Part 1
Mr. Malone,
I am writing you privately and then will post this publicly. I do not intend to respond to you any longer in the future if you are completely unentreatable regarding what I am about to say.
There is a psychology and a line of thinking regarding the physical abuse of vulnerable people, such as woman and children, that perpetuates that abuse and further binds the victims. I speak from first hand experience as to how this works.
"The lesbian social workers aren't. I think it was the large tobacco chaw in her mouth, and the comfortable way she spit it out on the front porch that gave her away. I live in Nebraska. The state has attempted to illegally enter my home, including to check my kids schoolwork."
If there are the occasional mistakes that does not out weigh the need for help to the victims in life threatening situations. Usually there is no investigation without real concerns repeated over a period of time. People are really much more likely not to want to get involved. Here are some facts:
Prevalence of Domestic Violence
Estimates range from 960,000 incidents of violence against a current or former spouse, boyfriend, or girlfriend per year1 to three million women who are physically abused by their husband or boyfriend per year.2
Around the world, at least one in every three women has been beaten, coerced into sex or otherwise abused during her lifetime.3
Nearly one-third of American women (31 percent) report being physically or sexually abused by a husband or boyfriend at some point in their lives, according to a 1998 Commonwealth Fund survey.4
Nearly 25 percent of American women report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date at some time in their lifetime, according to the National Violence Against Women Survey, conducted from November 1995 to May 1996.5
Thirty percent of Americans say they know a woman who has been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year.6
Intimate partner violence is primarily a crime against women. In 1999, women accounted for 85 percent of the victims of intimate partner violence (671,110 total) and men accounted for 15 percent of the victims (120,100 total).7
While women are less likely than men to be victims of violent crimes overall, women are five to eight times more likely than men to be victimized by an intimate partner.8 From 1993 to 1998, victimization by an intimate accounted for 22 percent of the violence experienced by females. It accounted for three percent of the violent crime sustained by males.9
Women of all races are about equally vulnerable to violence by an intimate.10
The most rapid growth in domestic relations caseloads is occurring in domestic violence filings. Between 1993 and 1995, 18 of 32 states with three year filing figures reported an increase of 20 percent or more.12
Domestic Homicides
On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 1999, 1, 642 murders were attributed to intimates; 74 percent of the murder victims (1,218 total) were women.14
Male murder victims are substantially less likely than female murder victims to be killed by an intimate partner. In 1999, intimate partner homicides accounted for 32 percent of the murders of women and approximately four percent of the murders of men.15
Health Issues
About half of all female victims of intimate violence report an injury of some type, and about 20 percent of them seek medical assistance.16
Thirty-seven percent of women who sought treatment in emergency rooms for violence-related injuries in 1994 were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.17
Domestic Violence and Children
In a national survey of more than 6,000 American families, 50 percent of the men who frequently assaulted their wives also frequently abused their children.22
Slightly more than half of female victims of intimate violence live in households with children under age 12.23
"I'll tell you something else. If Dr. Smith, said of me "You're paranoid," instead of you, some lesbian brownshirt social worker - if I let her in my house (which, I would NOT) - after she saw my collection of Bibles, would, with police assistance, grab my kids and place them in foster care without a court order."
It was this thinking, that just having a bible would be enough to get your kids taken away, that it was all about persecution for our faith, that was pounded into our heads over and over and driven by this fear we not only did not report the violence going on in our family, we lied to cover it.
"Once in foster care, my children would likely be split into several homes. They could be subjected to medical treatment, including psychiatric counseling, immunization, and behavior modification drugs, all without my knowledge and authorization. I would likely not even know where my hildren were placed.
Then I would have the state as my opponent in juvenile court, where writs of habeus corpus do not apply. Therefore I would not have to be faced by an accuser. I would not necessarily be able to cross-examine witnesses. That would be at the whim of the judge. I would not be entitled to a public trial. Nor a jury trial. Neither would any charges have to be sustained. Nor would I be able to provide for my children's defense, because an guardian ad litem (attorney) would be appointed by the judge, most likely at my expense.
Now, I would need to defend not only against the tax-supported state, but against my own funds privately committed to the guardian ad litem. All this while, I would be separated from my children, who are with who-knows-who hearing-who-knows-what and going who-knows-where.
It would become incumbant upon me to prove myself a fit parent to have my own children in my own home. I would need to discredit Dr. mathias, in this instance, as being incompetent to judge. In the even that i took up my own defense (pro se), I could subpeona Dr. Smith into court as a witness, but it is possible, even likely, that the state could quash all evidence under the guise that they were doing an ongoing criminal investigation based on reports of the social workers, interviews with the children, blah, blah all of which would be told to the judge, and also those reports would at once be quashed by the state.
I could be separated from my children for any arbitrary length of time. The only way I would get them back is to agree under a court order to do certain things, behave certain ways, as outlined by a whole host of state leeches. If and when I got them back - it is entirely possible I WOULD NOT get them back - I would not likely have civil recourse against the parties because they may indemnified by the state against torts.
Dr. Smith might even have "Good Samaritan" statutory protection."
While I do not always agree with the actions in the Child Protection Services, I do not think that their problems justify leaving victims in an abusive home (one in which they are being physically hurt). It was those problems in the system that so many people used to justify, ignoring my situation and just staying out of it. However staying out of it did not solve the very real problems. I was still abused and so was my mother. Maybe instead of preaching the ills of the system, give an alternative, a way to protect those being abused. A lot of times the kids will be sent to another family member's home where they will be safe. Or make sure when you know of a situation like this that prompts you to make some kind of criminal report, that you stay involved to make sure the kids are not further victimized by the system. Again, you throw out the baby with the bath water. While there are problems in the system, does the fact that sometimes people are falsely accused or falsely convicted mean that we should not ever tell the government, that we should stay out of it? Well, if this is what you decide then it is on your head what happens to the victims after that.
End of part 1
