Because Cut is a body builder and Toni who joins her husband at the gym, my girlfriends and I tease them that their baby is going to come flexing muscles and every time the baby moves its doing sit-ups and squats.

Personally I am excited for their anticaption and happiness to be a new family and at the same time am sad that only few months after the baby is born they will be leaving for Boston where Toni will be working on her Masters.

At least I will have a couple months to be with them before they leave and of course visiting them in Boston means another great excuse for me to travel.  :)

I can't wait to meet you Baby Dye...I'll be waiting with some barbells for ya. ;)

Our session began at Tunnel Park in Holland, MI, where we hung out on the beach and later watched the sunset.

It was relaxing and such a nice way to enjoy a little Indian Summer here in Michigan.

We later went back to my studio to shoot some more intimate photographs with her expected newborn.

I can't wait to meet you, Baby Daza!!

I remember my mother holding me on her lap as we sat in her large rocking chair and listening to her tell me stories about her life, and her faith. These were special times, and I treasure them. Mother planted the seeds of the Gospel deep into my heart. For many years my mother was raising three small children on her own. She went through a divorce when I was age 5, my sister age 2 and my brother a baby. She was blessed to remarry a good man when I was 10 years old. However, during those five years of struggle, Mom held our little family together with a strength beyond her own.

Mom made sure that every Monday night was Family Night where we would study scriptures, play games, tell stories, or go on bike rides & walks, (and of course, always have treats!). She taught us the commandments of God, and she took us to church every Sunday. We knelt in prayer every day together in the morning and in the night. She also took the time to kneel at our bedsides and teach us how to pray, and would often listen to our prayers or pray with us individually. I am forever in debt to her selfless service and tireless teaching during those difficult days. I know now just how tired she must have been every day attending college, worrying over finances, trying to find small work projects, and facing hours of homework each night after her three children were finally asleep. Yet Mom always placed her role as mother, teacher and spiritual guide to her children as her first priority. We lived in meager student housing during those years on the University campus. Mother had to take food stamps and church assistance. We learned that this was a blessing from the Lord which could help us temporarily in order to become self-sufficient. As poor as we must have been then, I always felt rich. We had a cozy apartment to live in, food to eat, and clean clothing to wear. Most important, I knew my mother loved me, and we had a church family who also loved and supported me. I was always treated as someone important and valued. Our home was joyful, and blessed.

We had two large and beautifully illustrated volumes of scripture in our home that I treasured. They were two of my favorite books. I would put one in my lap and turn the pages slowly and carefully. One book was an illustrated Bible and the other an illustrated Book of Mormon. Sadly, I'm quite sure those particular volumes are out of print by now. They were absolutely beautiful. The drawings were masterful and captured the imagination. I never tired of hearing my mother read the stories, and as I grew older, I was able to practice my reading skills with the book. I recall most of the pictures even now. I loved the page of Noah standing on a large pile of wood with outstretched arms warning the people that a flood was coming and that they needed to repent of their sins. The large skeleton of his ship being constructed could be seen in the background sitting in the middle of a dry desert. The crowd of people below him were laughing and mocking and pointing at him indicating that he was a crazy man. On the next page, the animals were being herded onto the boat two by two, while dark storm clouds were gathering in the background.

Next came the illustration of Noah's boat surrounded by flood waters, lightning was slashing the dark sky, and people could be seen huddled on rocks facing their imminent doom as the waters were rising, with nowhere to go. Many bodies were already in the water desperately trying to swim towards the boat...but it was too late. The doors were closed. The people had procrastinated their repentance and they had mocked the prophets warning. The day of reckoning had arrived as they were told. As I studied that picture, I would imagine the cold water rising around them, sucking them slowly down. I would then imagine Noah and his family and the animals warm and safe and dry inside the boat which God had blessed them with. I decided that Noah's group must have been very sad to hear the crying of the people outside. But the boat was shut up tight against the storm, and it could not be opened. I realized very young that in order to be safe, it was critical to listen to God's prophets, and take their warnings seriously!

In the Illustrated Book of Mormon there were detailed pen and ink drawings of each character. Lehi, Sariah, Nephi and the rest of their family were depicted journeying from Jerusalem. There was the prophet Abinadi, who sacrificed his life because he would not deny Christ. The righteous King Benjamin who taught his people to serve each other was shown working alongside them in the fields. There was the prophet Alma who baptized hundreds, and rescued them from a wicked king, and The Sons of Mosiah who embarked on a courageous mission to their enemies. There was wise King Lamoni, and the faithful servant woman Abish...along with hundreds of others!

One of my favorite drawings was of the prophet Mormon, who tirelessly compiled all of the records kept over the centuries, and carefully engraved an abridgement upon thin sheets of metal bound together, often called the 'golden plates'. Before Mormon's death, he entrusted everything to his son. 

