks in my stance should non be allowed to nowadays. She should be put on the spot and take women burn questions about her. Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Dilapidated Women's Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in "Explicating Domestic Corruption in Custody" (or like title) which was also public funding. She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference excursion? Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa. This state of affairs (not her personally — we've never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my inquiry validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a "rut shield" for fatherhood providers. They lend legitimacy where at that place is non.
Michele Jeker
Maralee Mclean
Angela Shelton
Wendy Murphy
Jennifer Hoult
Sandy Bromley
Renee Beeker (advocates courtroom watch)
Joshua Pampreen
Nancy Erickson
Karin Huffer
Jason Huffer
Crystal Huffer*
*Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome).
Holly Collins
Jennifer Collins
Zachary Collins
Garland Waller
**Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.
Dara Carlin*
*Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her. Didn't find that the legislator she was sure was on women'southward side actually had shut ties to a Fatherhood Committee in Hawaii (a What?). This was how I learned near Fatherhood Commissions, actually. She didn't "Get" it. Also hadn't noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc.
Toby Kleinman
Linda Marie Sacks
(mentioned in my second "About This Blog" — how to go to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the residuum of mothers protesting corruption a nice reputation for non being also bright. Seriously!)
Rita Smith*
(NCADV Leadership. NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are country-funded, although not besides much funding. It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively past Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..)
Eileen King ("Justice for Children" besides I think on Linda Marie Sacks instance, which Supreme Court refused to hear).
Mo Therese Hannah
(self-explanatory — and running the briefing, with assistance It says from Ms. Miller. I don't recoqnize the other names).
Liliane Miller
Raquel Singh
Tammy Gagnon
Louise Monroe
Chrys Ballerano
Hopefully publishing this post won't cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and then much is at stake. This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family police business organization enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces. We just got this — and not one family unit police spokesperson on the last i (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).
Peradventure they all need a year off, and to become take a starter grade from H&R Cake, spend some time on their country corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up. NOTE: That's not Rocket science, doesn't require a Ph.D. and they won't perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.
harriswitswoompose.blogspot.com
Source: https://familycourtmatters.org/tag/retaliation-for-reporting/
Post a Comment for "Parkland Again Faces Tragedy After Apprent Suicides Trauma Doesn t Just Do Away by Lori"