In two articles on the “Motherlode” column at the New York Times web site, Lisa Belkin explores the tragedy of a child born out-of-wedlock. Strange that the term wedlock–being married–connotes a state of being “locked” into a relationship of “choice.” Ms. Belkin’s post gives credence to the abundance of women who believe that inviting a man over for a semen deposit is normal.

Increasingly, we are being introduced to a generation of savvy young women who know that they can get the fulfilling experience of motherhood without the emotional attachments required to maintain a relationship. And, BONUS*, they get a monthly child support check to supplement–or replace the need for–an income.

The story started out as a “Family Secret.” Today, illegitimate children are not the family secret. The blended family is the norm. Still, in the high-morality cloud, many transgressors perpetuate the stigma of infidelity without regards to the cost on the children born of these relationships.

While women have plentiful access to freedom of choice, a man is supposed to keep his nature behind his zipper. The moment he changes his pants, a woman is ready to receive the child she wanted. She is under no obligation to tell and he may not know until the first notice from a distant Child Support Enforcement Agency.

Putative Father registries are the standard. In a world where a man may never get a return phone call for a second date, a classified advertisement, perhaps thousands of miles away, suffices to prove notice that his child exists. The putated Father is then shackled for the gestation of his sperm into a human being by a woman who will make him pay for the next 20 years. Thankfully, there are DNA tests.

Although I was married for 9-years and have been separated for 10, I understand Mr. Brown’s plight. These children exist. They are part of you. They are your children. Yet, you are denied even the most basic intimacy, such as the name “Dad.”

Sara Brown calls this a family secret because it is too hard to explain to too many people who are too quick to make negative judgments against them.

They have two children of their own. Every Dad knows that two kids demand a lifetime of attention. And, in Sara’s story, it is impossible to forget about the older child who will never get the attention he deserves. These tragedies are played out a hundred times in every neighborhood across the U.S.

The NY Times got at least one statistic right. Forty percent of children in the U.S. are born to single mothers. Most of these kids are not up for adoption. Motherhood is too lucrative. It’s far too easy to marginalize a Dad. It is too politically correct to be a single mother. Ms. Belkin, in two articles, has not recognized that these phenomena represent a new, early-life profession for women.

In her articles, “Coming to Terms With a Family’s Secret” and “A Child You Didn’t Know You Had,” Lisa tries to tackle the issue that many of us know too intimately. Our children are not alien life forms. They are the continuation of us.

I am concerned about Ms. Brown’s comment that the child is “illegitimate.” Does that make the child illegal or irrelevant? The prejudice is a cultural meme that cannot be erased, though each of us must take responsibility for perpetuating harm against the child.

Ms. Brown’s account is far too prejudice for most men to face. I would rather walk away from her statements like “the women he did not respect but slept with anyway.” Where women frequent bars made up in fashion magazine style; from false eyelashes to push-up bras, there is a simplistic evolutionary goal–perpetuation of the species–about which men have no choice. The prejudice is an illogical social dogma against the nature of humanity directed at an arbitrary sex.

I admire Ms. Brown’s forthrightness, “I cry in the open,” she says. Then she commits a flaw of anger so grave that it had to have put a dent in her marriage, “he is a “deadbeat,” at least in an emotional sense.“

Nothing that she says after that convocation matters. Yet, she recognizes her double-bind, “The knee-jerk responses far outnumber the people faced with our unique situation.” I applaud her willingness to share the pain in her marriage. But, I cannot condone her mocking gaffe; so useless to those of us who have lost our children.

Still, I consider Sara one of the more enlightened mothers. One who can live with the challenge of a family made up of unequal and separated parts.

It is David who shows his true nature.

“The situation is so complex and convoluted that even after volumes of explanation, outsiders are still prone to oversimplification and the passing of judgment with idealistic morality. In the end, under some circumstances, the only way to remain functional is to hide things away; otherwise your life will be wasted by constantly having to defend yourself.“

Far from the deadbeat his wife labels him, he is a LiveBeat Dad.

David opens a window on what it is like to be a LiveBeat Dad, “Picture yourself in my shoes,” he starts. In 900 words, David lays open his heart to his son, to his children and to the world what it is like to be a Dad without the child.

In spite of Sara’s literary blunders, far too many Fathers recognize and empathize with the pain her family feels. All of us are one court paper away from the nightmare David and his son must live.

To find out more about Fathers who live apart from their children, visit my web site at “www.LiveBeatDad.com.”

In my last article, I discussed a very simplified version of different stereotypes of victims in DV relationships. While the DV industry presents a single unique ideology in which all victims are without culpability, it is possible to identify at least several different types of victims; each with their own motivations.

What is a Perp?

As with victims, there are several different types of perpetrators from the clueless to the downright manic. The DV industry presents all perpetrators as a single manic and aberrant stereotype to complement the blameless victim.

From an early age we teach our children to be aware of strangers, filling them with anxiety and dread about the bogey-man. Today, one only needs to listen to a victim’s advocate in a 30-second commercial to get the idea that perpetrators are around the corner, in your schools with your children, in the stores where you shop, in your work, and even in your home.

What the DV industry hides is that the perpetration and the perpetuation of DV is steeped in cultural habits of fear, hate, and anger. Their job is to get you to side with a victim, to imagine the faceless and nameless everyman as a violator, to increase your fear of violent acts, to foster your hate, and to get you to act out your anger.

