Washington DV Press

Denise Hines of  Clark University in Worcester, MA, is a PHD.  She is the Research Assistant Professor of the   Department of Psychology, and is the Director of their  Family Impact Seminars, as well as being the Co-Director of the  Clark Anti-Violence Education (CAVE) Program. She will most likely be attacked from publishing such truth. But, that truth is becoming well known. And that truth shows that  70% of battered men were themselves falsely accused of DV, or threatened with a false accusation of DV, by their batterer.

WADVPress applauds those who publish the truth and those who have the fortitude to publish it.  This is science as it should be, and not an agenda.

This other upcoming study was published this month in the journal Partner Abuse.  They will soon have another article about to be released in a month or two in the Journal of Aggression, Conflict, and Peace Research, and will share that when it is released.  A draft of that article, along with recent conference presentations and media mentions can be found on their webpage: at  http://www.clarku.edu/faculty/dhines/results.htm .

In the meantime, we’d like to ask for your ideas.  Emily and I are preparing a study on men’s experiences with both the criminal justice and family court system when they try to assert the fact that their female partners commit domestic violence.  We’d like to hear from people who have either experienced this in their own profession or in their own lives, and others who have anectodal and other information on this topic, because we want to make sure that we develop as comprehensive a study as possible.  What types of questions should we ask?  What experiences should we be looking for?  We have lots of ideas, but want to make sure that we’re not leaving anything out.  Thanks in advance for any information you are willing and able to provide.

In 2007 Aset Magomadova, at the end of her tether in dealing with a troubled and by her account troublesome 14-year old daughter, strangled the girl to death with a scarf.

Let it be noted, before going any further into this story, that to kill a healthy human being by strangulation, you have to cut off their air supply for 2.5 to 3 minutes. They lose consciousness and go limp long before they are at risk of dying. So you really can’t argue that you have strangled someone in self-defence or by accident or in a moment’s confusion or loss of control. If a person dies after you have had your way with a scarf around her neck, you can be sure the intention behind the attack was not benign.

And now to the sentencing of Aset Magomadova. Calgary Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio convicted the mother of manslaughter, acquitting her on the original charge of second-degree murder, and pronounced a sentence of…probation. No jail time. Dead daughter. Mother killed her. No jail time. [Read more →]

Stalking

Problems at the Equal Justice Foundation (EJF) seem to come in waves. In the last month two senior enlisted men in separate units at Fort Carson were being stalked by ex-wives to the point the women were arrested, an almost unheard of event. Then a freelance writer asked for stories, followed by a producer for Discovery Channel who plans on doing a series of stories on stalking in 2011. And next a 58-year-old woman in Leadville was killed by a next-door neighbor who was stalking her in spite a restraining order.

There are constant complaints from men whose ex-girlfriend or wife took out a restraining order and is now stalking them and getting them arrested, sometimes as often as once or twice a day, or she has trashed their house or apartment, etc. We also hear from women this is happening to.

Falling in and out of love is not criminal

Now the truth is that virtually everyone, man or woman, who has fallen in love has engaged in what might be termed “stalking” behavior.  Admit it, you sent love notes to her. You drove past his house many times to check on him. You followed her home from school to find out where she lived.  You called and texted him ten times a day. And that is when the relationship is heating up.

But what happens when love goes south?

Dr, Michael Conner notes that nearly 90% of all college students who break up will engage in what is called “unwanted pursuit behavior.” Pursuit behavior includes writing notes or poetry, giving gifts, making phone calls or texting, contacting friends, following the person or intruding in their life. This can border and easily cross the line and become an obsession.

What researcher’s find interesting is that pursuit behavior is normal. If Jane dissolves a relationship with Bob, then it is very common for Bob to pursue Jane as a means to try and restore the relationship, or vice versa. Researchers call this a “relationship repair mechanism.” Some people, and even the courts, mistakenly call this stalking. So that creepy boyfriend who keeps calling or sending you email, or the lunachic who persists in texting or calling you after a single date, are not criminals, simply human and behaving in normal courtship rituals however you might resent it. [Read more →]

We’ve been saying this for years now. Looks like it’s finally catching up tot hem down in Tacoma, for this is what happens behind that curtain of confidentiality. And, it’s a shame as true victims could have been helped with these resources. Much more oversight is needed.

