6.3.10

(KS) Warrant out for Battered Mom who testified at hearing about losing custody of children

from KansasWatchdog

by Earl Glynn On February 28, 2010
[Updated March 5].

  A warrant is out in Wichita for the arrest of a mom who testified about her case at a legislative hearing last year.  The charges?   That she saw one of her children for 30 minutes, and tried to see the child a second time.

Last year we reported stories from parents and grandparents who had problems with placement and removal of children by the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS).  Those parents travelled to Topeka to testify at a hearing of the Joint Committee on Children’s Issues.

Cecillia Arnold lost her parental rights.  Wants her kids back.

Cecillia Arnold lost her parental rights. Wants her kids back.

One of  those testifying was an abused mom, Cecillia Arnold. She had her parental rights severed even though the state never found wrong doing.  Even though she had been the victim of domestic abuse for which her her abuser spent about 2 years in jail, she lost custody of her children for reasons she does not understand.

Here is part of the exchange between Arnold and State Rep Bill Otto at that hearing:

Listen to the testimony: Abused mom Cecillia Arnold lost her parental rights and wants kids back

 

State Rep Bill Otto (R-LeRoy): “Your rights are severed?”

Arnold: “My rights have been terminated … I have no rights to my children. I have not seen them since March. I filed an appeal that didn’t go anywhere. I’m here today because I want my children back.” …

Otto: “Where was your lawyer?” …

Arnold: “I had court-appointed attorneys … I feel I could have done a better job representing myself” ..

Otto: “This should not happen to anybody … I’m so sorry.” …

Arnold now lives in another state to avoid direct Kansas SRS authority over her. 

In a telephone interview on Sunday Arnold said that the State of Kansas  garnishes her wages for child support even though her children are in foster care and she cannot visit them.  She does not mind the payments since she feels an obligation to her children, but really wants her children back.

Arnold said that after the Nov. 30, 2009 legislative hearing she spent a few days in Wichita with her family before returning home. 

Monica and Albert Arnold outside Fed & State Affairs Committee Hearing room at Capitol on Thursday.  They traveled from Wichita to Topeka trying to testify on their daughter's behalf.  They also attended a hearing at the Capitol in Nov. 2009.

Monica and Albert Arnold outside Fed & State Affairs Committee Hearing room at Capitol on Thursday. They traveled from Wichita to Topeka trying to testify on their daughter's behalf. They also attended a hearing at the Capitol in Nov. 2009.

While visiting a school with a relative, Arnold had an encounter with one of her older daughter.  Before that, Arnold had no idea what school her children attended since they were in foster care and she lived in another state.

She said she was happy to see her child and took 30 minutes to be  a mom during that chance encounter.    

Arnold said she tried intentionally the next day to see her child again but she was not allowed to.  She said it is her understanding there are now two warrants out because of the chance visit with her child.   The Sedgwick County Sheriff  issued an arrest warrant for her, Arnold said. 

A spokesperson for the Sedgwick County Sheriff’s office could not explain why Arnold’s court case number (2009-CR-003679) could not be found in a Sedgwick County District Court Search.

Police were looking to arrest her at a relative’s funeral earlier this month, Arnold said.  In a telephone interview, Arnold’s mother, Monica Arnold, said she knows the police have been watching their house in case her daughter visits.

This week in Topeka child welfare issues will be part of House Federal and State Affairs Committee hearings.  Monica McGill said she and her husband will try to attend those hearings and speak on behalf of their daughter.

Arnold said that with limited leave from work, and fear of being arrested in Kansas on the warrant, would keep her from the hearings, but she would like to attend to explain her case.

Last week Arnold’s picture and case were one of the “Featured Felons for this month” of the Sedgwick County Sheriff:

From Sedgwick County Sheriff's "Featured Felons for this Month"

From Sedgwick County Sheriff's "Featured Felons for this Month"

The “interference” mentioned above was for talking to her child who was in foster care.

Listen to Arnold’s testimony at the Joint Committee on Children’s Issues hearing on Nov. 30, 2009: Abused mom Cecillia Arnold lost her parental rights and wants kids back

We interviewed Arnold on Nov 30, 2009 after the hearing in the office of State Senator Oletha Faust-Goudeau (D, Wichita) at the Capitol:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DU_WszxKZSo&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]

Arnold’s parents, Albert and Monica Arnold, appear in the video above at 2:18.

Her parents traveled to Topeka again on March 4, 2009 to speak to the House Committee on Federal and State Affairs.  Since there was not enough time on the agenda to allow their testimony, we interviewed them after the hearing:

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sn1zFnX2GnI&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1]


In a telephone interview Friday, Cecillia Arnold said had good parents but as a teenager she became pregnant.  She does not understand why her parents were also denied custody.

Arnold described maturing a lot through the legal process and admits she was not always respectful of the district attorney and the courts as a teen.  She wonders if the Sedgwick County District Attorney is treating her now the same way as when she was 16, even though she has matured a lot since then.  Arnold is now 24 and wants a different district attorney to review her case.

