Permalink
More National Fatherhood Initiatives, this one in Kansas.
( it just keeps going, going, going as they keep killing, killing killing when she tries to separate):
Oletha Faust-Goudeau
Kansas Senate Democrat
District 29 (2004 District Map, District Demographics)
First Term: 2009
4158 Regents Lane
WICHITA 67208
Phone: 316-652-9067
Email: Oletha29th@aol.com
Business Information
Occupation: Community Act.
PO Box 20335
Wichita 67208
Below is the act. PHONE or WRITE or EMAIL to protest (if still necessary) this act for two reasons:
1. Similar policies are already encouraging already overentitled men to kidnap and/or molest and/or kill youngsters, their mothers, and themselves, and sometimes bystanders, and sometimes responding police officers, in the process of getting even with their mothers.
2. Nearly every statement in this Act has already been stated in public, in the U.S. Congress, echoed by Presidents Bush, Clinton & Obama, as well as governors across the United States, and has also laws enacted to facilitate the further engagement of fathers in their families post-separation from those families (post-conception, post-divorce, post-restraining order, post-etc.) AND substantial federal grant monies to support this.
3. Nationwide and in prominent positions, the “tripe” — and it IS tripe — that this is a recent phenomenon on which dialogue has not yet taken place, or to which the public has not paid attention — that there is a fatherhood crisis, and along with this, the absence of fathers has been in otherwise creditable institutions been EQUATED AS CAUSE for significant other social problems, which might as easily have been attributable to almost any other reasonable cause, such as illiteracy, racism in incarceration of fathers, and the premise having been that the household values are more pre-eminent than the school or other associations values in growing children. This in effect is a misogynistic policy.
4. The programs and grants to go along with them have undermined due process in the courts. MOreover, the average woman is NOT told of these programs when engaging in the family court system, whereas ample documentation exists, both privately individual cases AND publically on nonprofit websites reporting on this — that noncustodial parents (mostly fathers), through programs that frequently have the word “father” or “fatherhood” in them, and often publically funded — ARE being recruited into programs offering them free legal help, mediation preparation coaching, reduced child support arrears in exchange for increased custodial time, even including fathers in prison, whereas mothers, who often then lose custodial access (sometimes COMPLETELY) to their own children through such programs, are unable to utilize these same programs or funding (including effective legal help) to children who were removed from their households.
5. ANYTHING which undermines due process in the courts is bad public policy and WILL be fought back against, draining significant time energy and money from the hands of the general public, and placing it into the hands of the professionals who profit from all this. Again, ANYTHING which underrmines due process in the courts – IN the courtroom is bad public policy and subversion of our U.S. Constitution,and Bill of Rights which exist to prevent exactly such behaviors.
6. Establishing “fatherhood” in this manner absolutely constitutes the establishment of a national religion, and as such is an outright and flagrant violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. No matter how prevalent this is throughout our country presently, it’s still a violation of this Amendment and should as such urgently be reversed.
! ! ! !
By Senator Faust-Goudeau
1-27
AN ACT creating and implementing the fatherhood initiative program;
relating to the duties of the department of social and rehabilitation
services.
Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Kansas:
Section 1.
(a) Subject to the provisions of appropriation acts, the sec-
retary of social and rehabilitation services shall establish a fatherhood
initiative program within the department of social and rehabilitation serv-
ices.
The objectives of the initiative shall be to:
(1) Promote public education concerning the financial and emotional responsibilities of fatherhood;
MY pie chart of federal spending indicates that THE largest sector of public expense is HHS, and THE 2nd only is EDUCATION. Therefore I recommend the latter be given a severe “time out” for having promoted and structurally modeled abusive and civil-rights-violating behaviors such that the former has bloated beyond the capacity of the general population to sustain. Moreover, they also should either toss a coin, or duke it out (like the appointed champions of old) in a safe, enclosed place (and out of view of the public is OK, if taxes are suspended for the meantime — in fact, without their interferences, the rest of us, except the thousands in their employ, and the thousands more living off of their grants, and the professions that are enabled by the dysfunction of the educational one in particular, might be a little better off as a whole) — and come out when one has been vanquished.
