We are designed, deep down in our genetic structure, to heal naturally from emotional injury, including trauma. Amidst all of the focus on modern invention and discovery, we are missing the oldest, and for most people the most powerful, route to emotional wellness: deep crying.
Crying is the most misunderstood aspect of human experience. If we could get this one right, we could get everything else right; our failure to grasp how crying works is in many ways the core of the difficulties faced by our species.
I read a book a few years ago about crying that went on for chapters and chapters about what a mystery there is about why people cry. But there is no mystery about tears; they exist to make us well. From the time we are born until we grow as old as the ancients, we cry to relieve our pain. There is no more effective pain-killer on the earth, and that’s what it’s there for.
But crying does much more than make us feel better; it literally heals grief, and does so more deeply and powerfully, and in a way that is much longer lasting, than any other emotional healing approach we know about. Tears literally wash our grief away.
So why are we putting so much energy into trying not to cry, and to trying to stop each other from crying? Here are a few of the reasons:
• We confuse the pain (the grief, for example) with the healing of the pain. We think that when someone is crying, that’s a sign of how much they are hurting. But it isn’t. It’s a sign that some of their hurt is getting out of them. We mistakenly believe that if we stop them from crying (by “cheering them up” for example, or by “getting their mind off of it”), that we have made them feel better. But we haven’t. We’ve stopped their healing process, and left them with all the same pain they started with, which will come up to hurt them another day soon… So remember, the sadness is the pain, and the crying is the healing of that pain.
• We’re afraid that people will feel sorry for us if we cry, and it doesn’t feel good to have people feeling sorry for us… So stop feeling sorry for people who are crying, and just love and support them, and hope that people will learn to do the same for you.
• We believe that crying makes people weak. But it doesn’t, it makes them strong, especially if they cry long and hard. (It’s true that hours and hours, or years and years for that matter, of shallow, hesitant, lonely, weepy crying can sap your power. But deep, gut-wrenching, cleansing crying will leave you with more strength than you started with.)
• We don't cry long enough and hard enough to discover its benefits. If you cry only a little bit, keeping it shallow and short, which is what most people do, you’ll come out thinking that crying doesn’t really do much. But watch how babies and young children cry; they cry with every fiber of their being, their heart just pours with grief as if the world were ending. And then – if no one makes fun of them for it or treats them unkindly – they keep it going for quite a while. And finally, they get the cleansing of their pain that they needed, and they are in high spirits and high energy for a long time afterward! Why are we denying children a healing process that obviously works so well? Just watch and see what happens when you love a child while he or she cries, and let them – in fact encourage them – to cry as long and hard as they need to. You will see what I’m describing.
• We’re afraid that we’ll get ridiculed for crying. And tragically, that is sometimes exactly what happens.
A study years back found that 80% of women and 70% of men said that they felt better after a “good” cry – meaning a deep and extended one. You will not find it easy to unearth any other healing approach that is successful with three-quarters of the population. Participants in that study also described numerous additional benefits, including that they found that they could think more clearly after crying, that they were capable of finding solutions to problems that previously had seemed impossible to overcome, and that they felt more loving and understanding towards other people.
And we are born to do it. No one has to teach us how to cry. It's in our biological programming.
Rather than being seen as a sidelight in the healing of trauma, we should come to recognize deep crying as the key.
This is the first round of a series of posts I am going to write about crying. In the weeks ahead, I will be answering questions such as: 1) How come some days I can cry my pain out and other days I can’t?, 2) But what if I’m one of those people who feel worse after crying, not better?, 3) How should I deal with my children’s crying?, 4) What should I say when a friend starts to cry?, 5) Does crying have to be a lonely activity?, and 6) How can I bring more crying -- and more deep emotional healing in general -- into my life?
In the mean time, I would love to have people write in with stories of transformative experiences you have had through crying.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Thursday, January 12, 2012
A JUDGE PULLS CUSTODY STRINGS BEHIND THE SCENES
Several glaring pieces of evidence indicate that Judge Jon Van Allsburg in Ottawa County, Michigan, is working in violation of court standards to influence the outcome of a case on which he is not the judge. The case involves his sister, Ann M., and has been covered before on this blog (see "Judge Hulsing Jails Mother Because Her Kids Refuse to See Their Father," November 11, 2011).
A few weeks ago Judge Hulsing wrote the following letter to the attorneys on Ann M.'s case: "I write to inform you of a comment that was made in my presence by a judicial colleague regarding a disputed fact in this case. The comment was, 'the kids want to see him [their father].' This comment was not solicited by me, or in response to any inquiry made by myself - as I made no inquiry. That comment was not considered, nor will it be considered, by the court in this case." The letter is not dated.
We can't know with certainty who the "judicial colleague" is that Judge Hulsing is referring to, but it is only reasonable to assume that it is Judge Van Allsburg, who happens to be Ann M.'s brother and has become an active campaigner against Ann M., speaking in favor of her ex-husband despite the children's statements to various witnesses that they are afraid of him.
I have obtained copies of numerous emails demonstrating Judge Van Allsburg's efforts to intervene in the case. An email he wrote to a relative on August 25, 2011 offers a crucial example: "I'm not surprised the kids are angry about the court ruling requiring parenting time - I don't think Ann would accept any other response from them, and they know it; therefore they're angry... Ann's anger and retaliation are the major issues at this point in the case. Doug's emotional instability and domestic violence are considered older history at this point..." From there he went on to explain what "the court has concluded" at this stage in the case. And at another point he writes, "Court employees with knowledge of this case already think Judge Hulsing is some kind of saint for the patience he's extended in this case."