Arnold laments not having more money to fight her case in court to win custody of her daughters. 

Her dad’s final words in the video above:  “We don’t have money.”

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Male versus Female: who is more likely to perpetrate child abuse

STATISTICS

Male versus Female: who is more likely to perpetrate child abuse

(When doing the math, adjust the figures as your actual study shows them.)

Do you believe that women are "more likely" than men to abuse children? That's incorrect. According to the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect there are more incidents of abuse of children (including both physical abuse and neglect) perpetrated by women than by men. But that does not tell you the "likelihood" that you are looking for, which is the percent of women caregivers who commit child abuse versus the percent of men caregivers who commit child abuse.More women than men care for children, and more children are cared for by women than are cared for by men. So if the "statistic" you are looking for is not raw numbers of incidents (which merely would be the "likelihood" that any given incident of abuse has been perpetrated by a man or a woman), and if you came to this page because what you really want to know is whether women or men are more likely to be dangerous when they are caring for children, whether it is women or men who are "more likely" to abuse children, then you need to do some math. The raw numbers of incidents by themselves don't tell you this. So let's do the math:

Assume that at any given time, 90% of all children who are in the care of one caregiver are in the actual (not "constructive") physical care of a woman (parent, grandparent, teacher, babysitter, day care provider, nurse, etc.), and that 10% are in the care of a man. (This is a conservative estimate.)

Echidne of the Snakes Statistics PrimerAssume that when a couple together are caring for children (e.g. married parents, grandparents, or a parent and stepparent), if the man perpetrates abuse it's extremely unlikely that the woman also will not be charged with either accomplice physical abuse or failure to protect (neglect), so these statistics are a "wash" and we are not considering them. (In reality, it's next to never that men are charged for abuse perpetrated by a woman when there is a couple caring for a child, Rusty Yates case in point, but this anomaly favors men and artificially increases the relative portion of total abuse reported as being perpetrated by women, so we will err in that direction. We also are ignoring "gang" abuse and other kinds of individual incidents of reported abuse involving two or more non-coupled adults against children, which are, at any rate, relatively rare.)

The NIS-3 Study on child abuse statistics, mother households, father householdsNote that each counted incident of reported abuse is per occurrence per child, and not per perpetrator. (So that, e.g. one woman caring for 4 kids who didn't send them to school or didn't take them to the dentist when she should have in the opinion of some DCF worker is responsible for four reported counts of neglect-type abuse "perpetrated by a woman," whereas one man's rape of one child would be one count of abuse in the reported statistics.)

Assume that per caregiver, when they do care for children, women on average care for 2 children while men care for 1 child. (Women are much more likely than men are to care for groups of children rather than one child, and even when men do care for more than one child at a time, women are much more likely to care for large groups, both in a parental capacity in families in which there are more children as well as third party caregiving.)

Assume that for every 80 women who routinely directly care for children alone and spend significant time with them, there are 20 men who directly care for children alone and spend significant time with them. Thus, in the population of all persons who routinely care for children on their own, of every 100 persons, 80 are women and 20 are men, or put another way, there are 4 women caregivers for each 1 man caregiver. (Do not confuse this statistical base with the 90% children figure, above, which reflects individual women caring for more than one child at a time. If you are surprised at this 80-20 figure, and assumed it should be closer to 50-50, thinking of "parents," remember that children in the active care of a couple together are being statistically eliminated as a wash -- a simplification that in these calculations will err in favor of men -- and also don't forget the vast numbers of unwed and divorced mothers who care for children without male assistance, the stepmothers who care for children while fathers are away or at work, and the sex of third party caregivers.)

Assume (without regard to kind of abuse, and without correcting for qualitative differences by removing or differentiating add-on and minor neglect charges from affirmative acts of physical abuse), that counting reported incidents of abuse shows that 70% of all incidents of abuse were committed by women and 30% were committed by men. (This is grossly skewed to err in favor of men, see below.)

Set up a ratio to compare men- versus women-perpetrated abuse. Thus:

Based on the foregoing, women abusers occur at a comparative rate of 70/80 in the population where the numerator is percent of incidents of abuse, and the denominator is total woman population caring for children; and men abusers occur at a comparative rate of 30/20 in the population where the numerator is percent of incidents of abuse, and the denominator is total man population caring for children, or, in order to more easily compare this ratio with the woman abuser ratio, making the denominators equal, 120/80.

The total abuse would be 120 + 70, or 190. Therefore, in any given population of child caregivers, adjusted to reflect greater likelihood of women being the caregiver, men represent 120/190 of total incidents of abuse perpetrated and women represent 70/190 of that total. The comparative likelihood that a man is the abuser then is represented as .63, and that a woman is the abuser as .36.

In other words, using these conservative figures, and without yet correcting for the fact that for each woman caregiver there are more children and without recognizing different kinds of abuse, in the population of all caregivers, men are nearly twice as likely to abuse children as are women.

Now adjust for actual numbers of perpetrators.

