Lobbying in Sacramento today.....

[irishgrl]

speaking in front of the Judiciary Committee on behalf of California's children in support of SB 544(Battin). I've been told the CA Judicial Council is dead set against this bill because it limits Judicial discretion. I say its high time we did, especially when it comes to placing the welfare of children FIRST. Senator Battin wrote this bill because I told him about my case and he felt this was an issue that needed to be rectified.

those who are interested in the text of the bill (Jason? Heather?) can go here:
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/...ended_sen.html

an update on SB 33 which was sponsored by PROTECT (http://www.PROTECT.org) SB 33(Battin) passed the Judiciary Committee on April 19th. This is a minor miracle, and I hope a sign that things are changing in CA with respect to the treatment of abusers/abused. (in a nutshell, SB 33 ensures family members who molest children get the same penalty as strangers who molest children. CA has protected these family members for far too long. NOTE: SB 33 is still on very shaky ground as there are influential forces lining up against it. See the most recent update at the PROTECT site.

finally, thanks to all of you for your support of me in this cause

[amber]

Who the heck would line up against that?! Maybe if I read the text I will find the answer of why....

[amber]

Originally Posted by Lux

What is the justification (as much as you don't agree with it) for there being a difference in treatment? Is it common in America or is CA behind the rest on this issue?

I think it's because most of the legislature molests their own kids...

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

I think it's because most of the legislature molests their own kids...

That is what a lot of people think....also: when CA took up the issue of penalties for family abusers back in the 80's, there were some very influential father's rights groups who lobbied against "same crime same penalty". In the majority of cases where a man fights for custody, he is usually an abuser. Abusers dont like losing power over their victims. Because deep down, men all sympathize with each other (and women and children are outsiders) its highly unusual to get a judge (assuming he's male) to put the needs of the child first or the concerns of the mother. The attitude in court is: the mother is lying. the child is lying.

nevermind that the child couldnt possibly KNOW about the stuff they are reporting unless it was happening...

btw: the bill I went to support yesterday was pulled from the calendar by the Senator, apparently I missed his phone call (he called 1/2 hr after I already left) so, I get all the way down there and sit thru a boring afternoon of ADA arguments for nothing. I did stay to support a similar bill, and I did meet with several other advocates, which was good. but all in all a very disappointing day.

then I get home and I have a msg from my attorney (my court date was also that same day) and I am being forced to pay supervised visitation fees to the tune of $600/mo, which is almost as much as my mortgage, and it just looks like things are getting gloomier all the time. I cant understand why I am being punished for bringing forth evidence of abuse!! unless....its because I am a woman and the court's attitude is anti-woman. What else can it be? Ive done nothing wrong and the other side is a CONVICTED child molester and the court is bending over backwards to accomodate him. the whole thing makes me sick

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

I'm really sorry about all of that. One would think a conviction on their record would limit the struggle.

I'm a little confused though. You said this:

What do you mean here? I don't know what it's like over there but I've never seen an indication that it's drastically different. Over here, upon divorce or separation, the mother gets the children and the father get visitation. I do have sympathy for fathers who care about their children just as much and those who remain in unhappy marriages knowing that otherwise they will rarely see their children. How can the majority of those fighting for custody be abusers? Perhaps this is a statistic but even then there must be some reasoning behind this that is maybe conditional to some clause in the law. I hate the way fathers are usually left with nothing in terms of family after a divorce. It's one instance where I think women are given the upper hand. I'm curious as to what you mean by this, surely most fathers suffer from divorces probably more than mothers and they can't be denied their right to want to seek more visitation or equal custody. Those would not all be abusers. Maybe you're referring to something else...?

In CA, the courts operate under the presumption that its in the best interests of the child to have contact with both parents, even (apparently) when one of them is a convicted molester or domestic violence abuser. Automatic custody to the mother is a thing of the past here. There is a backlash that promotes the idea that women are liars if they report abuse and THEY come under the spotlight if they come forward. If the kids report abuse, either THEY are lying or "their mothers coached them". This is the line of Parental Alienation Syndrome" (PAS) a BOGUS syndrome concocted by a known misogynist who determined the best thing to do to children who claim abuse is take them away from their mother and place them with the actual abuser.
Dr. Gardner is now dead thank Gawd. what a crank HE was. He lobbied unsuccessfully to have his manufactured "syndrome" put into the Psychologist's (dont remember the name but it amounted to) "handbook" or professional Journal which details various psychological conditions and treatments etc.