The “fear, hate, anger” cycle is very effective at motivating politicians to create new laws that break-apart families and take away personal liberties. And the cycle is very effective at destroying personal relationships, families, communities, and a democratic society.

What the DV industry hides is the same thing that our culture denies: the root cause of domestic violence is the conflict inherent in every relationship. We are all responsible for our failure to respect, encourage, and love others.

Perpetrators, a perspective

Perpetrator ideologies are not adopted as much as they are co-opted. Often without knowing it, perps become the black-hat, the back-side of a coin, or bad person in a relationship. Perp ideologies fall into distinct classes:

• The naive fall into the “What just happened?” crowd;
• The “I know I did it. I’m sorry. Can we move on now?” are the acknowledgers who recognize that their relationship is in a constant state of change;
• The openly defiant (and shameful) “She deserved it” crowd are the poster perps for the DV industry, and
• The DV deniers do not believe that they are capable of DV even while they are committing acts of violence.

Perpetrators are real. Just pick up any newspaper on just about any day of the week and you’ll find a story or two about a man accosting a woman, two lovers duking it out, and occasionally, a woman who has abducted her children to keep them away from the frightening bogey-man she married.

What just Happened?

You come home from work and find a note from your wife of 10 years. She has taken the children on a short-vacation and is threatening to leave permanently unless you “change.” The wife and mother has planned her departure long before she wrote this “Dear John” letter. There have been no instances of domestic violence that you can identify for two or three years. Even that was caused when the wife refused to de-escalate, refused to accept any apology, and refused to look at the way her life was making the family life spin out of control. When blows were exchanged, you were not the first, but she jumped up and called you a perpetrator.

Most perps find themselves in this role. How did an argument over the butter dish turn into a smack-down with the person you love and the mother of the children you adore?

In some instances, two people living together ignore minor issues to such an extent that a focal point, an emotional moment, brings out the worst in both parties.

In some instances, it is the alleged victim who’s goal is to provoke a reaction on a trivial matter that has become lost or dead between the couple.

In some instances, the alleged victim is looking for a way out of the relationship and has chosen a particular weak spot–an emotional weakness in her partner–that she will exploit until he breaks. The break she wants is an act of domestic violence.

Most men who are pegged as perps fall into these traps. These men often take full responsibility for their action without knowing that the other person had an active–and sometimes intentional–role in creating the volatile situation.

Can we move on now?

Many of us were abused as children. To be abused as an adult is something we have come to expect is normal in relationships. “It didn’t have any long-term effect on me,” they say. They took the beating as a child. The adults should be able to accept the beating and move on.

This cultural lifestyle has been handed down for generations–maybe eons. It is fostered by the religious edict, “Spare the rod; spoil the child.” It is part of being human to be fallible and violent, as Cain was to Abel.

And it is a mistake.

When founded in religious fervor, the perp must come to realize the wisdom of “love thy neighbor” and the golden rule. When founded on a rationalization that “It’s always been done this way,” the perp must see how violence destroyed his father, himself, and will destroy his sons. The quote goes something like, “live by the sword; die by the sword.”

Nothing kills love, trust, and respect more than domestic violence. If we are all born with inalienable rights, then every human must be respected, every person must learn to trust, and each of us must find love to give to one another.

For a partner to ask the question, “Can we move on now?,” represents an acknowledgement of the fallibility of human relationships. Can we grow? Can we exceed our expectations? Can we stop fighting like our parents fought?

Change is most difficult for a person who has adopted the ideology of a culture, but it is possible. This perp is in a position to change.

The Defiant

In some ways the defiant perpetrator is, sociologically, the person most willing to present his or her fears, hates, and anger outward. While the defiant is in denial of his or her propensity for DV, he or she is most likely to announce, and even revel in, acts of violence against the people closest to him or her.

Nowhere is this more observable than with two people whose honeymoon is over; where love is a memory, and the comfort of company is sought vicariously through fan magazines, the internet or in real life in places other than the home. He’s a fat slob who didn’t bring me the moon. She’s not the sexy fox she used to be. Proud of their misery, they openly display their adversarial nature for bravado, contempt, or a cry for help. But, change is not on their agenda.

A husband and father may take on the role as the authoritarian figure in the household while the wife and mother takes on the role of the passive and permissive parent who will helicopter mom and never let her children out of her sight. Both these roles are filled with defiant, enabling, and increasing behaviors that can quickly lead to abuse against each other and against the children.

The children are not blind. They see the antagonism, the fights, the uncaring moments, and the slights. They learn that this is how men and women behave towards each other. They grow up being chastised, even hit, for spilt milk and–in turn–hit their siblings trying to do the “right thing” their parents have taught them.

In every relationship, people expect a difference of opinions. In far-too-many relationships, people instigate and escalate minor opinions into major family battles. This is the defiant. It’s repulsive and it make headlines. The DV industry likes to crucify this type.

DV Deniers

Parents, especially in the U.S., have a pathological obsession to raise their children in their own image. If they (in their own imagination) are the beauty queen, they dress up their 6-month-old girl for a competitive beauty pageant. If they are the champion, their children are forced to play sports 6-days a week and piano lessons on Sundays.