The incidents of abuse in women's 70/80 above ratio actually represent only 35 individual women caregivers (because each woman is caring for an average 2 children.) The incidents of abuse in men's 30/20 ratio above represent 30 man caregivers (because, above, they have an average of 1 child to care for compared with 2 children cared for by a women.) Because we are looking to compare perpetrator information gleaned from statistics using incident reports for each child, a different statistical population base, we need to adjust for this.

Based on the foregoing, then, individual women perpetrators actually will be represented by a ratio of 35/80and men perpetrators will occur with a comparable frequency of 30/20, or, adjusting the denominators so that we can better compare the ratios for women and men, we have a ratio of 120/80 for men compared with35/80 for women. Individual men then represent 120/155 of total individual abusers, and women are 35/155 of total individual abusers.

Thus, the adjusted likelihood that a man is an abuser is .77, and that a woman is an abuser is .23. In other words, the "twice as likely" calculation was premature; individual men caregivers are 2.34 times more likely (or 3.34 times as likely) as a woman is to be an abuser.

Compare the above two calculations with the National Clearinghouse statistics that "[a]mong children in single-parent households, those living with only their fathers were approximately one and two-thirds times more likely to be physically abused than those living with only their mothers."

Now adjust again to take into account time and opportunity.

While we cannot say that if an abuser cares for a child for more time, it's more likely that abuse will be perpetrated by that abuser, it does seem reasonable to suppose that it has some effect. The assumed fact, above, is that any given time 90% of children who are in the care of one caregiver are in the care of a woman, or stated another way, women are performing 90% of child care once children in the care of couples are eliminated from consideration (the statistical wash.) If there is a direct correlation, and if men perpetrate 30% of child abuse, then men perpetrate abuse 30/10 of the time, and women perpetrate abuse 70/90. Adjusting the denominators, per time men are caring for children, we get a whopping 270/90 for men. That makes men 3.86 times as likely as women to perpetrate abuse given the same amount of time in caregiving. If we now correct this figure to adjust for actual numbers of individual caregivers this represents, remembering that there are, mathematically, 4 women caregivers (above) for every 1 man caregiver, we also properly should adjust the time/opportunity ratios to account for that.

So per individual, men abusers are represented by a risk ratio of 1080/90 compared with women who are70/90.

So what we have calculated thus far is that, IF, according to incident reports, 70% of all child abuse is committed by women, then adjusting for the different statistical populations and applying our stated assumptions, men are 12 times as likely as women to perpetrate abuse against children, or put another way, they are 1100% more dangerous to children than are women.

However, this calculation still errs on the side of being too conservative. We haven't corrected for kind of abuse, or seriousness of outcomes.

In addition, the raw figures actually don't show that 70% of all incidents of child abuse are perpetrated by women -- even when including reported "abuse" such as accomplice abuse, failure to protect, and minor neglect such as leaving a child unattended where no harm has occurred. They don't show that.

The statistics you will see from, e.g. the National Clearinghouse on Child Abuse and Neglect show that child abuse perpetrated by women represents (depending on report) between 50-70% of total abuse, usually closer to 50%. And if we remove from those reports, those minor neglect charges without notable outcomes and charges such as "failure to protect" that women -- and notably battered women -- but very few men tend to be charged with, we probably come down to something closer to 50-50, if it is even that much, if indeed women are the perpetrators of even 50% of total numbers of real abuse and neglect. Which means that in reality, men are not "12 times as likely as women to perpetrate child abuse" but some multiplier significantly greater even than that. In other words:

Children are at astronomically greater risk of physical abuse in the care of a man than in the care of a woman.

Myth -- Mothers perpetrate more child abuse than fathers, which is one reason that children are at more risk of abuse in father-absent homes.

Fact: "Children living with their only their mothers experienced maltreatment under the Harm Standard at a rate of 26.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 36.6 per 1,000."

Fact: PHYSICAL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 6.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 10.5 per 1,000 children. "When specific types of abuse under the Harm Standard are examined, it is apparent that the findings described in the previous paragraph stem from the disproportionate incidence of physical abuse among children in father-only households..."

Fact: NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 16.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 21.9 per 1,000 children.

Fact: EMOTIONAL NEGLECT: Children living with only their mothers: 3.4 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 8.8 per 1,000 children.

Fact: SERIOUS INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 10.0 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 14.0 per 1,000.

Fact: MODERATE INJURIES: Children living with only their mothers: 14.7 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 20.5 per 1,000.

Fact: ALL MALTREATMENT: Children living with only their mothers: 50.1 per 1,000 children. Children living with only their fathers: 65.6 per 1,000.

Fact: ALL ABUSE: Children living with only their mothers: 18.1 per 1,000 children. Children living only with their fathers: 31.0 per 1,000."

Most often children die at hands of young men

3/6/10http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/138378.html

 

Most often children die at hands of young men

By Dawn Gagnon
BDN Staff

BANGOR, Maine — Fathers and father figures are most often the perpetrators of severe physical abuse of children, including cases that result in death, according to law enforcement and child abuse authorities in Maine.