Its been shown statistically that when there is no abuse going on, there is usually no contentious custody fight, the parents are able (generally) to work things out. Abusers are far more likely to FIGHT for custody. and 70% of the time, they win custody. In fact, if a mother brings forth evidence of abuse, the court is likely to punish HER by taking custody away from her and making HER have to endure supervised visits. I can get you statistics, but it will have to be later, as I have to get to work. As always, it is dangerous to generalize, but I have researched into this pretty extensively. Women in general are treated very poorly by Family Courts across the nation. the stories are heartbreaking.

[amber]

I noticed when I went to the website you put a link for, that, strangely, a lady senator from SF opposed the protection bill.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by amber

I noticed when I went to the website you put a link for, that, strangely, a lady senator from SF opposed the protection bill.

yes, Migden is opposed. her partner defends sexual abusers and apparently is an influence on her decision to oppose. Perata could save SB 33 (sponsored by PROTECT) but is not likely to. there's more than just politics going on here, from what I hear its a bit too closeknit a political arena, too many people with too close of ties to be unbiased.

just an FYI: MY bill, the one I went to lobby for was SB 544. different bill, same author.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

I wasn't aware of what you're talking about because of all the divorced parents I know, the father is allowed the children every second weekend. As these are caring parents I know that is a huge struggle for them and probably something they would seek a change in if it weren't such an up-hill battle for them.

This is only indirectly related but how are mothers who do not report abuse treated? Is it a slap on the hand or can they be convicted also? Would the child ever be sent back into her custody? This is assuming it's quite serious and quite obvious.

CA law makes it a crime to NOT report. a parent has a duty to protect their child and if abuse is occurring and one parent doesnt report against the other abusing parent, the child(ren) are taken out of the home until the abuser is out of the home. it is a sad situation all around.

as for divorced fathers who only get alternate weekends, that is a pretty common custody arrangement, and generally, courts tend to preserve the status quo as much as possible...in other words, whatever the timeshare arrangement was before the divorce (typically stay at home mom, working dad) the kids stay in the family home to preserve as much stability as possible. In the custody arrangements you speak of, did the parents arrive at a custody arrangement together? or did a Court have to impose one on them? Understand, I am not saying that every father who wants shared custody is an abuser, what I am saying is, abusers are usually control freaks who see a custody/visitation situation as a power struggle that they MUST win at all costs. no matter who gets hurt along the way. its sick.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

So the children can be removed until the abuser is removed but are they placed back in the care of the parent who didn't report it? Can that happen?

For atleast two of the cases I'm thinking of in regards to custody, it was imposed by the court. For one of them, the mother is a tad nuts and the child has expressed that he wishes he could live with his father. For another it's a matter of the father's wishes basically being ignored.

Lux, try not to judge the non reporting mother too harshly, many times she is a victim of abuse too. its not unusual for the abuser to make threats such as "you'll never see your kids again if you say anything" or they become even more violent if the mother attempts to leave or get the children out. The kind of abusers I am talking about are bullies and control freaks. they like the power they get by keeping their victims in a constant state of fear, and they need to keep their victims close at hand so they can reinforce the fear factor on a regular or semi regular basis. There is mental abuse as well as physical abuse that can go on, and even financial entrapment. many of these mothers are poorly educated and know they cannot support themselves or their children and are unfortunately dependant on the abuser's income. Welfare does NOT pay enough to live on.

re: the two cases you mention, I cant comment because I dont know the other side....but the one boy who wants to live with his father, how old is he? is he old enough for his wishes to be considered? if so, maybe the father can have a modification of the current arrangement.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

What if there is no abuse elsewhere, none in her past and none from the husband? What if she's just so uptight that she looks down upon those with a divorce next to their name and so anything like this next to her name is out of the question? And she's even outraged at those who attempt to report abuse. The abuser is a complete control freak, constantly reinforcing that but they happened to get lucky in terms of a partner who would be too embarassed for her own sake to do anything? And she's not poorly educated at all, she has her own income and comes from a well-off family. In that case, and considering if the signs were really obvious, would the kid ever be put back with her?