There are several aspects of this email worth noting. First, Judge Van Allsburg is admitting that he is discussing the case with court employees, which appears to be an unethical effort to affect the case's outcome and strengthens the suspicion that he is the "judicial colleague" who spoke to Judge Hulsing. Ann M. has been requesting to have her case moved to a new jurisdiction because of her brother's efforts to affect the outcome of her case. With the combination of Judge Hulsing's letter and these emails by Judge Van Allsburg, there is plenty of reason to believe that there is inappropriate interference happening in the case. It isn't realistic (nor is it good ethical practice) for Judge Hulsing to claim that he won't be influenced by his colleague; Ann M.'s request for a change of venue should be granted.
Second, Judge Van Allsburg is acknowledging two major points:
1) That the father of Ann M.'s children's is a perpetrator of domestic violence, and
2) that the children are expressing their anger at being required to see him.
A mountain of research evidence has accumulated over the past twenty years showing how disturbing and harmful it is to kids to be subjected to violence towards their mothers by fathers or step-fathers. Many of these studies have also looked at the question of whether men who batter are more likely than other men to harm children directly, and the conclusion has always been yes. So it is both illogical and unscientific to conclude that these children's reluctance to visit unsupervised with their father is a product of poisoning by their mother. (And by the way, the email correspondence I obtained shows that other relatives don't share Judge Van Allsburg's conclusions at all.)
It is also important to mention that according to Ann, Judge Van Allsburg has not had contact with her two minor children -- the kids who are the subject of the litigation -- for over four years, so she does not understand how he could know what the children want. The fact that Ann's brother is siding with the alleged abuser is not at all uncommon in my experience; in fact, I wrote in considerable detail in my book Why Does He Do That? about why so many abusers succeed in recruiting one or more of the woman's relatives as allies.
Finally, I want to draw your attention to Judge Van Allsburg's statement that the court now considers the father's battering of Ann M. to be "older history." Regrettably, he may well be correct about this. Family courts commonly labor under the misconception that domestic violence perpetration has to be very recent to be relevant, despite all the research and clinical experience demonstrating that abusers do not change except through a long period of hard, serious work on themselves. The judiciary seems to be confusing domestic violence perpetration with a virus that will just go away over time. Note that in this case "the court" means Judge Hulsing, whose case this is currently; once again, Judge Van Allsburg is giving indications that he is in dialogue with Judge Hulsing about the case, since he is claiming to be reporting on Judge Hulsing's thinking.
Ann M.'s children are still refusing to see their father. She is therefore waiting in suspense to see if she is going to be jailed again, as a result of their entirely natural reactions to the serious and repeated violence that they say they have witnessed in the past.
A few weeks ago Judge Hulsing wrote the following letter to the attorneys on Ann M.'s case: "I write to inform you of a comment that was made in my presence by a judicial colleague regarding a disputed fact in this case. The comment was, 'the kids want to see him [their father].' This comment was not solicited by me, or in response to any inquiry made by myself - as I made no inquiry. That comment was not considered, nor will it be considered, by the court in this case." The letter is not dated.
We can't know with certainty who the "judicial colleague" is that Judge Hulsing is referring to, but it is only reasonable to assume that it is Judge Van Allsburg, who happens to be Ann M.'s brother and has become an active campaigner against Ann M., speaking in favor of her ex-husband despite the children's statements to various witnesses that they are afraid of him.
I have obtained copies of numerous emails demonstrating Judge Van Allsburg's efforts to intervene in the case. An email he wrote to a relative on August 25, 2011 offers a crucial example: "I'm not surprised the kids are angry about the court ruling requiring parenting time - I don't think Ann would accept any other response from them, and they know it; therefore they're angry... Ann's anger and retaliation are the major issues at this point in the case. Doug's emotional instability and domestic violence are considered older history at this point..." From there he went on to explain what "the court has concluded" at this stage in the case. And at another point he writes, "Court employees with knowledge of this case already think Judge Hulsing is some kind of saint for the patience he's extended in this case."
There are several aspects of this email worth noting. First, Judge Van Allsburg is admitting that he is discussing the case with court employees, which appears to be an unethical effort to affect the case's outcome and strengthens the suspicion that he is the "judicial colleague" who spoke to Judge Hulsing. Ann M. has been requesting to have her case moved to a new jurisdiction because of her brother's efforts to affect the outcome of her case. With the combination of Judge Hulsing's letter and these emails by Judge Van Allsburg, there is plenty of reason to believe that there is inappropriate interference happening in the case. It isn't realistic (nor is it good ethical practice) for Judge Hulsing to claim that he won't be influenced by his colleague; Ann M.'s request for a change of venue should be granted.
Second, Judge Van Allsburg is acknowledging two major points:
1) That the father of Ann M.'s children's is a perpetrator of domestic violence, and
2) that the children are expressing their anger at being required to see him.
A mountain of research evidence has accumulated over the past twenty years showing how disturbing and harmful it is to kids to be subjected to violence towards their mothers by fathers or step-fathers. Many of these studies have also looked at the question of whether men who batter are more likely than other men to harm children directly, and the conclusion has always been yes. So it is both illogical and unscientific to conclude that these children's reluctance to visit unsupervised with their father is a product of poisoning by their mother. (And by the way, the email correspondence I obtained shows that other relatives don't share Judge Van Allsburg's conclusions at all.)