Tacoma employee’s role in custody battle leads to ethics case

Did the City of Tacoma’s top advocate for domestic violence victims act responsibly to protect a woman who reached out using false allegations to escape the escalating abuse of an estranged husband?

Or, did Gloria China Fortson, acting on unfounded abuse allegations, butt into a custody battle, overstep her authority and misuse city funds to help the woman break the law?

A city investigation last year found the latter, concluding that the longtime victims’ advocate broke city ethics rules in 2007 by helping a client leave the state with her children.

In the midst of a custody dispute, a judge had granted Keisha Jackson’s request to take her children to visit her ailing father in Florida with one condition: That she return within three weeks. Instead, Jackson – driving a van rented with city funds by Fortson – absconded with her children and was gone for more than seven months.

“I had no clue where they were,” said Kelvin Jackson, the ex-husband who had court-ordered visitation rights to his children. “It was the worst time in my life.”

Seven months later, after police in Florida finally caught up with Keisha Jackson, arrested her and sent her back to Washington, it was Fortson who was there to bail her out.

What’s more, after city officials received a complaint to look into Fortson’s conduct, the city’s investigator questioned why Fortson even intervened in a case that amounted to a bitter, if complicated, separation and custody battle. [Read more →]

Woman jailed for making threats … to herself

By LARRY WELBORN

THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

July 12, 2010 12:00 p.m.

SANTA ANA – A 25-year-old Santa Ana woman was sentenced to a year in jail Friday for sending hundreds of threatening text messages – to herself.

Jeanne Mundango Manunga’s criminal problem was that she blamed the harassing text messages on an ex-boyfriend and his sister-in-law, and reported them to the police.

They were arrested on false charges of making criminal threats and required to post thousands of dollars in bail. The sister-in-law was arrested three times, and spent some time in custody before she could gather enough funds to pay the bail on her third arrest.

A jury convicted Manunga of three felony counts of false imprisonment by fraud or deceit and two misdemeanor counts of making a false police report in May.

On Friday, Superior Court Judge Patrick H. Donahue sentenced Manunga to a year in jail, placed her on three years probation, told her to stay away from her ex-boyfriend and his sister-in-law, and ordered her to repay the victims about $50,000 in restitution.

Deputy District Attorney Mena Guirguis said that after Manunga and her former boyfriend stopped dating in 2008, she took out a pre-paid cell phone in his sister-in-law’s name, and started sending the threatening text messages to her regular cell phone.

Manunga then went to three different police departments on at least 19 occasions and claimed that the ex-boyfriend and the sister-in-law were behind the threats.

Her scheme was uncovered when the victims went to the phone store, talked with the salesman and learned that Manunga had bought the pre-paid phone under the sister-in-law’s name, Guirguis said.

They reported that information to a Costa Mesa police detective, but by then a third arrest warrant had been issued for the sister-in-law.

During a follow-up investigation, the detective discovered that most of the threatening text messages were sent when the pre-paid cell phone was in close proximity to Manjunga’s home or work, Guirguis said.

At the sentencing hearing Friday, the two victims said they were devastated about being arrested on false charges, and worried about clearing their names.

Contact the writer: lwelborn@ocregister.com or 714-834-3784

Christina Hoff Sommers

July 10, 2010 4:00 A.M.

Myths about domestic violence not only libel the vast majority of men; they also put truly at-risk women at greater risk.

Do brutal attacks on women by their husbands or boyfriends surge during the World Cup? According to a May 25 press release by England’s Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO), “cases of domestic abuse increase by nearly 30% on England match days.” The shocking 30 percent figure was from a study prepared and publicized by the British Home Office. Determined to stem the assaults, officials flooded pubs and the airwaves with graphic warnings. “Don’t let the World Cup leave its mark on you,” warned a poster distributed by the West Yorkshire Police. It showed the bare back of a cowering woman marked by bruises, cuts, and the imprint of a man’s shoe. News stories with titles such as “Women’s World Cup Abuse Nightmare” informed women that the games could uncover, “for the first time, a darker side to their partner.”

Many Americans will recall a similar scare surrounding Super Bowl Sunday in January 1993. Newspapers and television networks reported that the incidence of domestic violence increased by 40 percent during the annual football classic. Journalists were soon talking of a “day of dread” and referring to the game as the “abuse bowl.” Experts held forth on how male viewers, intoxicated and pumped up with testosterone, could “explode like mad linemen, leaving girlfriends, wives, and children beaten.” During its telecast, NBC ran a public-service announcement urging men to remain calm during the game and reminding them they could go to jail if they attacked their wives.