Im not sure I follow that first part but the second part seems straightforward enuff....so, you are saying there is no financial entrapment, she could get a job, and she is not the one being abused, and the only thing preventing her from leaving a bad situation is her disapproval of divorce? All I can say to that is that human beings are complex and there may be other dynamics going on that could explain the co-dependency....I am not excusing her, if the children are being abused and she isnt reporting it and it is very obvious to other people, I am a bit surprised that NO ONE has come forward with this info to the authorities. If the children are older (say, 10yrs or more) I would think THEY might be encouraged to report. Obviously the mother has issues and should receive some sort of therapy. If she is an unfit mother, the children should be placed with another family member who will properly take care of them. I dont know all the details and I am not a Counselor (yet!) but that is what I as a layperson would suggest....

as for the information I mentioned earlier, I found some links with numbers,facts and figures:

Statistics

Abuse facts

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

Thanks for the link by the way. I was just asking for someone I know.

I dont know HOW the situation would be perceived, a lot depends upon the amount of evidence that can be gathered. Pictures, videotape, audiotape, doctor's visits, teachers observations, all can go a long way toward creating credibility.

any time a child is abused it is a sad situation, and the PARENT has a duty to protect. anyone who KNOWS of abuse or even suspects it should make a phone call, even if it is anonymous, so that the kids are spared futher harm. Their mother needs to get over herself and put her kids' welfare first rather than her personal belief regarding "divorce" its too bad this is happening, and maybe someone will intervene. Good luck.

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

Thanks, sorry for all that.

No need to apologize, glad to help (I hope I helped!) and I hope things change for the child(ren).

[SuzeQuze]

Originally Posted by irishgrl

...

then I get home and I have a msg from my attorney (my court date was also that same day) and I am being forced to pay supervised visitation fees to the tune of $600/mo, which is almost as much as my mortgage, and it just looks like things are getting gloomier all the time. I cant understand why I am being punished for bringing forth evidence of abuse!! unless....its because I am a woman and the court's attitude is anti-woman. What else can it be? Ive done nothing wrong and the other side is a CONVICTED child molester and the court is bending over backwards to accomodate him. the whole thing makes me sick

I'm really confused. What is a "supervised visitation fee"? I have never heard of such a thing!

BTW, do you watch Judging Amy? I just started watching, and of course it's over, but I love her. Stevie does too!

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

I'm really confused. What is a "supervised visitation fee"? I have never heard of such a thing!

BTW, do you watch Judging Amy? I just started watching, and of course it's over, but I love her. Stevie does too!

visitation can be supervised by professionals, or by private parties(usually family members). Professionals follow established judicial guidelines with respect to sexual abuse and dont allow lap sitting, picture taking, hair combing, private conversations, no accompanying the child to the bathroom or changing their clothes etc.....they charge a fee for this service. The agency that WAS doing the service had a sliding scale fee based on our combined incomes (puts us in the $60/hr bracket), which is then divided in half....... but since the ex makes $1000-$1500 more per month than I do, it is unfairly weighted against me. MY half (at $30/hr) comes to $600 month (total of 20 hours divided by 4 days The Judge ordered me to pay this fee (normally the custodial parent doesnt have to pay) when I brought forth evidence of abuse.

That Judge needs to be defrocked and I wish I knew how...Im considering writing a complaint to the Grand Jury but my mom is afraid it might work against me if I do that before my case is over....

[irishgrl]

Originally Posted by Lux

Sorry for being misleading, it's not in the present, it's from the past. I was just wondering how they're supposed to deal with it now, not necessarily from a specifically legal point of view (otherwise I'd just look up the exact laws) but an informed opinion. There is no evidence left and it's all done with now, but for obtaining some kind of peace of mind. Thanks.

Im sure there are websites relating to adult survivors of abuse, and I would advise them to search out support groups. here is a link for Survivors support groups
another link
online forum for survivors
good source of info

btw: everyone develops their own coping mechanisms and who is to say whether a person hasnt in fact made peace with the past? If not, I hope those links will help...at least, they will provide a starting point.