It is also important to mention that according to Ann, Judge Van Allsburg has not had contact with her two minor children -- the kids who are the subject of the litigation -- for over four years, so she does not understand how he could know what the children want. The fact that Ann's brother is siding with the alleged abuser is not at all uncommon in my experience; in fact, I wrote in considerable detail in my book Why Does He Do That? about why so many abusers succeed in recruiting one or more of the woman's relatives as allies.
Finally, I want to draw your attention to Judge Van Allsburg's statement that the court now considers the father's battering of Ann M. to be "older history." Regrettably, he may well be correct about this. Family courts commonly labor under the misconception that domestic violence perpetration has to be very recent to be relevant, despite all the research and clinical experience demonstrating that abusers do not change except through a long period of hard, serious work on themselves. The judiciary seems to be confusing domestic violence perpetration with a virus that will just go away over time. Note that in this case "the court" means Judge Hulsing, whose case this is currently; once again, Judge Van Allsburg is giving indications that he is in dialogue with Judge Hulsing about the case, since he is claiming to be reporting on Judge Hulsing's thinking.
Ann M.'s children are still refusing to see their father. She is therefore waiting in suspense to see if she is going to be jailed again, as a result of their entirely natural reactions to the serious and repeated violence that they say they have witnessed in the past.
Monday, January 2, 2012
Am I the Abusive One?
Living with an angry and controlling partner can become a twisted world where bad is good, down is up, and wrong is right. Many women over the years have said to me, “My partner tells me that I’m the one abusing him. He has said it so many times that I start to wonder if he’s right. How do I know if it’s him or me?”
We can look at some ways to answer that question, but first I would like you to read a few concepts, taking a deep breath after each one so that you can absorb it.
One: You are not responsible for his behavior. You do not make him do things. His actions are his own choice.
Breathe.
Two: You deserve to be treated well even when you make mistakes, and even if you make them a lot.
Breathe.
Three: Setting firm, clear limits for how your partner is allowed to treat you is not the same thing as controlling him, and should not be called control.
Breathe.
Four: Choosing to not always put your partner’s needs ahead of your own does not constitute hurting him, wronging him, or being selfish. You have the right to give substantial priority to your own needs and desires.
Breathe.
Five: If you scream and yell once in a while that does not mean that you are crazy or abusive (though he may say so). It depends on whether you are yelling degrading things, whether your partner is intimidated by you, whether you are yelling to control him (versus yelling to resist his control), and many other factors.
Breathe.
These five concepts cover most of the situations where angry and controlling men try to turn the tables on their partners. If you work on digesting each point, he will have a much harder time convincing you that you are really the one with the problem.
But I haven’t really answered your question yet. You may still wonder, “But what if he really isn’t the destructive one, and I am? How would I know?” Here’s how:
* He’s kind to you most of the time, and he treats you reasonably decently even when he’s mad or upset with you.
* He takes responsibility for his own actions, not frequently blaming them on you or on stress or other excuses. And he doesn’t get scary.
* He has asked you repeatedly, and in a decent and thoughtful way (not in a stream of put-downs) to change specific behaviors of yours, and you seem to keep returning to doing those things he has asked you not to do.
* He has shown willingness to work on things you want him to work on, and has taken real steps regarding those issues (not just making promises).
If all of the above points are true then, okay, maybe you need to look at your treatment of him. But otherwise – and I’m willing to bet your situation falls into the “otherwise” category – your partner is doing what so many angry and controlling men do, which is turning things into their opposites in order to have even more weapons to hammer you with.
“I can be in a loving relationship with myself today, and trust my own wisdom and intuition. He is not going to sell me his view of what kind of person I am.”
We can look at some ways to answer that question, but first I would like you to read a few concepts, taking a deep breath after each one so that you can absorb it.
One: You are not responsible for his behavior. You do not make him do things. His actions are his own choice.
Breathe.
Two: You deserve to be treated well even when you make mistakes, and even if you make them a lot.
Breathe.
Three: Setting firm, clear limits for how your partner is allowed to treat you is not the same thing as controlling him, and should not be called control.
Breathe.
Four: Choosing to not always put your partner’s needs ahead of your own does not constitute hurting him, wronging him, or being selfish. You have the right to give substantial priority to your own needs and desires.
Breathe.
Five: If you scream and yell once in a while that does not mean that you are crazy or abusive (though he may say so). It depends on whether you are yelling degrading things, whether your partner is intimidated by you, whether you are yelling to control him (versus yelling to resist his control), and many other factors.
Breathe.
These five concepts cover most of the situations where angry and controlling men try to turn the tables on their partners. If you work on digesting each point, he will have a much harder time convincing you that you are really the one with the problem.
But I haven’t really answered your question yet. You may still wonder, “But what if he really isn’t the destructive one, and I am? How would I know?” Here’s how:
* He’s kind to you most of the time, and he treats you reasonably decently even when he’s mad or upset with you.
* He takes responsibility for his own actions, not frequently blaming them on you or on stress or other excuses. And he doesn’t get scary.
* He has asked you repeatedly, and in a decent and thoughtful way (not in a stream of put-downs) to change specific behaviors of yours, and you seem to keep returning to doing those things he has asked you not to do.
* He has shown willingness to work on things you want him to work on, and has taken real steps regarding those issues (not just making promises).
If all of the above points are true then, okay, maybe you need to look at your treatment of him. But otherwise – and I’m willing to bet your situation falls into the “otherwise” category – your partner is doing what so many angry and controlling men do, which is turning things into their opposites in order to have even more weapons to hammer you with.