The parent’s stress is the child’s education. It is commonly accepted that children of abuse often become abusers. The reasons are more obvious than you might imagine. Children learn abuse from their parents. When a parent expresses fear, hate, and anger towards others, children learn that it is the “normal” way of treating people.

All around them, abusers find sympathizers with similar experiences who believe it is normal to treat their spouses, sons, and daughters without respect. Often, they speak of the abuse they have suffered. To every ally they complain, justify, and condone their worst behaviors towards the people closest to them; their family.

DV deniers are in denial of their humanity. They pass it on to their children who become just like them. Trust, respect, and love are conditional. Life is measured, not by who we are, but by everyone and everything else. Fathers and sons, mothers and daughters test themselves against superlatives and never succeed but cast blame easily. If they are not a success, they cannot be a failure; they must be a victim and society will owe them.

The DV denier is most likely to be the instigator and escalator of conflict in a relationship. They are the most likely to be aware of the conflict they create and the least likely to change their behavior before major events, like family disintegration, murder, suicide, and extreme family strife. They are the last to take responsibility for their actions.

The DV denier is the most potent of perpetrators because of their firmly held conviction that they are not the abuser; they are the victim.

Perpetrators Summary

This summary is not meant to be a diagnostic tool. These definitions hold no relevance outside the badly needed dialogue about DV.

It is my hope to put together some framework on the causes of the perpetration and perpetuation of DV within families. I hope that, with these definitions, for victims and perpetrators, the dialogue about domestic violence can move from fear mongering by an industry with vested interests to purposeful communication that reduces the incidence of domestic violence, reduces the incidence of false allegations, and increases family stability by maintaining both parents relationships with their children.

To find out more about divorce, separation, and the harmful effects on children, visit my web site at www.LiveBeatDad.com.

Getting a conversation about domestic violence going is tough. It’s tough because DV is a highly-charged, emotional issue for everyone that has ever been affected. And, whoever or wherever you are, there has been at least one person in your life that has been affected. Because of the emotional weight of the DV experience, most people will adopt an ideology.

Victims, friends, and families of victims tend to adopt a victim’s ideology. There is a very large and organized culture of victim advocates who promote a consistent ideology that simplifies DV, making it easy for neophytes and politicians, but placing the topic beyond dialogue.

On the other hand, perpetrators are often confused about their role. Perpetrator ideologies range from the majority “What just happened?” crowd, to the openly defiant (and shameful) “She deserved it” crowd.

Victims tend to treat all perpetrators the same and that makes for a big disconnect when trying to teach children and families about DV. In this article, we will look at the ideology of the victim.

Victim Ideology

As I noted, there is a loosely connected, huge, and well-funded organization of people promoting a 100% intolerance message for DV. As laudable as are the goals of the campaign, they recruit victims with ease anywhere that men and women gather freely. Their message is that DV is bad, perpetrators are everywhere, you should be afraid, and all perps must be brought to justice. The campaign has brought about laws in every state that allow any alleged victim to use DV, often without evidence, as grounds for legal action against that other alleged perpetrator.

With every well publicized incident, the ideologues of victimization tend to present women and children as victims. They consistently present men, boys, and military personnel as perpetrators. Even when men are wounded in a DV fracas, it is often his fault. They revel in the multiplicity of stories about the abuse of women by men. The indignation and the gossip spread the fear that furthers their cause.

The schemes are common and are often discussed on the web site, Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting.

The victim’s ideologue is active and outspoken. Having been the first to file court papers, such as a temporary restraining order, they are the first to be heard in the media. They bring these stories to the state legislature with petitions and public gatherings for stricter laws against perpetrators. Victims also want something in return for their pain and suffering. The ideology is that the perpetrator has taken something away and someone must pay.

Many times the victim is the only one to be heard because, after the point of filing, the issue is brought into the family courts where details are hidden behind a veil of secrecy. The secrecy of the Family Court is founded upon the notion that family matters are personal matters and that family members, who are victims, would be hurt further if details of the matter were made public.

Any person can go into the file-room in the Court House and ask for specific records. Parties and dispositions of Family Court proceedings can be looked up online at Ho-Ohiki (MSIE only). Yet, only a person with a lot of time on their hands could actually find something substantive for each and every case that gets marched through the courts.

In effect, the sheer volume of family court cases covers up the hidden world of domestic violence. The victim’s advocate is comfortable with this knowledge that the truth to so many cases will never be known and one of societies greatest ills will never be open to analysis.

Victim Classes

Some victims are completely justified in having everything they ask for. They never wanted to be victims and the crimes against them were unforeseen by any measure.

Yet, in spite of DV advocates attempts to class all victims together, others do not quite fall into the totally deserving category. There are at least three other categories of “victims.”
• We both were responsible for our troubles and I know it.
• I escalated such trivial matters. Why did it have to end this way? And,
• Every man has his limit and I got him.

Recently, evidence has come to suggest that there may be a fourth category; the “I can plan my life around this with child support and a better, more deserving husband later on.” See my 6/25/2008 article on “Pregnant Teen Pact Excludes Fathers” about 17 Gloucester High School Girls.

The success of the domestic violence industry relies on the tacit cooperation of these victim classes and the secrecy of the family court.

The Children of DV

Ideologies destroy the common ground that we need to begin the open discussion on DV that is sorely needed.