In that roiling sea of media credulity, Ken Ringle, a reporter at the Washington Post, did something no other reporter thought to do: He checked the facts. He quickly discovered that there was no evidence linking football and domestic violence. The source for the 40 percent factoid was a mistaken remark by an activist at a press conference in Pasadena, Calif. Today, what has come to be known as the Super Bull Sunday hoax, is a staple in discussions of urban legends. Could the World Cup Abuse Nightmare be a copycat fraud?

“A stunt based on misleading figures,” is the verdict of BBC legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg and producer Wesley Stephenson. They recently investigated the alleged link between the televised World Cup games and violence in the home for their weekly program Law in Action. On June 22 — day twelve of the 2010 World Cup — they aired the story. It included an interview with a prominent Cambridge University statistician, Sheila Bird, whom they had asked to review the Home Office study and its finding of a 30 percent increase in domestic abuse. She found it to be so amateurish and riddled with flaws that it could not be taken seriously. The 30 percent claim was based on a cherry-picked sample of police districts; it failed to correct for seasonal differences and essentially ignored match days that showed little or no increase in domestic violence. Professor Bird also noted that improved police practices can lead to increased reports of violence but do not necessarily indicate more violence. A telltale sign that something is amiss in the Home Office is that it also disseminates the claim that “one in four women will be a victim of domestic violence.” That impossibly high figure may be the result of a rather expansive definition of “domestic violence” — which includes not only physical and sexual violence but also emotional and “financial” abuse.

The BBC Law in Action program also unearthed a serious study by the London Metropolitan Police Authority that contradicted the “official” 30 percent finding. But thanks to a sensational media campaign sanctioned by the Home Office, the reasonable and credible findings of the Metropolitan Police went unnoticed. [Read more →]

What is a False Allegation Worth? Join our July 22 Lobbying Effort

The Violence Against Women Act spends $444 million each year. And VAWA-funded programs cause about 2 million false allegations. So each false DV allegation costs the American taxpayer $222 annually.

And now, President Obama is proposing to increase VAWA funding by a whopping $130 million! See: http://abusegate.mensnewsdaily.com/wp-admin/post.php?action=edit&post=1180

The next Washington DC lobbying event will be held Thursday, July 22, the day before the Family Preservation Festival begins. Our message will be plain and simple: Stop the false allegations of domestic violence!

If you are a parent, grandparent, or other family member who has seen the harmful effects of false allegations on children, you need to come!

To pre-register, send your name, email address, organization name, and cell phone number to: rohara@saveservices.org

An orientation teleconference will be held in advance. Deadline for pre-registration is July 12.

Americans Spend One-Half Billion Dollars Each Year to Defend Against False Allegations of Domestic Violence

Ever wonder how much money Americans spend to defend themselves against false and trivial claims of domestic violence? Here’s the answer, based on conservative assumptions:

1. Number of persons named each year in a false or trivial claim of domestic violence: 2 million (1)

2. Number of persons who decide to legally contest the allegation: 500,000

3. Number of persons who incur no legal expenses (pro se representation, public defender, or other legal aid): 250,000

4. Number of persons who incur out-of-pocket legal expenses: 250,000

5. Average legal costs (including court costs): $2,000

6. Total estimated legal costs of persons falsely accused of domestic violence: $500,000,000 (2)

Conclusion: Thanks to domestic violence laws that condone and promote false allegations of domestic violence, Americans spend an estimated $500 million in legal expenses each year.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

(1) Stop Abusive and Violent Environments. Without Restraint: The Use and Abuse of Domestic Restraining Orders. Rockville, MD 2010. http://www.saveservices.org/downloads/VAWA-Restraining-Orders

(2) Calculation: 250,000 persons X $2,000 = $500,000,000

To all of the good men out there who are still there for their sons and daughters, even after going through what they’ve been through.

I know of many fathers out there enjoying visitation on this Fathers Day, under the “guidance” of some “supervisor”, which in turn, charge them money for this “privilege”.

I personally know of many, and will continue to support them because nobody else will.