“I can be in a loving relationship with myself today, and trust my own wisdom and intuition. He is not going to sell me his view of what kind of person I am.”
Friday, December 30, 2011
THE WENDI G. CASE: EVERYBODY SCRAMBLES TO COVER UP
The first and most important news: The children are scheduled to testify at a hearing on January 10th, but the father's attorney has filed papers requesting that the court prevent them from taking the stand. I have read this motion carefully. Bear in mind that the father has had the children in his custody since the middle of August, during which they have been permitted only supervised phone contact with their mother and one in-person visit of several hours, also supervised, over a span of three days in December. In other words the mother has had no chance to influence her children's testimony for nearly half a year, during which the father has had them 24/7 and has had ample opportunity to pressure them regarding their testimony. So why would he be the one trying to keep them off the stand?
The father is claiming in his filing that testifying would be too stressful for the children. I can't see how the stress of testifying could possibly be greater than the stress of not having the opportunity to tell the court the truth. If the child abuse allegations are true, the children would need to testify so that they can get to safety, and if they are untrue, the children would need to testify so that they can stop living in a swirl of controversy, tension, and suspicion. The only possible reason for keeping the children off the stand would be if the abuse allegations were frivolous, which they certainly are not; a specialized team of professionals at the Child Advocacy Center in Holland, Michigan did not find any reasons to disbelieve the children's statements following their interviews last summer. It is clearly urgent to establish what actually happened, and at this point there is no better way to do this than through the children's appearance on January 10th.
There are other people involved in this case who are creating the impression that they are scrambling to keep the facts buried. The police from the Crimes Against Children Unit of El Paso County, Colorado have filed motions, through their attorney and through the Colorado Springs City Attorney, to be allowed not to release their records and not to have their detectives deposed about their role in the investigation, claiming that their interest is to protect the children's privacy. In my 25 years of working in domestic violence I have never before heard of police attempting to shield their files and their personnel from a child sexual abuse court proceeding (or from any other type of court proceeding). The claim of protecting the children's privacy is frivolous; the judge can choose to seal records after they are reviewed by the lawyers and by the court if the children need that protection; in fact, the Colorado judge has reportedly already sealed one of the completed depositions on the case.
It seems much more likely, then, that what the police are out to protect is their own irresponsible or biased actions. This matter will be heard in court in Colorado on January 5th.
The children's current therapist in Colorado, who became their therapist at the father's suggestion, also filed a motion through her attorney to stop her deposition. However, the Colorado judge already denied her motion and ordered that deposition to go forward (but sealed it).
If the daughter's statements were misunderstood or were rehearsed, it would seem that the father and the professionals involved would all be eager to have that information come out, in order to prove his innocence. To be mistakenly accused of sexual abuse would be a horrible experience. So my concerns for these children's safety is increased when the father and these surrounding professionals are instead seeming eager to put a lid on information.
The Michigan judge who has been handling the family law proceedings, Judge Jon Hulsing, has important opportunities in the weeks ahead to do right by Wendi's children. He already made one important positive step, which was that he denied motions by the father to quash mother's subpoenas for depositions. (The professionals involved then filed their own motions to quash in Colorado, supported by the father, which I wrote about above).
Of concern, though, is that the Judge stated at the last hearing that he will not allow the transcript of the children's forensic interview last summer by the Child Advocacy Center to be entered as evidence, although no Michigan statute prevents the transcript from being entered. Judge Hulsing cited an Appeals Court case as his reason for blocking the transcript. I have read the case that appears to be the one he is referring to, and there is nothing in that ruling that would keep him from allowing the transcript in. That ruling does seem to give him permission (not obligation) to keep the transcript out if he chooses to, and if the children's version of events is adequately covered by other evidence that has been admitted, which so far it is clearly not. In other words, if Judge Hulsing were to both bar the transcript and bar the children from testifying, he would appear to be violating the very case law that he is citing to justify keeping the transcript out.
It is my hope that he will deny the motion to stop the children's testimony, and then revisit his mistaken decision to keep the transcripts of those earlier interviews out. (Those transcripts are important so that the children's statements at that time, when they were in their mother's care, can be compared to statements they make at trial after a long period in their father's care.)
The father is claiming in his filing that testifying would be too stressful for the children. I can't see how the stress of testifying could possibly be greater than the stress of not having the opportunity to tell the court the truth. If the child abuse allegations are true, the children would need to testify so that they can get to safety, and if they are untrue, the children would need to testify so that they can stop living in a swirl of controversy, tension, and suspicion. The only possible reason for keeping the children off the stand would be if the abuse allegations were frivolous, which they certainly are not; a specialized team of professionals at the Child Advocacy Center in Holland, Michigan did not find any reasons to disbelieve the children's statements following their interviews last summer. It is clearly urgent to establish what actually happened, and at this point there is no better way to do this than through the children's appearance on January 10th.
There are other people involved in this case who are creating the impression that they are scrambling to keep the facts buried. The police from the Crimes Against Children Unit of El Paso County, Colorado have filed motions, through their attorney and through the Colorado Springs City Attorney, to be allowed not to release their records and not to have their detectives deposed about their role in the investigation, claiming that their interest is to protect the children's privacy. In my 25 years of working in domestic violence I have never before heard of police attempting to shield their files and their personnel from a child sexual abuse court proceeding (or from any other type of court proceeding). The claim of protecting the children's privacy is frivolous; the judge can choose to seal records after they are reviewed by the lawyers and by the court if the children need that protection; in fact, the Colorado judge has reportedly already sealed one of the completed depositions on the case.