The most inflexible ideology of domestic violence is the one being perpetrated by an industry of people profiting from the break-up of families. They argue that children are adaptable and will cope, but the evidence is mounting that our children and, in turn, our society are suffering more than ever from our mistakes.

Stay Tuned

I plan to map out the ideologies of the perpetrator before I suggest a plan for a discussion. As I noted earlier, perps are a varied group of people who are 100% misunderstood by an intolerant system.

In the meantime, visit my web site at www.LiveBeatDad.com.

For many, the discourse on Domestic Violence stops dead when one person or the other finds out that you are a perpetrator or a victim. The discussion is polemically charged and dominated by ideologues who cannot acknowledge that a perpetrator can be a victim or that a victim could possibly be responsible for any part in the DV occurring.

This blog tries to strike a balance. My wish is to make it a forum where both sides can be heard, the facts examined and consensus arrived at concerning domestic violence in families. After all, while we are all fighting about it, our children are being hurt.

That said, I would like to return to the October 2009 letters in the Honolulu Weekly.

On October 14, Dr. Michael Bouchard wrote about DV with a firm belief that abusers must be held accountable, undergo treatment, and emphasizing that DV is a “good enough reason for ending a relationship.”

My October 28 letter focused on DV as a family problem that most of us have in one form or another. In addition, I mentioned the industry of people who are profiting from our inability to resolve family conflicts. By raising awareness of what DV is, we can learn to be good fathers and mothers and prevent the government from destroying our family bonds.

On November 11, Mr. Wegesend does not seem to understand that–from minor disagreements–there are throat’s grabbed, pregnant women kicked, stabbings and gunshots. Mr. Wegesend argues that, in such cases, families should be torn apart. He argues that change comes for too many after decades of abusive behavior. For the record, I don’t disagree.

From this exchange, facilitated by the Honolulu Weekly, I contacted Dr. Bouchard and Mr. Wegesend. My emails to Mr. Wegesend typify the combatants who fell together; such as Gandalf and the Balrog. The direction is ever downwards and there is only one survivor. In this regard, I am still falling. It is not my first time that–while falling–I have said, “I’m sorry.” I’m sorry that we cannot continue the discussion.

Dr. Bouchard has been a gentleman. He writes with the conviction of a person who–in his life–has lived through his family being torn apart by an abuser. He sent a link to an extended version of and a follow-up on the HW posted letter. Dr. Bouchard understands that DV is a highly charged issue “impacting many island families in a multitude of ways.”

The public discussion of DV should always be open to the simple fact that the best place to eliminate domestic violence is from within the family before family conflict turns into family violence. Before family members are cast as victims or perpetrators, every family member can mitigate, minimize, and eliminate domestic violence.

Along with a thoughtful response and links to his web site, Dr. Bouchard added “Should you find either of these letters from my website helpful to your cause I give you authorization to post them both on your blog.”

Better than posting, here is a link to Dr. Bouchard’s letters. In addition, I have posted our email conversation on my own web site. From www.LiveBeatDad.com, click on About LBDad, The Years, and 2009.

Thank you gentlemen for your support and the opportunity to make DV an open discussion.

At this point, I am inviting comments on “who is a victim” and “who is a perpetrator”. My perspective is that they are polarizing ideologies when applied in the context of families. What is your perspective?

Honolulu seems to have a lot of people who are quick to use fear to describe domestic violence. My recent article to the Honolulu Weekly responded to Dr. Michael Ra Bouchard who advocates that domestic violence is a good enough reason to end a relationship. I answered that tearing apart families is big business. Then, Pablo Wegesend responded to my article calling me angry and parroting many of the same fear tactics used by Dr. Bouchard.

The common misconception–shared by Dr. Bouchard and Mr. Wegesend–is that the DV industry wants you to think that the majority of DV cases are about life and death issues. But, if you are a female talking to a DV victim’s advocate, you will be told that any time a man uses a vulgar word in anger or disrespects her in any way, that is prosecutable as domestic violence.

This is the big divide DV industry counts on.

DV in families exists. Sibling rivalry is DV. A man who gets a box of chocolates rather than the diamond necklace she wanted is a perpetrator of DV. Nagging, yelling, corporal punishment of children; these all fall within the industry’s definition of domestic violence.

Mr. Wegesend is wrong when he says that we’re not talking about minor disagreements. It is always minor things that escalate out of control. That same DV victim’s advocate may even encourage a woman to start an argument and keep it up until he hits you. She will tell you “Every man has his limit.” And, she is absolutely right.

Domestic violence is a woman’s ticket out of an undesirable relationship, with the kids, with child support, maybe with alimony. Phony statistics telling us that women suffer financially after divorce never look at a short 5-year window, by which time most women are remarried and far better off financially than the man who has just lost 5 years of his kids’ childhood.

I can accuse these victims’ advocates because I am their victim. My family is their victim. I am not angry at Dr. Brouchard. I am angry at judges, lawyers, psychologists, domestic violence victims’ advocates, and ignorant people. I think more people should be mad at the money-sucking, man-jailing, family-breaking machine domestic violence has become.

Mr. Wegesend is wrong to say that families can’t change. I’m not talking about decades of an abusive relationship. I’m talking about centuries of pre-programmed behavior within families that sows the seeds of domestic violence in our communities.