In particular, they need to decide between them — again, a coin toss would do, because promoting either one I feel is really wrong — that the U.S. Populace AND all its institutions MUST be LBGT friendly (or be accused of hate crimes), OR be misogynistic (or be accused of male-bashing, or scapegoated for any and all social ills) for railing to be father-friendly enough. After all, how are children who live in a home with two Mommies going to bring sperm donor or surrogate father home?
Moreover, how are adopted children to bring their fathers home.
Moreover, how are orphaned children to feel when the world assigns a general hoopla to father’s day, and far less to mothers’?
Moreover, why should a President part of whose platform was indeed that he had been raised by a single mother, be unable to put the word ‘Mother” on the family issues page of the White House?
(2) assist men in preparation for the legal, financial and emotional responsibilities of fatherhood;
(3) promote the establishment of paternity at childbirth;
(4) encourage fathers, regardless of marital status, to foster their emotional connection to and financial support of their children;
(5) establish support mechanisms for fathers in their relationship with their children, regardless of their marital and financial status;
HOW is this compatible with programs emanating out of the same dept (for which such support mechanisms ALREADY are thriving, and funded) to correlate with the “marriage promotion” funding, CFDA Code 93.086? Let alone Abstinence Education?
(6) integrate state and local services available for families;
and
(7) promote, foster, encourage and otherwise support programs de- signed to educate and train young men who are both current and future
fathers as to effective parenting skills, behaviors and attitudes.
I.e., every male past puberty who has not had a vasectomy or been injured in his private parts to the extent of being unable to father children (or voluntarily entered the Catholic priesthood) up til what age? Define young? Good grief Get a grip on yourself, Ma’am!!
Citizens and those on temporary visa a like? Suppose such values are in direct contradiction to their cultures and nations of origin?
HOW does this initiative expect to reel in atheistic young men presently in private schools, military academies, and/or not in trouble with the law?
(b) The secretary, on or before the first day of the regular legislative session, shall report annually to the legislature:
(1) The number of fathers and children participating in the program;
(2) an overview of any moneys spent on the program; and
(3) the cost-savings analysis of implementing the program by having
children build and retain a relationship with their father
How dare any act so sweeping be presented without FIRST demonstrating that costs (to whom??) (what kind of cost?) (WHat’s the WORTH of a soul, anyhow?) would actually be saved, and have been by similar programs already saved in these matters.
And who the hell says that costs mean more than lives in these matters? Because this national promotion of fatherhood is ALREADY getting people killed (see my blog: ”Can we call it a day?”). What IS this, population control?
WILL THIS ANALSYSIS INCLUDE the LONGER-TERM SOCIAL Cost OF INCIDENTS when fathers, enabled by this philosophy, go kill MOm & themselves in order to re-engage with their children or otherwise proteset separation from their families?
ANALYSIS (3) is incoherent with “overview” (2), as it implies more precise conclusions substantiated by relevant data. And (1) (like the rest of this initiative) sounds like it is lifted STRAIGHT ouf of the access/visitation grant descriptions with a spice of the national fatherhood initiative phrasing (See www.hhs.fatherhood.gov or elsewhere on HHS site), which attributes “success” in such programs with how many people went through them, which overview the GAO has already showed lacks accuracy.
(c) The secretary may adopt any rules and regulations necessary to
implement the provisions of this section.
Sec. 2. This act shall take effect and be in force from and after its publication in the statute book.
Actually, that’s in theory only. In theory, there’s already a Violence Against Women Act, but violence against women is still thriving.
This interspersing of fatherhood promotion with domestic violence headlines may not seem related, but it is. The one has weakened the other, and compromised the court’s willingness to let a woman completely separate when such activities are involved. It appears (anecdotally) that they WILL permit total separation more likely in situations when there has NOT been significant abuse or violence reported.