It seems much more likely, then, that what the police are out to protect is their own irresponsible or biased actions. This matter will be heard in court in Colorado on January 5th.
The children's current therapist in Colorado, who became their therapist at the father's suggestion, also filed a motion through her attorney to stop her deposition. However, the Colorado judge already denied her motion and ordered that deposition to go forward (but sealed it).
If the daughter's statements were misunderstood or were rehearsed, it would seem that the father and the professionals involved would all be eager to have that information come out, in order to prove his innocence. To be mistakenly accused of sexual abuse would be a horrible experience. So my concerns for these children's safety is increased when the father and these surrounding professionals are instead seeming eager to put a lid on information.
The Michigan judge who has been handling the family law proceedings, Judge Jon Hulsing, has important opportunities in the weeks ahead to do right by Wendi's children. He already made one important positive step, which was that he denied motions by the father to quash mother's subpoenas for depositions. (The professionals involved then filed their own motions to quash in Colorado, supported by the father, which I wrote about above).
Of concern, though, is that the Judge stated at the last hearing that he will not allow the transcript of the children's forensic interview last summer by the Child Advocacy Center to be entered as evidence, although no Michigan statute prevents the transcript from being entered. Judge Hulsing cited an Appeals Court case as his reason for blocking the transcript. I have read the case that appears to be the one he is referring to, and there is nothing in that ruling that would keep him from allowing the transcript in. That ruling does seem to give him permission (not obligation) to keep the transcript out if he chooses to, and if the children's version of events is adequately covered by other evidence that has been admitted, which so far it is clearly not. In other words, if Judge Hulsing were to both bar the transcript and bar the children from testifying, he would appear to be violating the very case law that he is citing to justify keeping the transcript out.
It is my hope that he will deny the motion to stop the children's testimony, and then revisit his mistaken decision to keep the transcripts of those earlier interviews out. (Those transcripts are important so that the children's statements at that time, when they were in their mother's care, can be compared to statements they make at trial after a long period in their father's care.)
Thursday, December 22, 2011
HEALING AT SOLSTICE TIME
Today is the shortest day of the year. I want to wish everyone a Happy Solstice, and share a few reflections about this time of the year.
First of all, the December holidays are a notoriously difficult time for people who are lonely or who are in painful life circumstances. Because of my work, I especially think at this time of year about women who are involved with men who are tearing them down; and I think about the fact that those men may be dragging children into the pattern of selfish and cruel behavior as well. I also think of those mothers who have been pulled away from their children by an abusive man and by the courts. So if you are a woman living in this kind of atmosphere, please know that you are in my thoughts and I'm wishing all the best for you and your children.
Next, I want to draw our attention to the power of Solstice as a healing time of the year. The period when the days are short and the nights are long has traditionally been viewed as a time for reflection, rest, and renewal. The spirit turns inward and enters a dormant state, making space for deep changes and new growth to take place. The mind calms but does not stop working; in fact, moving below the surface, as in a dream, it may find solutions to problems that our more active, conscious, deliberate kind of thinking was not able to solve. Yes, energy slows somewhat at this time of year, but more importantly it changes forms and works in different ways.
This time of the year more than any other we speak of peace, of kindness, of everyone deserving to be well. During these weeks, a woman whose partner mistreats her may think to herself, “Do I really deserve to be talked to in these horrible ways? Is it really right for someone to be so mean to me? Don’t I deserve kindness as much as anyone?”
One result of this inner shifting and reevaluating around Solstice is that a lot of women take significant relationship steps during the months of January. As the New Year comes in, and the darkness begins to ease, people feel ready to start on new initiatives, to take greater risks, and to reach for the life that they know they deserve.
So even for people who feel despair at this time of year, the potential for a hopeful turn of events is great. Our lives revolve around the sun, literally and figuratively.
Last, I will say a few words about history. The solstices (both winter and summer) used to be among the most revered times of the year spiritually. Women played a huge role in most cultures in shaping and carrying out the spiritual observances. But a few thousand years ago, as spiritual practices came to be more and more controlled by male-dominated religious institutions, women’s spiritual leadership and spiritual vision were pushed more and more to the side. Now in much of the world the solstices are barely commemorated; and in some communities, it is considered ungodly even to celebrate the solstices. Pressuring people to remove nature-based observances from their spiritual practices was one of the ways in which women’s power and insights were systematically undermined.
I see a close link between the individual woman who is trying to get her power back from an oppressive partner and the efforts of women in general to regain their full say in creating, defining, and carrying out our spiritual visions, beliefs, and ceremonies. Personal and spiritual empowerment are interwoven. So listen carefully at this time of year to what your inner voices are telling you on many levels, including about the spiritual truths that you hold most dear. To my male readers, I want to say that these next few weeks are an especially important time of the year for us to be respecting women’s thinking and supporting their independent leadership.
I wish you all a Solstice of light, freedom, power, and kindness. The year ahead holds great promise.
First of all, the December holidays are a notoriously difficult time for people who are lonely or who are in painful life circumstances. Because of my work, I especially think at this time of year about women who are involved with men who are tearing them down; and I think about the fact that those men may be dragging children into the pattern of selfish and cruel behavior as well. I also think of those mothers who have been pulled away from their children by an abusive man and by the courts. So if you are a woman living in this kind of atmosphere, please know that you are in my thoughts and I'm wishing all the best for you and your children.