On Feb. 23, Damien Christopher Lynn became the first Maine child to die this year as the result of severe abuse. He is the 12th child under age 18 to die as the result of homicide in the state since 2005.

According to authorities, Damien Lynn suffered injuries including brain trauma, a broken arm and broken ribs.

The man police have accused of killing the boy, Edgard Anziani, was the boyfriend of Damien’s mother. He lived on and off with the mother and child for four months before the homicide, according to court records. Anziani, who is from Lawrence, Mass., was arrested by federal authorities Monday in Bladensburg, Md. He waived extradition and is expected to appear in a Bangor court next week.

Statistics maintained by the Maine Department of Public Safety show that 12 children have died as the result of homicide or manslaughter over the past five years. The numbers show that the youngest, the most vulnerable, are most at risk. Eight victims were under age 3, and most of the children died at the hands of a parent, stepparent or the partner of a parent, according to Stephen McCausland, spokesman for the Maine Department of Public Safety. Click here to see a list of Maine homicide victims under age 18 from 2005 to present.

“We average about 24 homicides over the course of a year, and in a typical year, we usually have at least a couple that are children,” McCausland said.

The exception was in 2008, McCausland said, when five children were murdered in Maine.

“The vast majority are children who died at the hands of a young man, usually the father or the mother’s boyfriend,” he said.

Dr. Lawrence Ricci of Portland, the state’s only child abuse pediatrician and an expert often consulted by law enforcement officials and others for his 22 years of experience in the field, agrees.

“That’s certainly the case in Maine, and it’s certainly the case nationally,” Ricci said Friday in a telephone interview.

In Maine and in the United States, the perpetrators of serious physical child abuse or homicide are most likely fathers, next are nonbiological father figures such as stepfathers or mothers’ boyfriends, and then sitters, Ricci said.

Mothers are the fourth-most-likely perpetrators and “well down on the list,” he said.

The dozen children who died as the result of severe physical abuse “are just the tip of the iceberg,” Ricci said Friday. Ten times as many Maine children end up in the hospital because of severe physical abuse, and 10 times more are injured but never taken to the hospital, he said.

Common risk factors for child abuse include parents who have been victims themselves; parents who have been in the child welfare system, such as foster care; parental drug and alcohol abuse; criminal history and prior child protective history, Ricci said.

Maternal depression and socioeconomic stressors also are factors, he said.

“Those are some of the big ones,” he said, adding that poverty plays a large role in the problem.

“My colleagues around the country and I have seen almost a doubling in the last two years of significant abuse of babies, we think because of the economic downturn, both because of the economic stress it puts on families directly and because of the loss of available support services,” Ricci said.

“When you can’t provide the basic support services for families, the babies suffer,” he said, adding that the state has had difficulty providing those services.

To that end, Ricci and other child advocates in Maine are hoping that the recently launched “Period of Purple Crying” program, which now operates largely through donations and volunteers, will have an impact.

The educational campaign seeks to teach new parents that prolonged, intense crying often is normal and that parents and caregivers need to give themselves a break when the stress that results from the crying threatens to overwhelm their self-control.

A similar program introduced in upstate New York a few years ago brought about a 50 percent reduction in the number of serious injuries from shaken baby syndrome, Ricci said.

Though the “Period of Purple Crying” program has been available at hospitals in many parts of Maine for more than a year, Ricci said it is still too early to say how effective it has been.

One service that Ricci said he would like to see one day in Maine is long-term home visitation that would specifically target high-risk families. Ideally, the service would be provided until the child reaches school age before development problems from abuse and neglect have a chance to set in.

“Once they do, they are almost impossible to reverse,” he said.

Though it likely wouldn’t have saved Damien Lynn, state law requires a long list of professionals to report suspicions of child abuse and neglect or when a suspicious child death occurs.

The list includes law enforcement officials, clergy, municipal and state officials, school staff and bus drivers and bus attendants, medical and emergency medical professionals, social service workers, mental health providers, child care workers, summer camp personnel, domestic violence counselors, sexual assault counselors, film and photographic print processors, court-appointed guardians or advocates and any other person who is responsible for the care or custody of a child.

Those who are legally required to report suspicions of abuse also must make a reasonable attempt to take color photographs of any areas of trauma that are visible on a child, the law states.

To report child abuse or neglect, call the Maine Child and Family Services hot line, which is staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The toll-free number is 800-452-1999, and the TTY line for the deaf and hard of hearing is 800-963-9490.

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

5.3.10

American Judges Association Benchmark on Domestic Violence

http://aja.ncsc.dni.us/domviol/publications_domviobooklet.htm

Benchmark

Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence & The Courtroom

Table of Contents
How Judges Can Help
Do Not Blame The Victim
No One Is Immune / Everyone Suffers
Recognizing the Violence
Forms of Emotional Battering
Battered Woman Syndrome
Other Forms of Violence
AJA / AJF
Acknowledgements

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

NCJFC Warns family court judges NOT to accept claims of "parental alienation syndrome" and "parental alienation" in court because of it's use by Abusers to Get Child Custody Away from Their Victims.