The name of Mormon's son was Moroni (always illustrated very muscular). He finished engraving the last pages of the book with his own words of faith and prophecy. After watching all of his people die in a great war, he wandered alone, hiding from the enemy. He saw in vision, our generation. He knew that we would be the ones to read the book which his father had abridged, and he was carrying and protecting. He wrote a promise to all who would read the book someday, that if they studied it prayerfully, they would know its truth. In approx. 421 A.D. Moroni buried the plates deep in the ground of a hillside called Cumorah.

 On Sept 21, 1823 Moroni would return as an angel to visit a boy named Joseph Smith, who was the one God had chosen to translate the ancient plates into English. (Read Joseph's personal account) Moroni gave the plates to Joseph in 1827. The book was published in 1830. To honor Moroni's father, who had devoted his entire life to the abridgement of this extensive ancient scripture, it was titled The Book of Mormon.

Within my family's illustrated copy of this book, there were a few color paintings included, which were very beautiful by artists such as Arnold Freiberg, and Minerva Teichert. The crowning page of the book was the illustration of Jesus coming to visit the people of the Americas. He is shown decending from the sky within a bright light, and the people looking up in wonder. They had survived 3 days of complete darkness and terrible storms and earthquakes, which was the sign that Christ had been crucified in Jerusalem. Now, as a Resurrected being, he was visiting his people on the American continent as promised for centuries. I would gaze at this picture over and over again. I imagined the fear that the mothers and fathers and children had endured during the earthquakes, and three days of darkness - which was described as so thick no-one could even see their hand in front of their face. Now, the hope and joy they felt at this moment. Jesus was there in person! He decended to earth, and he showed them the marks of the wounds in his hands and feet and side. He then called each person to come forward and touch these marks, and to be embraced individually in his arms. They bathed his feet with their tears, and he blessed them and comforted them. He healed their sick and injured, he taught them his gospel, and he organized his church.

On another page was a picture of all the little children being surrounded by bright angels, with Jesus in the middle cradling them in his arms and at his side. I imagined what it must have been like to be there, surrounded by those angels and to have Jesus holding me. My heart filled with joy. I knew that someday, I would also be embraced by Jesus. These precious books held the promise that our Lord, Savior and Redeemer will come to earth again.

The first time I read the Book of Mormon on my very own from cover to cover was when I was 7 years old. My Primary teacher at church gave me my very own copy, and she had signed her testimony inside the cover. She asked me to try to read it before my baptism day, which would be once I turned 8 years old. I remember the excitement I felt holding my very own copy in my hands. I eagerly started reading it. I enjoyed reporting to her each week what page I was on, and what story I was reading about. She would smile and give words of encouragement, or offer her thoughts. At that young age, I certainly did not understand all of what I was reading - however I did understand the importance of the book. I felt great love for the prophets who had written it anciently just for me to be able to read hundreds of years later. I had great love for the prophet Joseph Smith for sacrificing so much to translate it, and eventually enduring persecution and murder. I loved the stories. I felt the truth of the book. As I have grown and matured and re-read this book's pages many times the importance, love and gratitude has grown, strengthened and deepened.

I had the opportunity to read The Holy Bible continuously through my life, and I read it from cover to cover during my High School years. Then, I did an intensive study-abroad program to the Holy Land during my freshman year in college. I had read this book of scripture many times throughout my life, however this time was an intensely powerful experience. There is nothing like reading about an event while sitting exactly where it happened! I literally walked where Jesus walked, and I felt his presence with me.

Places like the Sea of Galilee, Bethlehem, Golgotha, the Mount of Olives, Jericho, Nazareth, Mount Sinai, the Red Sea, Egypt, the River Jordan...are not just words on a page any longer. They are all vivid in my mind and hold deep personal memories for me. I have joy in the gift and power of the Bible.

Once more I am embarking on a scripture journey. I am beginning with an intensive reading of The Book of Mormon, and then I will continue on with my scriptural studies which include the Bible. I have placed a small copy of The Book of Mormon in my purse. Since I take the bus to and from work now - I have nearly 2 hours each day at my disposal to devote to reading the book. One more reason to be thankful for the bus! (and indirectly, I suppose, thankful for high gasoline prices)! I am "feasting upon the word" each day, and loving this experience!

The Book of Mormon, like The Bible, contains a record of God's dealings with a part of the House of Israel. The book begins with the family of a prophet named Lehi who leaves Jerusalem in approx. 600 B.C. and eventually journeys by ship to the New World - or what we now call the American Continents. A great civilization grows. Prophets among this society teach that a Messiah will be born in Bethlehem and that He would be the Savior of the world. They warn of destruction if the people do not repent and keep God's commandments just as the biblical prophets were doing in the eastern continent at the same time, which we read in the Bible. In the Book of Mormon there is adventure and wars and miracles which span from aprox. 600 B.C. to 400 A.D. As I have mentioned, the wonderful event of Jesus Christ visiting the people in the Americas begins in 3 Nephi 9 . This ancient record was preserved and translated for us by the power of God. It is a treasure

Some of you have not had the opportunity to read this book of scripture in your lifetime yet. I hope that you will do so very soon. It was written for our generation. Many people sacrificed their lives so that you can read it! The Book of Mormon has been translated into several different languages. Chances are, your native language is available. Here is a link where you can request a free copy. You can read a short Introduction and Summary of the book in English HERE. Some of you have read this book before, but perhaps it has been a while. I encourage you to open the pages up again, or read on-line. Start today!