Next, I want to draw our attention to the power of Solstice as a healing time of the year. The period when the days are short and the nights are long has traditionally been viewed as a time for reflection, rest, and renewal. The spirit turns inward and enters a dormant state, making space for deep changes and new growth to take place. The mind calms but does not stop working; in fact, moving below the surface, as in a dream, it may find solutions to problems that our more active, conscious, deliberate kind of thinking was not able to solve. Yes, energy slows somewhat at this time of year, but more importantly it changes forms and works in different ways.
This time of the year more than any other we speak of peace, of kindness, of everyone deserving to be well. During these weeks, a woman whose partner mistreats her may think to herself, “Do I really deserve to be talked to in these horrible ways? Is it really right for someone to be so mean to me? Don’t I deserve kindness as much as anyone?”
One result of this inner shifting and reevaluating around Solstice is that a lot of women take significant relationship steps during the months of January. As the New Year comes in, and the darkness begins to ease, people feel ready to start on new initiatives, to take greater risks, and to reach for the life that they know they deserve.
So even for people who feel despair at this time of year, the potential for a hopeful turn of events is great. Our lives revolve around the sun, literally and figuratively.
Last, I will say a few words about history. The solstices (both winter and summer) used to be among the most revered times of the year spiritually. Women played a huge role in most cultures in shaping and carrying out the spiritual observances. But a few thousand years ago, as spiritual practices came to be more and more controlled by male-dominated religious institutions, women’s spiritual leadership and spiritual vision were pushed more and more to the side. Now in much of the world the solstices are barely commemorated; and in some communities, it is considered ungodly even to celebrate the solstices. Pressuring people to remove nature-based observances from their spiritual practices was one of the ways in which women’s power and insights were systematically undermined.
I see a close link between the individual woman who is trying to get her power back from an oppressive partner and the efforts of women in general to regain their full say in creating, defining, and carrying out our spiritual visions, beliefs, and ceremonies. Personal and spiritual empowerment are interwoven. So listen carefully at this time of year to what your inner voices are telling you on many levels, including about the spiritual truths that you hold most dear. To my male readers, I want to say that these next few weeks are an especially important time of the year for us to be respecting women’s thinking and supporting their independent leadership.
I wish you all a Solstice of light, freedom, power, and kindness. The year ahead holds great promise.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Practicing Patience With Children
When an angry and controlling man lives in the house, his demeanor can set the tone for everybody. His outlook at home is focused on judgment, criticism, and demands. The message he sends constantly is, "You should be doing better! You aren't okay the way you are -- something is wrong with you! You need to be hammered into a better shape!" The mother has to focus huge energy on how to keep his hammer from falling on her -- meaning how to stay out of the way of his put-downs and snarling and aggression.
A woman living in this atmosphere is pushed, often without even realizing it, toward adopting an outlook on her children that is similar to the one the destructive man takes toward her. She can start to view her kids as bundles of problems and faults, as broken items that need to be fixed. She may spend the day yelling and criticizing. Part of why she may fall into this stance is that she sees how her partner reacts -- with ugliness -- every time the children inconvenience him or don't meet his image of perfect kids; so she starts to work doubly hard to mold her children into people that will please him.
If you see yourself in this picture, let me say that I get it that you are trying to do the right thing; you want to protect yourself and your children from harm. But trying to crunch the children down to keep them from upsetting their father can lead in some directions you don't intend, where the tyrannical man starts to creep inside you and make you become like him.
So it's important to balance your short-term urgency with an awareness of your long-term goals. Down the road, what is going to help the most to keep your kids safe from their father's ugly behaviors and attitudes?
1) Believing in their self-worth
2) Experiencing patience and forgiveness
3) Witnessing fairness in action
4) Feeling what it's like to have their voices heard and their opinions taken seriously
5) Learning to defend themselves and to stand up for themselves
Their father is not going to help them develop in these ways, unfortunately; in fact, he keeps modeling the exact opposite by tearing you down, and sometimes tearing them down too. So they are hungry for kindness, patience, and encouragement from you.
You can't be the perfect parent, especially when your partner is bringing so much toxicity into the environment. I don't want you berating yourself about the times when you lose your temper and yell at your kids, or about the days when you are too critical of them. But keep striving. Your kids are looking to you to be everything the opposite of what their father is: patient, supportive, forgiving, and affectionate (without being invasive). And they need you to set firm limits but without harshness.
Today, work to give them this quality of love to the fullest extent you can. You are hugely important to them, whether they allow you to see that or not.
"My children and I are on the same team. Whether today is a hard day or an easy one, I'm going to keep reminding myself how much my love and kindness mean to them."
A woman living in this atmosphere is pushed, often without even realizing it, toward adopting an outlook on her children that is similar to the one the destructive man takes toward her. She can start to view her kids as bundles of problems and faults, as broken items that need to be fixed. She may spend the day yelling and criticizing. Part of why she may fall into this stance is that she sees how her partner reacts -- with ugliness -- every time the children inconvenience him or don't meet his image of perfect kids; so she starts to work doubly hard to mold her children into people that will please him.
If you see yourself in this picture, let me say that I get it that you are trying to do the right thing; you want to protect yourself and your children from harm. But trying to crunch the children down to keep them from upsetting their father can lead in some directions you don't intend, where the tyrannical man starts to creep inside you and make you become like him.
So it's important to balance your short-term urgency with an awareness of your long-term goals. Down the road, what is going to help the most to keep your kids safe from their father's ugly behaviors and attitudes?