Dr. Brouchard waxes nostalgic about “Healthy relationships resolve conflict in ways that leave both parties feeling good about themselves.” Yet, he doesn’t tell us how to get there. He doesn’t tell you that healthy relationships don’t always come naturally. People have to be taught basic principles then they have to make conscious changes in their lives to implement these principles.

The 12-week Family Education Training Center of Hawaii (efetch.org) is structured to help families change. I have seen families turn conflicted, angry households into functional families in one session. It’s not rocket science. The principles are fundamentally democratic; respect, encouragement, credibility, patience, cooperation, and the list goes on.

How we train children without knowing it. How to raise responsible children. How to avoid conflict. How to encourage cooperation. All these things are easy to learn and–with our kids and our sanity as powerful motivators–the lessons are easy to apply to just about every facet of our lives.

There will always be wars and rumors of wars in the world and in our own homes. Domestic violence can be reduced in our community. Naysayers and fear-mongers like Dr. Brouchard and Mr. Wegesend can learn more about how to effect change.

I invite them to come visit my web site, www.LiveBeatDad.com and to join me in the long overdue, open and honest discussion about domestic violence.

Can you imagine my expression when I opened the door on Sunday, October 25, 2009 to greet two of Honolulu’s finest. “Do you know a Ms. Mahtab Trueman?” “Uhhh,” I said. My brain was working overtime. Look, I’m not the brightest street light on the corner. But, I did realize that they were here to serve me with another “TEMPORARY” restraining order (TRO). The name was off.

There are two major things wrong with TROs.
1) They are usually filed “ex parte.”
2) They are never temporary.

EX-PARTE

Ex-parte is a legal term that, in domestic violence situations, permits an accuser to take away basic rights afforded by the Constitution of the United States for a limited period of time. TROs are placed on the fast-track for court hearing because the act of unilaterally finding a person guilty of violence against another is unconstitutional.

The accused, as legal theory would have it, is entitled to an expedient hearing, usually within two weeks of the ex-parte action.

The judges who grant ex-parte TROs are hamstrung, especially in jurisdictions such as Hawaii. An individual need only experience fear to have their ex-parte request granted. There are jurisdictions, such as New York, where a petitioner must cite a violation of law in order for an ex-parte petition to be granted.

Hawaii’s judges typically grant TROs when a petitioner simply declares that they are afraid. Better to be safe than sorry and, BTW, CYA. This is a sad state.

TEMPORARY

The term “Temporary Restraining Order” is misleading. In general, the word “temporary” means “lasting for a limited time.” Most of us think of temporary as in an interruption of electric service that is restored before the items in our freezer defrost and are spoiled.

In Hawaii, the Temporary in TRO may be granted for up to 25 years. In most cases, a TRO is granted for a three-year term. During this term, the restrained person may not have any contact with the accuser.

Today, my cell phone is set to contact every cell phone tower within its reach. If you know my cell phone number, you can find me, possibly within 100 yards. If a TRO were granted against me, my accuser could find me, call the police, and have me jailed for a violation of the TRO.

A restraining order is tool that can be used in many ways. An abuser can have her victim jailed. The accuser gets bragging rights that she got a TRO against him. It can also be used to convince a child that his or her father is bad. A restraining order is never temporary and it can negatively impact more than one person for a lifetime.

TRO, THE FIRST VOLLEY IN DIVORCE

I sat down for a meal at Big City Diner one day. I didn’t mean to eavesdrop, I had my own book and was reading, but two women in the next booth were talking story. Their voices became louder as they discussed–you guessed it–Temporary Restraining Orders.

One was pushing the other to get a TRO against her husband or boyfriend or something. Women’s advocates of all stripes hold to the belief that a TRO is the fastest way to be in control. It can be used in situations where there is real domestic violence, with hitting, screaming, vulgar name calling, etc. And, it can be used to get back at man simply for cutting off a woman’s access to a credit card.

Most often, it is used as a precursor to obtaining sole custody of the couple’s children. When a TRO is in place, the man has to leave the house but continue making the mortgage payment. He has to leave his kids but the argument will be used that he has had little contact and influence on the kid’s lives. He has to suffer humility and even job loss because the TRO is in place. Then, he needs to start making child support payments. All this can happen before the divorce action even begins.

There is a small fact that domestic violence victim’s advocates do not share and–though the thought makes me sick–they even count on it. TROs increase the incidence and severity of domestic violence.

A TRO can make it a crime to cross paths with the woman who bore his children. A TRO increases the emotional reaction of a man from the loss of children to losing his identity as a father, caretaker and provider. We’re talking David Banner to Hulk.

In divorce scenarios, most TROs are sustained for at least their three-year minimum.

MY TRO

Consider this statement, “My DV advocate, Mr. Holbrook’s ex-wife, is fearful for me and my family’s safety because he has had several Restraining Orders against him in family court and was on probation for a year for violating them.”

To my accuser, it does not matter that, 10 years ago, my ex-wife abducted our children, bought me a ticket to Hawaii and slapped me with a TRO based on false allegations of domestic violence.

It does not matter that the alleged violation was during the term of a second three-year term when I should have defended myself but for very bad counsel.

It does not matter that the alleged violation was for dropping my kids off at the wrong police station, a parenting matter that was illegally inserted into the TRO by stipulation.