The American Judges Association,

The National District Attorney's Association,

 Volume 16 Number 6 Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 1 of 2  and

 Volume 16 Number 7 Parental Alienation Syndrome: What Professionals Need to Know Part 2 of 2

The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Rejects PAS ... have all debunked "PAS" and the latter has warned family court judges NOT to accept claims of "parental alienation syndrome" and "parental alienation" in court because of it's use by abusers to get child custody away from their victims.:

2009: A Judicial Guide to Child Safety in Custody Cases (pdf)

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Family Violence Department

Page 12:

C. [§3.3] A Word of Caution about Parental Alienation34

Under relevant evidentiary standards, the court should not accept testimony regarding parental alienation syndrome, or “PAS.” The theory positing the existence of PAS has been discredited by the scientific community.35 In Kumho Tire v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999), the Supreme Court ruled that even expert testimony based in the “soft sciences” must meet the standard set in the Daubert case.36 Daubert, in which the court re-examined the standard it had earlier articulated in the Frye37 case, requires application of a multi-factor test, including peer review, publication, testability, rate of error, and general acceptance. PAS does not pass this test. Any testimony that a party to a custody case suffers from the syndrome or “parental alienation” should therefore be ruled inadmissible and stricken from the evaluation report under both the standard established in Daubert and the earlier Frye standard.38

The discredited “diagnosis” of PAS (or an allegation of “parental alienation”), quite apart from its scientific invalidity, inappropriately asks the court to assume that the child’s behaviors and attitudes toward the parent who claims to be “alienated” have no grounding in reality. It also diverts attention away from the behaviors of the abusive parent, who may have directly influenced the child’s responses by acting in violent, disrespectful, intimidating, humiliating, or discrediting ways toward the child or the other parent.

The task for the court is to distinguish between situations in which the child is critical of one parent because they have been inappropriately manipulated by the other (taking care not to rely solely on subtle indications) , and situations in which the child has his or her own legitimate grounds for criticism or fear of a parent, which will likely be the case when that parent has perpetrated domestic violence. Those grounds do not become less legitimate because the abused parent shares them, and seeks to advocate for the child by voicing his or her concerns.

Their is a crisis in our Family Courts; Abusers are getting custody of Children

More information:

Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    4.3.10

    Maternalism, What is Maternalism?

    Maternalism
    What is Maternalism?

    [vodpod id=Video.1552880&w=425&h=350&fv=]

    Motherhood: Don't Replace Her - Watch more Videos at Vodpod.


    Are the voices of mothers who identify with the liberation of mothers and the rights of their children.

    There was a past emergence of Maternalism in feminist history in the nineteenth century, however it is not consistent to today’s issues that continue to undermine her rights and values.


    We believe that the act of giving birth has been extremely undervalued in today’s society much as a result of patriarchy but also due to the lack of representation of mothers voices in women’s rights organizations.

    We note that the eight hour day was inclusive of workers rights, but failed to acknowledge the labor of mothers towards raising future generations. In the last twenty years, our rights have declined further with this acknowledgement as our children have grown to become the property of the state and men.

    We have the right to work from home, have flexible hours so that our care and work is balanced to eight hour days.

    We demand that employers provide the technology and opportunities to do so. We have the exclusive right to be prioritized to be the exclusive candidates that have existing or possible opportunities to do so.


    We believe that joint parenting and shared parenting that is forced under the state of law upon dissolution of marriage undermines our rights to:

    • Consent to the renamed marriage contract.
    • Continue our natural primary care giving relationship with our children.
    • Make decisions for the welfare of our children
    • Obtain protection of family
    • Freedom of movement
    • Love our children without scrutiny of the deep bond we place with our children
    • Raise our children
    • Be appreciated for the lives we bore onto this earth.


    Whilst the status of women has improved, the status of mothers has declined that our representation in the media of mothers is poor and discriminatory.
    We believe that both forced and persuasive adoption is a degradation of women equivalent to prostitution and laws against this abdominal crime need to be enforced.

    We believe that threats to take our children for objecting to medical practices that are harmful is an exploitation of mothers and undermines her ability to intuitively know what is best to raise her children as she has done hundreds of years prior to the introduction of medical treatment.

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    FACEBOOK Cell Terrorist’s Are at it Again with their Woman Hate dribble

    Right Wing Terrorism
    Right wing terrorism is most notably known for their attacks on races, but other attacks seem to...

    all our favorites below:

    Answer: Well it wasn't Claudine, Randi James or petunia pig…[all of my alters-]

    We are Eveywhere. We are ANONYMOMS.

    Sleep well boys.  And Remember  We are ANONYMOMS. We are Eveywhere.

    Mark Godbey Dossier 

    Mark_K_Godbey

     

    Jim Framedfather

    Domestic Violence Lobbyist kills her Husband....