1) Believing in their self-worth
2) Experiencing patience and forgiveness
3) Witnessing fairness in action
4) Feeling what it's like to have their voices heard and their opinions taken seriously
5) Learning to defend themselves and to stand up for themselves
Their father is not going to help them develop in these ways, unfortunately; in fact, he keeps modeling the exact opposite by tearing you down, and sometimes tearing them down too. So they are hungry for kindness, patience, and encouragement from you.
You can't be the perfect parent, especially when your partner is bringing so much toxicity into the environment. I don't want you berating yourself about the times when you lose your temper and yell at your kids, or about the days when you are too critical of them. But keep striving. Your kids are looking to you to be everything the opposite of what their father is: patient, supportive, forgiving, and affectionate (without being invasive). And they need you to set firm limits but without harshness.
Today, work to give them this quality of love to the fullest extent you can. You are hugely important to them, whether they allow you to see that or not.
"My children and I are on the same team. Whether today is a hard day or an easy one, I'm going to keep reminding myself how much my love and kindness mean to them."
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Two Steps Forward and Two Steps Back on Wendi G.'s Case
For those of you who have been following the Wendi G. case, I’ll start with the good news: Wendi and her new husband will be seeing her children in a few days. (I have had the pleasure of meeting Wendi’s new husband and speaking with him, by the way; he is a lovely, caring man.) By court order, they are to have four hours with the children on Friday, seven hours Saturday, and six hours Sunday, with a supervisor selected by the children’s father. There is no indication in Judge Hulsing’s order that he or his staff contacted the father’s proposed supervisors to evaluate their appropriateness, and he gives no explanation for rejecting the mother’s proposed supervisors.
If you are not familiar with the case, the children are 10 and 12 years old and have spent the great majority of their lives in the primary care of their mother. They have not been permitted to see her since August 12th, despite how easy it would have been for the court to order and arrange supervised contact during that time. Wendi has never been accused of harming her children in any way; she is being denied visitation with them because she fled with them for three weeks over the summer after her daughter made disclosures to her mother that she was being sexually abused by her father. (I say this based not only on what Wendi has recounted to me, but also on a detailed forensic report I have read where the children were questioned by skilled forensic interviewers at a Child Advocacy Center ; the contents of that report make Wendi’s report of what her daughter said to her entirely credible). No one has presented any evidence that the children were harmed or frightened during their time of living in hiding with their mother, and they appear to have returned in good spirits from that time.
Given this context, in cannot be in the children’s psychological interests to be permitted so little (almost nonexistent) time with their mother.
Father and His Attorney Told an Easily Verifiable Lie to Restrict Mother-Child Contact
Here comes a critical point for today’s blog. Wendi was requesting four days with the children, Dec. 16-19, when she is able to travel to Colorado. In a document (which I have a copy of) prepared and signed by attorney Susan Vroegop of the firm Cunningham Dalman, P.C., Ms. Vroegop states, “The children will be in school on Friday the 16th, they will attend church on Sunday morning the 18th, and the 19th is another school day for them. Therefore, Eric proposes the parenting time referenced above.” The parenting schedule they requested, which the judge granted in its entirety, does not allow Wendi to see the children until 5:30 on Friday the 16th and does not permit her to see them at all on the 19th, based on these false claims about the school schedule.
As is easily verifiable on the school district’s website (see www.d49.org, click on “Parents and Students” and then click on “Academic Calendar 2011-2012”), the children have only a half day on the 16th and do not have school at all on the 19th. Visitation could easily have started earlier than 5:30 on the 16th and should have included a full day on the 19th.
Judge Jon Hulsing did not bother to check the veracity of Attorney Vroegop’s claims about the children’s school schedule, and simply gave father the requested schedule.
Eric C. may claim that this was an accident, and that he simply misremembered the school schedule. I would not find such a claim credible, but even if it were true, it would show a reckless disregard for the children’s need for time with their mother and show that he doesn’t consider it important – and that Attorney Vroegop does not consider it important—to make sure that the most crucially relevant assertion they made in their document for court was accurate. And it indicates an underlying goal to keep the children away from their mother.
The Potential for Intimidation of the Children Regarding Their Upcoming Testimony
The children, who are living in Colorado with their father, are scheduled to testify in court in Michigan on January 10th and/or January 12th. They will be there to testify to whether the daughter made the reports about child sexual abuse that the forensic team says she made, and that Wendi says she made. (The son was reportedly a witness to some of these disclosures.) It is striking that, other than this brief weekend visit in December -- the first time the children have seen their mother in four months -- the court does not intend to permit any more visitation with the children and their mother before the hearing. Father’s court papers explicitly stated that she should not see them again until after the hearing.
Thus the court is doing nothing to protect the children from intimidation by the alleged perpetrator prior to the hearing – they are living with him – but seems very concerned about possible intimidation by their mother despite the absence of any evidence that they have ever been harmed by her or afraid of her. The forensic team did not find any evidence that the children’s statements about the sexual abuse were rehearsed or coerced. How can the family court leave the children with so little face-to-face contact with their mother, and none whatever for three weeks prior to their testimony, while leaving the alleged perpetrator unlimited access day and night?
If the court were serious about finding out the truth, it would make sure that these children have more balanced contact between their two parents during the period prior to testifying, and that an unbiased professional, not chosen by either parent, be in place to meet with the children regularly in the weeks leading up to their testimony to make sure that no one is pressuring them about their statements.