WADVPress would like to thank all of those who have reached out to us over the past three years, and during  this past week. With your help, we can truly make this a safer system for true victims out there and help to  create stronger evidence standards for the false allegations that are abundant in today’s family courts. These allegations drain support for these true victims. And, this is not just about only one provider. This is about all of those who exist for their own personal agendas, rather than support for victims, truth and justice.

One again, we thank all of those brave men and women who have come forward with their stories.

WADVPress

This past week, one of many complaints lodged against Doug Bartholomew came to a close. Despite the loose statutes and past history of selective enforcement of these minimum standards of WAC 388-60, The DSHS found Mr. Bartholomew behaved in a manner that placed DV victims  at risk. The evidence revealed that Doug Bartholomew had been releasing victim information to participants in his class. WADVPress has obtained further proof that this is not a random act, and in fact has been going on for years. Forthcoming complaints will be issued by those many who have been coming forward through this website.

These complaints will also include not only further allegations, but substantiated proof of identical activities, as well as other violations.

Despite being found at fault for placing victims at risk, the DSHS only saw fit to enforce a written warning which included the weak requirement that Mr. Bartholomew must only submit a plan for ensuring that all information provided by, or about, DV victims be kept confidential.

In other words, he must live up to the WAC standards that he had previously bragged about creating in the past. Nowhere is the sanction does it mention that Bartholomew must actually adhere to these written warnings. That’s how bad this process has become.

This is the value and consideration the DSHS has concerning victim safety. WADVPress, as a victims rights organization is disappointed by this favorable response to a clear and dangerous precedent they have established with this decision.  Public disclosure for past offenses along these lines with other DVPT programs have resulted in license revocation or worse. More of these past complaints along these lines will be published in the upcoming weeks, along with the exposure of the lack of procedures missing within the subjective DSHS WAC 388-60 complaint process.

May 31st, 2010 The DSHS Certification Expired for Bartholomew and Associates (aka Doug Bartholomew and Associates). DSHS Supervisor Meri Waterhouse confirmed last Thursday that DSHS will NOT renew Bartholomew’s required certification to Provide Domestic Violence Treatment in Washington State. Doug Bartholomew is out of the DV business for the time being, if DSHS follows WAC/RCW’s then Doug is out for good, but as incestuous as this industry is nothing is for sure. Maureen Kelly has once again proven to be unresponsive and almost obstructive to holding this provider accountable to WAC 388-60 (Washington Administrative Code governing DV Treatment), codes which Doug says he helped write. Keeping the pressure on DSHS with help from DOH and other victims of Doug Bartholomew we have made a small step to change the injustice all too common in King County. Allegations made against this provider include Disclosing confidential victim information (placing victim’s at risk), disclosing information provided by the victim, discrimination, unprofessional conduct, and the list goes on and on. Washington DV press has also learned that additional complaints have been filed against this provider and we are working on getting the details of these at this time.

Accountability for his actions are starting to be delivered to Doug Bartholomew aka “the enforcer”, his Teflon Man status is washing away and the upcoming days will bring much turmoil with the local DV Industry, court orders must be modified, all of the men in his treatment (and there are many see Payola at King County) must now find new providers go through the assessment process all over again at great expense, and possibly re-start treatment. Doug Bartholomew has known this day was coming for months if not a year, in fact several weeks ago this information was distributed to King County Family Court Services, Local city attorney’s offices, local law enforcement, and most probation officers and probation supervisors, they all knew months ago. In fact some such as Annette Pooley (King County Probation Officer) who took time to notify Doug of the upcoming suspension of his certification, although it is unclear if she notified anyone else at this point in time.

We are watching this provider closely, if he continues to provide treatment this week or brings in new staff to continue this program rest assured this will bring on a entire new round of complaints against all involved, in fact if he continues to provide treatment it likely will be a criminal offence per Washington Statute RCW 18.130), and charges will be brought against him.

If you have been or will be affected by this de-certification of Doug Bartholomew, whether you are a victim, participant, DV provider, contact this website for information and assistance to protect your rights and safety. It is likely Bartholomew has violated his own contract and your rights by not informing you of his upcoming de-certification.