    An ironic tragedy that proves women are just as capable as men of committing such a horrible crime. When are people going to wake up to reality?She will probably claim he was abusing her and she was just protecting herself and get probation!Records show she is a lobbyist for an organization calle...

    link:Full Article...

    4 hours ago · Comment ·LikeUnlike · Share it

    Mick Karabegovic and Jack Frost like this.

    Mark Godbey

    Mark Godbey

    Not good. Was it Randi James, Petunia Pig or Claudine that finally murdered her ex?

    4 hours ago

    Jim Framedfather

    Jim Framedfather

    Neither Mark, this time anyways, this poor guy was only married to her for less than a week, guess once the honeymoon was over she didn't have much use for him...

    4 hours ago

    Mark Godbey

    Mark Godbey

    Black Widow Spiders do the same thing... lay the eggs then gone.

    3 hours ago

    Stuart Showalter

    Stuart Showalter

    Not surprising since women commit more acts of DV than men do. Giving them a free pass continuously is just going to lead to more brazen acts like this.

    3 hours ago

    Mick Karabegovic

    Mick Karabegovic

    "Just as man?!" That guy (author of that article) is gotta be kidding me Jim;
    http://digg.com/d31KTIU
    And yes Stu you right; woman are committing crimes of DV permanently without exceptions and basically almost every single hour one or another way in private and they especially love to do it in public (Just if committed in public it calls; "disorderly conduct")

    2 hours ago

    Jim Framedfather

    Jim Framedfather

    I'll follow this case and see if she gets probation or just a fine...

    2 hours ago

    Mick Karabegovic

    Mick Karabegovic

    Please keep me posted Jim, thanks bro.

    about an hour ago

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    LAST CHANCE TO ADD YOUR VOICE TO THE DSM-V: TELL ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH A SOCIOPATH

    LAST CHANCE TO ADD YOUR VOICE TO THE DSM-V: TELL ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH A SOCIOPATH

    FILED IN: ACTIVISM, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION, DSM-V, LOVEFRAUD, SOCIOPATHS, SPEAK OUT

    Here is another great chance to add your voice to the DSM-V.  Please go to the link below before Wednesday night, March 3rd, and fill out the survey.

    How do you know someone is a sociopath? Look at the characteristics here. Thanks for your participation in the survey.

    Last chance to fill out the sociopath survey

    Monday, 1 March 2010 @ 8:22pm • My Weblog

    If you haven’t yet completed the Lovefraud survey about your experience with a sociopath, do it now. The survey will close the evening of Wednesday, March 3, 2010.

    Lovefraud will submit the results to the American Psychiatric Association. The association is preparing the fifth edition of its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM 5), which mental health professionals use to diagnose mental conditions. It includes a new definition of sociopaths/psychopaths.

    Our survey asks you to rate how well the definition matches what you experienced in your involvement with a disordered person. We are seeking input from both men and women.

    Hundreds of Lovefraud readers have responded. If you have already completed the survey, thank you. If you haven’t, please do it right away.

    We will analyze the results and submit them to the American Psychiatric Association. We’ll also report them to you.

    Go to the Lovefraud DSM 5 Survey.

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    ATTENTION MARYLAND LEGISLATURE: SOMEONE NEEDS TO GET LAID

     ATTENTION MARYLAND LEGISLATURE: SOMEONE NEEDS TO GET LAID

    FILED IN: ACTIVISM, AMY CASTILLO, BAD LAWYERS, BENJAMIN F. KRAMER, BENJAMIN S. BARNES, CIVIL RIGHTS, CORRUPT LAWYERS, CORRUPT BASTARDS, CORRUPT POLITICIANS, CURTIS S. ANDERSON,DEMOCRATS, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DON H. DWYER JR, FATHERS RIGHTS, FATHERS WHO MURDER THEIR CHILDREN, FRANK M. CONAWAY JR, GERRON S. LEVI, GETTING SCREWED BY THE POLITICIANS, HUSBANDS WHO MURDER WIVES, INTIMATE PARTNER ASSAULT, J.B. JENNINGS, JEFFREY D. WALDSTREICHER, JILL P. CARTER, JOSEPH F. VALLARIO JR, KATHLEEN M. DUMAIS, KEVIN KELLY, KRISELDA VALERRAMA, LUIZ R.S. SIMMONS, MARK CASTILLO, MARYLAND, MARYLAND HB 700, MICHAEL D. SMIGIEL SR, REPUBLICANS, SAMUEL I. ROSENBERG, SUE HECHT, SUSAN C. LEE, SUSAN K. MCCOMAS, TODD L. SCHULER, TONY MCCONKEY,VICTOR R. RAMIREZ, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN, MISOGYNIST

    Hey, Luiz Simmons, John Edwards called….he wants his hair back!