It does not matter that there is no TRO in effect.

It does not matter that my ex-wife has since filed three frivolous TROs against me that were all denied.

My accuser even sounds like my ex-wife in her petition against me. “On May 5, 2009, Mr. Holbrook posted a blog on his website entitled, “State Sponsored Interstate Child Abduction Revealed” where he used my name and made seriously false claims about me and my family.”

I just reported what her DV advocate wrote. Personally, I don’t believe that Ms. Carlin lied about my accuser’s involvement in the child abduction. Further, her involvement with Ms. Carlin and a state-sponsored, interstate child abduction scheme puts her in the category of very abusive people.

I did not know my accuser before writing the article and after having been formally introduced to Ms. Trueman in the Hawaii District Court on Thursday, November 5th, I still did not recognize her. Six months from now, I’m just going to remember her as some crazy haole lady but whether I remember her face in a crowd… Like I said before, even a street light in the dark is not going to shine where shadows fall.

FEAR DRIVEN

I want to thank Ms. Trueman for allowing the TRO to be dismissed. I think she understood that the judge was being very patient with her and was trying to understand the fuel that motivated her ex-parte action against me.

Fear may be reason to request a TRO. For two weeks, I was not allowed to cross paths with a woman I did not know. But it does not have to be the reason to grant a TRO.

In my opinion, it was important for the judge to understand where the fear came from. In Ms. Trueman’s petition for TRO, she pointed directly to the statements of her domestic violence advocate, Dara Carlin, my ex-wife, as the source of her fears.

No less than three times, Ms. Trueman credits Ms. Carlin with escalating her own fear to the point where she filed this TRO against me.

Am I surprised? No.

Though, after meeting her, I suspect Ms. Trueman has the qualities of an abuser, I also suspect that she was a victim and a pawn.

Long ago, I understood that my ex-wife was highly intelligent. That’s one of the reasons I married her. It was my misfortune that her intelligence would be warped into a father-bashing nightmare for my children that she has drawn into the Halls of Hawaii’s State Capitol.

Abusers, even abusive women, seek each other out.

In Ms. Carlin’s fear campaign against domestic violence, she is driving fear into her clients to the point where her client files an abusive TRO against a man who does not know her. If a domestic violence advocate can coerce her clients into filing TROs against her ex-husband, can you imagine what she has done to her children?

CONFRONTATIONS PERMIT SOLUTIONS

Ms. Trueman has a few unique opportunities. But from her behavior in court, I fear that she may not be aware. Even after the judge explained the precariousness of her request, Ms. Trueman continued to make wild accusations that I obtained confidential records of attendees at the FETCH program and that I was in direct contact with her ex-husband.

She can’t support these allegations because they are false.

Some bone-head, or maybe more than one, is sending emails to Ms. Trueman containing language that is terroristic threatening under Hawaii law. It is no small matter and I suggested to Ms. Trueman that she pursue John Doe subpeona’s rather than looking to shut down my right to free speech.

Her first opportunity is to identify the perpetrators of violence against her.

Second, Ms. Trueman should be keenly aware of Ms. Carlin’s breach of ethical conduct. Once Ms. Carlin hit the send button on that email, it was in the wild. Ms. Carlin is more dangerous to her and her child than anyone she has dealt with so far.

Third, the email written by her domestic violence advocate–which unethically disclosed her personal information–describes a clandestine, government sponsored, interstate, child abduction program. Major bells should be going off in the Hawaii’s Congress. Domestic violence is already a crime. Answering that with another criminal activity does two things; 1) It violates the trust of every honest taxpaying citizen in our government and 2) It creates an emotional tsunami for the targeted parent. HELLO, Mr. B, B, Buh, HULK?

Whether Ms. Trueman sought out this program or was coerced into making bad choices, she has exacerbated problems in her own life.

People who complain that domestic violence is a problem often don’t seem to understand that it happens whenever two people are trapped in an escalating conflict. Their own personal egos fuel conflict and their children suffer life-long emotional scars.

People who escalate, like Ms. Trueman, may themselves be children of parents with conflicts. Studies have proven that people seek out others who have similar past experiences. The children of domestic violence families repeat domestic violence in their own lives over and over. She can stop.

And here is Ms. Trueman’s fourth opportunity. Break the cycle. Resolve the conflicts with your daughter’s father and bring her back into his life.

FINDING THE CURE FOR DV

My ex, Ms. Trueman and I have a single purpose; to reduce the incidence of domestic violence in our communities. Our methods are different.

Ms. Trueman chooses conflict and escalation. She chooses to fear. She chooses to give her personal power away and to capitulate to other abusers like Ms. Carlin.

Ms. Carlin chooses to manipulate others and distort the truth for her personal gain. She chooses to deny our children access to their father. She chooses to prey upon vulnerable people like Ms. Trueman.

I choose dialogue. I choose resolution. I choose the courage to stand up for what I believe. It takes two to tango. No one is perfect. And, our children need both parents.

The roots of DV run deep in our society yet there are ways to short-circuit our predispositions for conflict and anger.

Learning to respect one another is the first step. Learning the “think, feel, act” cycle and how to change thinking to implement responsible and respectful actions. Then, teaching these values in our families. While we can use the principles in our own lives, our children are going to live the values that we teach.