As always, far more needs to be said about this case, so I will write more soon. I am also considering posting the entire forensic report (with the names changed), which I think would lead readers to be even more deeply concerned about Judge Hulsing’s rulings on this case. I know readers may also be eager for an update on Ann M.’s case as well, so I will also get a post up about her as soon as I can.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Call the Michigan Bar Association and complain that:
1) Attorney Susan Vroegop of Cunningham Dalman in Holland, MI, wrote and signed a letter that included falsehoods about the school schedule in Falcon School District 49 in Colorado in order to keep a woman from seeing her children on this coming December 19th.
2) Attorney Vroegop’s falsehoods were believed by Judge Hulsing and thus led to the mother being denied contact on December 19th.
The telephone number for the Michigan Bar is (517) 346-6300, or (800) 968-1442. Feel free to mention this blog (LundyBancroft.blogspot.com) in your call.
If you are not familiar with the case, the children are 10 and 12 years old and have spent the great majority of their lives in the primary care of their mother. They have not been permitted to see her since August 12th, despite how easy it would have been for the court to order and arrange supervised contact during that time. Wendi has never been accused of harming her children in any way; she is being denied visitation with them because she fled with them for three weeks over the summer after her daughter made disclosures to her mother that she was being sexually abused by her father. (I say this based not only on what Wendi has recounted to me, but also on a detailed forensic report I have read where the children were questioned by skilled forensic interviewers at a Child Advocacy Center ; the contents of that report make Wendi’s report of what her daughter said to her entirely credible). No one has presented any evidence that the children were harmed or frightened during their time of living in hiding with their mother, and they appear to have returned in good spirits from that time.
Given this context, in cannot be in the children’s psychological interests to be permitted so little (almost nonexistent) time with their mother.
Father and His Attorney Told an Easily Verifiable Lie to Restrict Mother-Child Contact
Here comes a critical point for today’s blog. Wendi was requesting four days with the children, Dec. 16-19, when she is able to travel to Colorado. In a document (which I have a copy of) prepared and signed by attorney Susan Vroegop of the firm Cunningham Dalman, P.C., Ms. Vroegop states, “The children will be in school on Friday the 16th, they will attend church on Sunday morning the 18th, and the 19th is another school day for them. Therefore, Eric proposes the parenting time referenced above.” The parenting schedule they requested, which the judge granted in its entirety, does not allow Wendi to see the children until 5:30 on Friday the 16th and does not permit her to see them at all on the 19th, based on these false claims about the school schedule.
As is easily verifiable on the school district’s website (see www.d49.org, click on “Parents and Students” and then click on “Academic Calendar 2011-2012”), the children have only a half day on the 16th and do not have school at all on the 19th. Visitation could easily have started earlier than 5:30 on the 16th and should have included a full day on the 19th.
Judge Jon Hulsing did not bother to check the veracity of Attorney Vroegop’s claims about the children’s school schedule, and simply gave father the requested schedule.
Eric C. may claim that this was an accident, and that he simply misremembered the school schedule. I would not find such a claim credible, but even if it were true, it would show a reckless disregard for the children’s need for time with their mother and show that he doesn’t consider it important – and that Attorney Vroegop does not consider it important—to make sure that the most crucially relevant assertion they made in their document for court was accurate. And it indicates an underlying goal to keep the children away from their mother.
The Potential for Intimidation of the Children Regarding Their Upcoming Testimony
The children, who are living in Colorado with their father, are scheduled to testify in court in Michigan on January 10th and/or January 12th. They will be there to testify to whether the daughter made the reports about child sexual abuse that the forensic team says she made, and that Wendi says she made. (The son was reportedly a witness to some of these disclosures.) It is striking that, other than this brief weekend visit in December -- the first time the children have seen their mother in four months -- the court does not intend to permit any more visitation with the children and their mother before the hearing. Father’s court papers explicitly stated that she should not see them again until after the hearing.
Thus the court is doing nothing to protect the children from intimidation by the alleged perpetrator prior to the hearing – they are living with him – but seems very concerned about possible intimidation by their mother despite the absence of any evidence that they have ever been harmed by her or afraid of her. The forensic team did not find any evidence that the children’s statements about the sexual abuse were rehearsed or coerced. How can the family court leave the children with so little face-to-face contact with their mother, and none whatever for three weeks prior to their testimony, while leaving the alleged perpetrator unlimited access day and night?
If the court were serious about finding out the truth, it would make sure that these children have more balanced contact between their two parents during the period prior to testifying, and that an unbiased professional, not chosen by either parent, be in place to meet with the children regularly in the weeks leading up to their testimony to make sure that no one is pressuring them about their statements.
As always, far more needs to be said about this case, so I will write more soon. I am also considering posting the entire forensic report (with the names changed), which I think would lead readers to be even more deeply concerned about Judge Hulsing’s rulings on this case. I know readers may also be eager for an update on Ann M.’s case as well, so I will also get a post up about her as soon as I can.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Call the Michigan Bar Association and complain that:
1) Attorney Susan Vroegop of Cunningham Dalman in Holland, MI, wrote and signed a letter that included falsehoods about the school schedule in Falcon School District 49 in Colorado in order to keep a woman from seeing her children on this coming December 19th.
2) Attorney Vroegop’s falsehoods were believed by Judge Hulsing and thus led to the mother being denied contact on December 19th.
The telephone number for the Michigan Bar is (517) 346-6300, or (800) 968-1442. Feel free to mention this blog (LundyBancroft.blogspot.com) in your call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)