    The dialog is continuing on the shameful treatment of Amy Castillo during testimony with the Maryland House Judiciary Committee, in particular by batterer-lover Delegate Luiz Simmons.  Maybe it has been a while since Delegate Simmons has been laid, because he seems pretty preoccupied by it. He appears to relate sex to some kind of marital duties apparently, with him introducing a bill this session being haled by some as a bizarre “no sex = divorce” law.  We do know he loves to protect batterers:

    Tuesday, March 10, 2009

    Luiz Simmons’ Abuser Expungement Bill (Updated)

    Delegate Luiz Simmons (D-17), who is a trial attorney, has introduced a bill enabling accused domestic abusers to expunge their court records. No, folks, we are not making this up.

    Citizens of Maryland, do you really want a pig like this representing you?  Do you want to have your daughter and grandchildren murdered because she couldn’t get a protective order against an abusive husband?   Call your delegate now, today, and express your outrage at what happened in the House Judiciary Committee, and let them know you won’t stand for pigs on theJudiciary Committee, or in the legislature at all.  Call House Judiciary ChairJoseph F. Vallario, Jr., (410) 841-3488, (301) 858-3488, and tell him you won’t stand for people stinking up the committee.

    This is from today’s Washington Post:

    Md. General Assembly owes victims of domestic violence better protection

    Thursday, March 4, 2010

    MARYLAND once again has the chance to do what every other state in the country does in affording protections to victims of domestic abuse. A proposal that would relax the rigid standards for obtaining protective orders is being debated in the General Assembly. Unfortunately, its prospects are not good. We hope, though, that lawmakers wake up to the reality that their refusal to put in place common-sense safeguards endangers lives and makes Maryland a national disgrace.

    The House and Senate are considering bills that would change the standard of proof needed to grant a final protective order. The bills, H.B. 700 by Del. C. Sue Hecht (D-Frederick) and S.B. 823 by Sen. Jennie M. Forehand (D-Montgomery), would replace the current standard of “clear and convincing evidence” to a “preponderance of the evidence.” Maryland is the only state that uses this higher standard when victims — and generally they are women — seek orders to protect themselves from their alleged abusers. In all other civil matters, Maryland courts require only a preponderance of evidence.

    Contrary to the fears of some opponents, this would not open up the floodgates to capricious decisions based on false charges. Judges would still be able to judge the credibility of any claim, but they would have more discretion in reaching a decision. Instead of being bound by there being no doubt about a petitioner being in danger, the court would be able to use the more reasonable standard of there being a good chance of danger.

    We can’t help but wonder what the outcome might have been had this standard been available to the judge who denied the request for a protective order from Amy Castillo. Ms. Castillo’s three children were drowned by a father whose threats about killing the children were deemed insufficient for a protective order. Ms. Castillo evoked her tragedy last month as she testified for easier access to protective orders before the House Judiciary Committee, a body notoriously hostile to this and other reforms sought by advocates for victims of domestic violence.

    The committee has scuttled similar bills in previous years, and judging by the reception it gave Ms. Castillo, chances don’t seem much improved this year. What else to make of the argument that no problem exists because only (their emphasis) 14 percent of protective orders are denied because the standard of proof isn’t met? That’s not much of a consolation for Ms. Castillo or the others who make up that 14 percent. As Ms. Castillo told the committee: “When you’re in fear of your life and for your children, and you make that move to step out and do something about it, and then you go to get a protective order, and you don’t get it, it’s just really devastating. . . . It’s like a discouragement to make a change in your life that needs to be made.”

    Also see: Attention Maryland: You Have Some Pigs Loose in the Legislature

    Technorati Tags: ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    Safe Home (Johnson County, KS)

     

    Click to view this email in a browser

    Dear Friends,

    SAFEHOME offers a bi-weekly e-newsletter called The Scoop to keep friends up-to-date with success stories, events, volunteer opportunities and progress. Feel free to forward this information to other interested people.

    ImageImage

    Safe Home, Safe Streets

    Last week, members of SAFEHOME's staff and Board of Directors traveled to Topeka for the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence (KCSDV) 7th Annual Safe Home, Safe Streets Legislative Day. Victims service programs from across the state had a chance to meet with their local Representatives to educate them about domestic violence programs in their districts and the important legislation related to helping better serve victims. State grants provide essential funding for emergency shelter and other life-saving services for victims and their families. Sustaining this funding will ensure core services continue to be available.

    During the Safe Home, Safe Streets Reception, SAFEHOME was honored with the KCSDV Program of the Year for our BridgeSPAN healthcare advocacy program. BridgeSPAN provides 24-hour on-site advocacy to victims of domestic violence who seek services in five Johnson County hospitals, as well as training for healthcare staff on domestic violence screening and resources. Since the program began in 2003, SAFEHOME has seen a 75% increase in the number of victims served by the program. Recent program accomplishments include the development of a "SAFE PLACE" sign to let people know that hospitals are a safe place to receive help if they are being hurt, a weekly Healthy Relationship group for inpatients at Shawnee Mission Medical Center, and creation of a hospital-wide "Domestic Violence and the Workplace" survey.