A person who has researched these issues somewhat (either through my site, or others linked to on this blog), will understand clearly how the above resolution basically parrots the premises (the main ones) of this movement. I provided the link (again) above to the 1999 statements by various congresspeople to the president on this issue.
As such, I think a short Act might be sponsored, paraphrased thus:
Anyone who talks like this, expecting to be taken seriously, is either already owned by certain political forces, or is simply not informed enough to hold public office, OR is informed, but is pretending not to be. Good grief.
A woman from this state (Kansas) has already filed an international appeal for help in the matter of losing custody of her young daughter to a batterer:
(2007)
On May 11,2007, just before Mother’s Day weekend, ten mothers, one victimized child, now an adult, leading national and state organizations filed a complaint against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. Their petition claims that U.S. courts, by frequently awarding child custody to abusers and child molesters, has failed to protect the life, liberties, security and other human rights of abused mothers and their children.
. . .
For more than 30 years U.S. judges have given custody or unsupervised visitation of children to abusers and molesters putting the children directly at risk,” says Dianne Post, an international attorney who authored the petition. “These horrendous human rights violations have been brought to the attention of family court systems, and state and federal governments, to no avail. We turn now to international courts to protect the rights and safety of US children.”
The complaint details several cases with documented medical evidence of child sexual abuse, yet in each instance the father who was accused of abuse was given full custody of the children. Several of the mothers were jailed by the courts because of their persistent efforts to protect their children from abuse, several were ordered not to speak of the abuse and not to report abuse to authorities. Every mother was denied contact with her child for some period of time though none was ever proven to have harmed them.
“My life was completely shattered apart on that day and my childhood was destroyed,” said Jeff Hoverson, the adult child petitioner, about the day a family court judge ordered sheriff deputies to deliver him into the custody of his abuser. “It was as if I was just kidnapped. I was torn from everything I knew….I was made into a possession rather than a child.” Hoverson endured years of trauma and fear living in his father’s home before escaping and returning to his mother at age 17. He is haunted by years of feeling helpless to prevent his father’s night-time visits to his sisters’ bedrooms.
Studies of gender bias in the courts, conducted in the 1980’s and 90’s, found disturbing trends of courts minimizing or excusing men’s violence against women, and favoring the abusers. In 1990 the United States Congress passed a resolution recommending the prohibition of giving joint or sole custody to abusers. Seventeen years later, the practice continues unabated. Ten years ago today (2007), leading national organizations were joined by members of Congress in a protest in Washington D.C. to again raise awareness about the problems in family courts. Today, petitioners say, the problem is systemic and widespread in family law courts across the nation.
. . .
The petition seeks a finding from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the U.S. has violated the Declaration of the Rights and Responsibilities of Man and the Charter of the Organization of American States and a statement of the steps that the U.S. must take to comply with its human rights obligations in regards to battered women and children in child custody cases.
The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights was created in 1959 and is expressly authorized to examine allegations of human rights violations by members of the Organization of American States, which include the United States. . .
In addition to The Leadership Council on Child Abuse and Interpersonal Violence, other national organizations supporting the international lawsuit include:
- National Organization for Women and the NOW Foundation,
- National Coalition Against Domestic Violence,
- Justice For Children,
- National Family Court Watch Project,
- Legal Momentum,
- Family Violence Prevention Fund,
- National Alliance to End Sexual Violence,
- Domestic Violence Report,
- Sidran Traumatic Stress Institute, and
- the National Center on Sexual and Domestic Violence.
The petition is supported by many state organizations as well.
In December 2005, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a petition against the United States with the Inter American Commission on Human Rights for their failure to protect Jessica Gonzales’ three children from their abusive father, who murdered them. Their petition, the first of its kind, asserted that domestic violence victims have the right to be protected by the state from the violent acts of their abuser.