Programs like the Family Education Center of Hawaii (efetch.org) teach us that every family has the same problems with their kids. Every couple has the same kinds of problems that men and women have had through the ages.

Every community has the same kinds of problems across the United States and across the world. We can teach each other to reduce the incidence of domestic violence. We can show the world by our own successes.

I HAVE ONE WISH.

I want the best for Ms. Trueman’s child. That child is made up of one-half her mother and one-half her father. Hiding the child from her father is teaching her one of the worst possible ways of dealing with problems she will have to face her whole life.

I wish for Mr. and Ms. Trueman’s child to know and feel safe with both their parents.

This is the same wish I have for my children.

To find out more about domestic violence and unwarranted TROs, stop by my web site at www.LiveBeatDad.com.

There are cases of divorce and separation, in Hawaii, that do not make the “mainstream media,” the Honolulu Advertiser or Star Bulletin. But that wasn’t the case for Louis and Pam Jamila. The Honolulu Advertiser had published an article presenting Pam as the abused spouse for their domestic violence series “Crossing the Line.”

Don’t bother looking for the article, author Rob Perez, has pulled it from the internet.

While the children haven’t seen their mother in over two years, they are living contently with Louis, a caring and loving father who never gave up against the multiple false allegations of domestic violence and sexual abuse.

Louis knows that this is not the best possible outcomes. He wants the children to regain contact with their mother, but she’s off somewhere on Big Island -no phone -no address, just gone out of their lives. The kids talk and it’s the pain in their voices that gives Louis the hope that someday the mother will return.

On September 28, 2009, there were findings of fact and conclusions of law filed in Louis’ case that is now on appeal. Yes, Appeal. The mother, represented pro-bono by anti-family advocate, Lynne Jenkins McGivern, filed for an appeal in this case where men guilty of far lesser crimes of domestic violence have served jail time.

Louis is 51 years young. He has two natural daughters and one not-quite adopted daughter living in Kailua in pure Ohana style.

Years ago, Pam got weird. Was it alcohol, drugs, an obsessive connection to the internet? None of that matters now. What happened was Pam’s daughters went through hell while Louis worked two and three jobs to keep the family solvent.

A tired and exhausted, but sober and caring father, Louis would spend precious moments in the company of his daughters at his family home after a long day at work and fall asleep where-ever he was.

During their break-up, Pam took the opportunity to report these incidents to Child Protective Services. Two CPS investigations cleared Louis of any threat or intent to harm the children.

When this tactic did not work as planned, Pam filed for a Temporary Restraining Order. Remember, in the State of Hawaii there does not need to be any incident of domestic violence; the fear of the alleged domestic violence victim is enough to grant the TRO. Immediately, Louis was ejected from his home with court-ordered visitation between his children.

The Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (FOF/COL) filed in this case describe a “troubled, contentious relationship” between the mother and her three children. Alcohol, internet chat rooms, and hostile, unpredictable, and violent behavior became the norm. Verbal abuse and physical punishment were common.

Note that, in many families, when the state removes the father, the mother has unbridled power. Fathers do matter.

DJ, the oldest, was punched while sleeping. AJ’s cellphone use caused a Christmas rage from which the mother could not calm herself. Numerous 911 calls were made during Louis’ absence.

Inexplicably in October 2007, Pam left the family residence and her children for three weeks. The children dispute that the mother tried to contact them at any point during this unannounced sojourn.

After her return, AJ, the youngest, went to live with the grandparents and KJ became the focus of Pam’s emotional and physical violence. KJ was ejected from the family home on more than several occasions and was ordered to call her father to pick her up.

Louis–while his heart was breaking–knew the purpose of Pam’s actions. She was trying to get him to violate the terms of the TRO. She wanted her children’s father in jail.

During the course of the volatile actions, the Court’s Custody Investigation Unit awarded temporary and sole legal custody to Louis.

After this decision, Pam “abruptly moved out of the family residence in Kailua and moved to Hilo with her vehicle.” No one knew.

Still, to this day, no one knows where Pam lives, who she works for or what she does for a living. Her $100 per month child support payments are now delinquent from December 2008. A man would be at risk of losing his license to drive or engage in business. These penalties do not correlate to the crime and, though irrelevant, will mar a person for life.

The children have been hurt beyond their wildest imaginations by their mother. Even though it has been more than two years, they want no contact or visitation. Louis knows this is not healthy. These children need both their parents. He wonders what the future will bring. He will never accept his ex-wife back into his life, but he yearns for the children to know the wonderful woman he married in 1995.

Louis is now dealing with $100,000 in court costs and, occasionally, the mother who still claims the children for Head of Household purposes on her annual tax return. The court found that Louis needs to improve his parenting with regards to the children’s individual counseling and attendance at school.

Every father wants the best for his children. I’m convinced that Louis is doing his best.

If you know Pam and if you think she has improved, let her know, the kids do not want more abuse. They don’t want to live in fear of the woman she became. They want to know the Mom they had.

Time is critical. Life is short.

Contact me if you know Pam. Respond to this article. Visit www.LiveBeatDad.com. Or, email to penumbrook at yahoo.com.

I appreciate your patience. I have prevailed against the latest TRO, my sixth, against me. This time, it did not come directly from my ex-spouse, the hater of men and manhood. Instead it came from one of her clients.