    KCSDV also honored Vincent Dean and Dean Development, Inc. as the Community-Based Ally of the Year. As a SAFEHOME volunteer, Vincent Dean was instrumental in the rehabilitation of our state-of-the-art facility. For ten months, Vincent contributed 30-60 hours a week to the renovation project. In addition to donating his services as General Contractor, his family could often be found on weekends doing manual labor at the facility. During this time, his company Dean Development Inc. was completely behind Vincent's work. His staff handled hundreds of related phone calls, provided space for numerous meetings, and even held several donation drives for SAFEHOME. Congratulations to Vincent Dean & Dean Development Inc. We truly appreciate all your dedication to SAFEHOME.

    ** Pictured above (L to R) accepting the Program of the Year award is BridgeSPAN Advocate Marianne Hamer, volunteer Helen LaValley, and Program Coordinator Kimberly Paul. Accepting the Community-Based Alley of the Year Award is Vincent Dean.

    June Jubilee

    Planning is underway for the 18th Annual June Jubilee. You won't want to miss SAFEHOME's signature fundraising event and a celebration of 30 years of saving lives. Join us Sunday, June 13th at the Doubletree Hotel Overland Park for a gourmet dinner, live and silent auctions, and entertainment. Long-time SAFEHOME supporters Congressman Dennis & Stephene Moore are serving as Honorary Chair Couple. The cost to attend is $125 per person. Sponsorship opportunities are still available. For sponsorship information, please contact Pam Mann at pmann@safehome-ks.org or 913-378-1516.

    Auction items valued at $50 or more are currently being accepted. Great auction items include: themed gift baskets, gift certificates, bottles of wine, vacation packages, concert tickets, frequent flyer miles, jewelry, sports memorabilia, and electronics. Contact Susan Lebovitz at slebovitz@safehome-ks.org or 913-378-1518 if you have an item to donate.

    Click Here To Learn More

    Great Food For A Great Cause

    On Friday, February 26th you can support SAFEHOME and enjoy a fun evening as you dine at Gaslight Grill (5020 W. 137th, Leawood, KS) from 5 P.M. until closing time. If you bring in the attached flyer, Gaslight Grill will donate 12% of the profits from your meal to SAFEHOME.

    Gaslight Grill features elegant food and wine in a comfortable atmosphere. Executive Chef Eddie Djilali brings you a contemporary American cuisine with a European flair. You can also enjoy live jazz music from 6:30 - 10:30 P.M. in their back room.

    Download The Event Flyer and Check Out Gaslight Grill's Fabulous Menu

    It's About The Kids

    Safety is something every child should be able to take for granted. However, an estimated 3 to 4 million children witness domestic violence annually. Children who witness family violence are often affected in ways similar to children who have been abused.

    SAFEHOME helps children overcome negative effects of domestic violence through our Children's Program. The purpose of the Children's Program is to provide a safe and therapeutic environment where children and their mothers can heal from the violence they have experienced. The program includes art and play therapy, social activities to strengthen the parent/child relationship, and childcare with trained professionals. Services are available for both residential and non-residential clients.

    Children are a large portion of the population we serve. Currently, 26 children are residing in SAFEHOME's shelter. If you can imagine having 10 children ages newborn to 3 years old living in your home, you can start to imagine the needs that we have. SAFEHOME needs baby monitors, potty chairs, pacifiers, and so much more. Check out today's Urgent Needs Wish List to learn about how you can help.

    SAFEHOME Urgent Needs Wish List

    These items are clients' most urgent needs. Donations or gift cards to purchase them are appreciated. If you are interested in donating any of these items, please contact us at 913-432-9300 to schedule a time to drop off your donation.

    Baby Food (Stage 3 - fruits, vegetables, and meals)

    Baby Spoons

    Baby Shampoo, Lotion, & Wash

    Orajel

    Diaper Cream

    Pacifiers (All Sizes)

    Burp Cloths

    Potty Chairs

    Baby Carrier (Wearable)

    Baby Monitors

    Baby Bouncer Seat

    Baby Swings

    Crib Bumper and Mobile (For a boy)

    Receiving Blankets

    Infant Car Seat Cover

    Boy Infant Clothing (12-18 months)

    Night Light

    Three-child Stroller

    Gift Cards for Target and Wal-Mart to purchase these items

    **Gift cards and gift card receipts can be mailed to SAFEHOME, P.O. Box 4563, Overland Park, KS, 66204.

    Ongoing Wish List

    Ways You Can Help SAFEHOME - Attend A Fundraiser To Support SAFEHOME

    This Saturday, February 27th from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M., Whole Life Chiropractic (11604 Metcalf Ave., Overland Park) will be offering $20 initial screening visits for new customers with proceeds benefiting SAFEHOME. Attendees are asked to bring items on the SAFEHOME Wish List, bid on silent auction items, and attend educational sessions. To schedule an appointment or for more information, contact Raeann at 913-696-1500.

    For more information on SAFEHOME, events, and services, please visit us online at www.safehome-ks.org .

    If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please reply to this message with "Unsubscribe" in the subject line or simply click on the following link: Unsubscribe

    SAFEHOME

    PO Box 4563

    Overland Park, Kansas 66205

    Read the VerticalResponse marketing policy.