The story from DSHS changes faster than it can reported. Yesterday we broke the news based on information obtained from Meri Waterhouse (DSHS Supervisor at Children’s) that Doug Bartholomew and Associates DVPT Treatment certification was on HOLD and would not be reissued, assuming a literal understanding of this statement it was clear that May 31st, 2010 would be the last day Doug Bartholomew would be able to provide DV treatment. Well that was the story yesterday, today the story from DSHS Supervisor and now the DSHS Legal department the Washington State AG office) that once again they changed course, According to documents delivered June 2nd, 2010 from Meri Waterhouse, the application for renewal of Certification for Doug Bartholomew and Associates has been DENIED, you may assume that this means he is out of the DV Treatment Business as we reported yesterday but when dealing with the DSHS nothing is ever as simple as it seems.

According to DSHS On May 21st, 2010 another complaint was filed against Doug Bartholomew and/or Doug Bartholomew and Associates and because of this complaint they extended the existing DSHS DV Treatment Certification for an additional 45 days. It is not clear at all why you would reward a Treatment Program for alleged bad behavior, but that is the case here. So Doug is on one hand no longer Certified and on the other still certified. It will require further review of the provided documents to figure this one out.

DSHS has yet to provide the RCW, WAC, or Policy they relied on when making this decision, but we will get this information and post it as soon as possible, so story from yesterday revised, He’s out! but he is still in.

One thing is crystal clear here, that is the DSHS earns their reputation each and every day, unanswered emails, voice mails, ever changing stories, preferential treatment to the select few. All those harmed by this provider will have to wait a little longer for equal time accountability.

Editor

King County is aware that DV Tretament programs are not working. This WSIPP report says as much with the powerful statement of:

Programs for Domestic-Violence Offenders
Education/Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment. Treatment programs for domestic violence offenders most frequently involve an educational component focusing on the historical oppression of women and cognitive-behavioral treatment emphasizing alternatives to violence. Treatment is commonly mandated by the court. Based on our review of nine rigorous evaluations, domestic violence treatment programs have yet, on average, to demonstrate reductions in recidivism.

Pretty powerful statement there. And, David Martin knows it. So what does he do? He goes data shopping. And what he came up with was the Moyer Report. In fact, he recruited R.P. Barnoski for this information. His bias is evident in a e-mail obtained through public disclosure last month. Here’s what he had to say:  “The Violent Score predicts violent felony recidivism  ok, (AUC=0.657) but not as well as one would like.”

There’s a couple of evident problems here. The first question out of my mouth would be, What would he “like” to see here? And the second is along a much larger scale. The Moyer report was generated originally as a response to two sexual offenses that wound up in murder in the State of Maine. These are sexual offenses that were related to a child abduction case. These are not DV crimes. And two, they were in the state of Maine, which is not a predicator for the State of Washington. Hence the word “shopping” is used here.  Strangely, as a result, this somehow becomes a “model” for David Martin to use as a “domestic violence” predication tool. I still wonder how that works? Apparently, just like in the State of Maine, one blurs the line between child abduction/sexual crime and morphs them into domestic violence law tools. Well, we all know what happens in the state of Maine. One can only hope things don’t get as out of control as that in Washington State. David Martin would be well served  to double check his information here.

Instead, he is setting himself up for failure, once again. Despite his memo in January addressing biased material, he violated his own mantra with the use of this report. I addressed this with an e-mail to all involved with this report on April 6th addressing the amount of bias in this report. Not one of them bothered to respond. Well, that’s not entirely true. They DID shut down public access to a public website that David Martin uses to disseminate this material. But, thankfully, I anticipated this and downloaded all of it before they were apparently too embarrassed to admit that this was all they could come up with.

So, what’s really happening here? I think it fairly obvious that the KC DV department is used to operating without question, until I started to probe their activities. Once exposed, they apparently and illegally deemed it necessary to violate the Public Records Act by restricting public access  to their activities. Never mind that many of these folks who have access to this site  are not government employees. Thrivers Action Group, WSCADV, DAWN and many other DV advocacy agencies are privy to this information, which begs once again to ask the question of “Why would they restrict access indiscriminately here?”

The answer is that they are embarrassed by the bias of this report, which is severely lacking in scientific basis, which is a repetitive mistake that MANY DV agencies continue to repeat nationwide. One doesn’t have to look far to verify this. For those who are just getting into this game, this is how it works.

An anonymous contributor has submitted this true story. Names have been withheld and will be exposed soon. This is further evidence from Thurston County, a county that has willfully violated the UCCJEA repeatedly and continues to do so.

Imagine this…..