{Note, as with Gonzales, THE QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT COMES UP. . . .. }
or additional information contact:
Irene Weiser
Stop Family Violence
actnow ^t stopfamilyviolence.org
607-539-6856View the petition at http://www.StopFamilyViolence.org/468
SUMMARY (today’s post): The court order preceding the Ouellete suicide/murder was indeed certifiably insane.
There are coherent reasons both those individuals died and both those little girls witnessed their mother’s murder by their father. Some of these are policy, and as to response time, as to their individual families, I cannot answer. I had, as I’ve said before, a similar order with even less restriction and even weaker justification for such. This was hashed together quickly, overeen by a family court mediator, and in the aftermath of the restraining order becoming permanent. NO ONE coached me on visitation order, although I was (wrongly) coached into offering joint legal custody when I didn’t have to, which later became a downfall and cost me my profession and those children. I am among those mothers, not that is on the suit, but among those mothers that lost my children to a man who battered me during marriage, over many years (along with many forms of abuse).
I then went through more years of legal abuse, which further turned upon failure to pay child support on his part, a similar tactic to what was used while we were together, to keep me from becomign too independent. The child-stealing as well as the bounce into fmaily law venue, in my case, BOTH were at times when this household was set to prosper, and I had given NO indication of intent to separate him from the children, or from contact with the children (contrary to court claims), but had repeatedly sent a clear message, in multiple venues, that I WAS changing the dynamics of our relationship. I refused to take orders, for the most part, that were not in writing from the court, and was fought tooth and nail — at police stations, and every where other possible point of contact, including several he created that trespassed my intentionally set boundaries.
What I HAD separated from in my move was taking direct orders, in particular from a man that refused to obey them himself and has (to this date) continued in contempt of all the court orders ever in our long, long, family law case.
This is long-term trauma and punishment for speaking up and out about criminal behavior by Dad (and some of his associates) towards the children, and me. This type of behavior has marked ALL of my acquaintance with him, practically since the day we married (but not before), and to this date the standard has been set, I am not informed about the general whereabouts of my own daughters, unless I happen to get lucky, get through, or hear incidentally. I have been eradicated from their lives lest they learn the same values I hold dear — that a woman does not sit on this earth to be a man’s slave in any form, and that she is of EQUAL LEGAL STATUS to him, and should be in marriage as well as after it.
It is my understanding that MOST of the blogs (with graphic buttons) on my post are of similar experience regarding their children and the courts, it is how we know each other. This is a FAR more widespread social crisis than “fatherlessness” which has existed since wars began.
What I would like to see addressed, and would like ALL of the above organizations to address (some of whom I know a bit more about than others), is not THAT the courts are doing this, but WHY they are doing this and WHO is allowing them to. It is assuredly not new.
Sorry to entwine (and what’s worse, quote and comment on!) a
- 2009 Minnesota News headline news account, plus related MN battered women’s coalition information, with a
- 1999 Washington D.C. address to Congress about the father crisis, compared to the
- 1776 U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence with a related
- 2009 Kansas, surprise, “new” proposal to enact a “Fatherhood Initiative” Bill, and from there to a
- 2007 appeal to the Inter American Council on Human Rights (IACHR) because of a known Kansas battered Mom was on it, as reported by Stop Family Violence (2nd graphic button on my website, only unfortunately not their real logo), and the uncomfortable reminders that:
INFORMATION ABOUT SITUATIONS IS STILL NOT INFORMING POLICY.
AND WHERE WE SHOULD MOVE IS FROM REPORTING THE SITUATIONS TO STUDYING WHAT HAPPENED, THAT WOMEN STILL CAN’T, ONCE MARRIED OR IN “AN INTIMATE PARTNERSHIP” AND A NEED FOR SEPARATION DUE TO SAFETY ARISES, GET IT!!
That is, however, how I often think. Probably relates to the prior life as a musician, balancing different resonances from different singers, etc. It feels more balanced to weave the threads, even though a single topic would pack a greater emotional punch.
Sorry for that analogy…
Note: Cross posted from [blogger angelzfury] Kansas Family Court Reform Coalition.Permalink
No comments:
Post a Comment