Yes. I agree. THat’s weird! Ya think? Not yet. I will write about this latest indignation and expose of hurt upon my children. But not yet. I have the story of another I would like to tell.

In the meantime, look for my latest book review, “Children Held Hostage,” on my web site. www.LiveBeatDad.com.

I wish I could pay tribute to all the children who have lost their mother, father or spiritual guide. Jen in the Dark Crystal, Luke in Star Wars, Harry Potter, Nemo, and Frodo (yes, he lost an uncle, but an important one).

Each of these children, younger than the age of “majority,” have to strike out on an adventure they never asked for. They have a challenge in front of them that they never wanted face. In the process, they grow and perform deeds of heroism beyond our imaginations, yet, exactly the way we would have done it if we were a child once again.

My favorite author, Joseph Campbell, talks about the Hero’s Journey. He accurately described the archetypes we know from the Star Wars series.

Does it seem so far fetched that our children are these heroes, too?

Every child has, within them, the ability to surpass the achievements of their parents in any or every category. A child may be the artist or musician we could never be. They may be the architect or engineer. They may be the medical professional who saves lives, one at a time, or by the hundreds of thousands.

I believe in my children. I want you to believe in yours.

Look in their eyes. Surprise them. Hug them. Play outside. Sing to them. Laugh with them. We never know when we are going to be the ones taken from their lives.

If you are a parent and have been removed from your child’s life without their permission, your child may be on the Hero’s journey. A hand-written letter, telling them about your day, may give them the strength they need to find themselves. Don’t wait another moment.

Hawaii’s saddest domestic violence stories occur all too frequently. For Randal K. Randrup, it is easy to see that the Honolulu Advertiser’s story, Big Island man sentenced to two years for killing son, started long before this 61-year-old father shot his 27-year-old son, Chris Randrup, to death in Puna, Big Island.

Randrup, as he prefers to be called, pleaded guilty to manslaughter in August this year, though he told the court that he was acting in self-defense because his son was beating him. Two years in prison, ten on probation.

As with any family, the story is complex.

Chris’ mother, and aunt and a close friend were permitted to address the court and drew Third Circuit Judge Glenn Hara’s rebuke, perhaps not only for previously unapproved pictures that were eventually admitted. But, perhaps from their unrelenting anger and complete absence of forgiveness, “This evil man killed my son, his own son, in such an obscene manner,” said the mother.

In most “father murders family stories,” the father is not rational, not sane, and something or someone has pushed him beyond an emotional threshold that no man should ever have to bear.

Francis Alcain, Randrup’s attorney pointed to the agony behind the anger and fear that led him to the tragic actions of taking his son’s life.

“On the surface, the relationship that Mr. Randrup had with his son, it appeared to be relatively calm. But little tell-tale signs were present. Mr. Randrup would go to work with an injury one day that he didn’t have before, or a cut, or a bruise, or pain and fear from a vicious kick over a dog. Little things. But the father-son relationship was marred by a pattern of abuse — violent, explosive abuse that continued to escalate in severity and concern.”

When the family does not get help, domestic violence does not go away. It just increases over time.

And Randrup took the time to make his own statement.

“Your honor, this is the worst thing that could ever have happened. I’m so sorry it occurred. I could go on and on, but believe me, I never in my wildest dreams would imagine this occurring. It’s so sad.”

It is easy to see, even from the written story, Randrup’s apology and contrition are sincere.

Yet, even from the bleachers, Chris’ mother could not help interrupting the court with disrespectful harrumphing and clapping. Here too, it is easy to see who were Chris’ enablers and silent partners in the abuse that was occurring within this family against this father.

Judge Hara tried his best to be as compassionate as he could. Before Randrup’s confession, the state had barely any evidence to go on.

“If your trial had proceeded without the confessions, there was a likelihood that without the confessions a jury might acquit you. You would have been completely absolved of this crime… So, Mr. Randrup, this is something you will have to live with for the rest of your life. It will be a burden on you for the rest of your life.”

That Randrup confessed speaks loudly to his own sorrow.

Yet, still, family and friends continued with their own brand of domestic violence and disrespect. Phillip Kissinger, a friend of Chris’, stood up after the sentence was read and said “Your honor, could you explain why you’re giving such a short sentence?“

And even as they were leaving the courtroom, Ellen DesJardins, a friend of a cousin said, “That murderer will be back on the streets in less than two years. Watch out, everybody. He did it to his own son. He’ll definitely do it to yours.”

I can see the spittle ejecting from her mouth at the words. With friends like this, you can see that this whole community will be embroiled in domestic violence. And it will escalate. And more people will become victims.

On this last day of Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I just want to repeat the message that there is a way out of the escalating conflict that leads to tragedy for hundreds of thousands of families every year. The Family Education Training Center of Hawaii, at the University of Hawaii Manoa Campus (efetcg.org), has helped hundreds of young families learn new parenting skills based on respect for others in the family, the community and society. Reading material and online classes can be found at activeparenting.com.

No family that endures domestic violence ever has a winner or a loser. We are all losers. Some of us lose visitation. Some of us lose our lives.

I can’t sympathize with a killer, but I can understand the pain of being abused. To find out more about ways to reduce domestic violence in your life, visit my web site at “www.LiveBeatDad.com.”