The Book of Mormon and The Bible have been the most important books in my life. Together, they stand as witnesses of Jesus Christ, and as powerful guides. Within their pages are stories of hope and courage. We can read the words of prophets on two continents foretelling the birth of the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ. Then, we read the fulfillment of those prophecies. Within these sacred pages we read of Christ's birth, his life, his miracles and his words, his suffering for our sins, his death and his resurrection from the grave. We read of Christ's great love for all the children of the earth - and his visit and ministry to both the Eastern and the Western Hemispheres.  Just as in Noah's day, we are experiencing a dangerous flood which threatens to destroy us. This time, however, it is not a physical flood of water which covers the earth, but a flood of evil and temptation and confusion. The scriptures tell us that these are the last days of the earth before the Savior returns again. Will we be prepared? These books help us build our personal "ark" of protection around us, and find a haven from the turmoil. The words of God's prophets are waiting for us to read and to hear, and to heed.

See News Channel 8 LUSBY, Md Video

Perhaps the most disturbing part of all of this is that Child Protective services was called by a neighbor in February 2008. More than seven months later the remains of two adopted children were found in the freezer and were presumed to be in there while she moved from Rockville to Lusby. These are the same people that take issue with yelling at your children and they could not detect a problem here? Give me a break. There are no records that any of the children attended school in Rockville County. Additionally, the only charges placed on her for now is regarding the surviving child. Two counts of child abuse, one in the first degree resulting in severe injury to the child also an assault charge. The seven year old child was locked in a second story room and she survived by jumping out the window and begging for help.

b

PS Would you have given a child to this woman, let alone 3?

Bliptv:

[blip.tv ?posts_id=1344468&dest=-1]

youtube:

This video was made as Hubbard made two presentations on September 24, 2008 during the third annual UNITED Conference at Northern Michigan University in Marquette, Michigan.

This video is about infamous comments about Native American Tribal Sovereignty made by President George W. Bush on August 6, 2004 at the UNITY conference in Washington D.C.

President Bush was asked the tribal sovereignty question by Mark Trahant, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Editorial Page Editor, a member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe in Idaho and former president of the Native American Journalists Association.

Bush answered the question but that answer was so bizarre it caused journalists to laugh:
“Tribal sovereignty means that. It’s sovereign," President Bush said. "You’ve been given sovereignty and you’re viewed as a sovereign entity.”

The conference involved about 7,500 journalists of color from the Native American Journalists Association, the National Association of Black Journalists, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists and the Asian-American Journalists Association.

Hubbard said it’s funny, scary and sad that President George W. Bush doesn’t understand the important issue of Native American tribal sovereignty.

The Turtle Island Project thanks Democracy Now for the use of their video of President Bush’s remarks on tribal sovereignty.
Democracy Now
-------

Related Links:

-------

White Buffalo Calf Woman Society, Inc. (WBCWS)
PO Box 227
Mission, S.D.
57555

For more info on the WBCWS:

Javier H. Alegree
Public Relations Specialist
Media and Education

(605) 856-2317
(605) 856-2494 (fax)
-------
Official website of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe - Sicangu Lakota

-------
Northern Michigan University (NMU)

NMU on Wikipedia
-------
NMU Center for Native American Studies:

Center for Native American Studies

Northern Michigan University

112F Whitman Hall

Marquette, MI

49855

(906) 227-1397
(906) 227-1396 (fax)
e-mail:
nasa@nmu.edu

April Lindala, Director
Center for Native American Studies

(906) 227-1397
(906) 227-1396 (fax)
---

Grace Chaillier

NMU Adjunct Assistant Professor

Sicangu Lakota band of the Rosebud Sioux

112G Whitman Hall

(906) 227-1390
-------
Great quotes about American Indian women by nations:
-------
Uniting Neighbors in the Experience of Diversity (UNITED):
Northern Michigan University
September 21-23, 2008
Other UNITED links:
http://webb.nmu.edu/UNITED/SiteSections/2008Schedule.shtml
http://webb.nmu.edu/Webb/PDFs/UNITED/UNITED_2008.pdf
http://webb.nmu.edu/UNITED/SiteSections/GD989.shtml

UNITED Organizers:

Dr. Judith Puncochar

NMU Professor

906-227-1366
-------

Turtle Island Project

Munising, Michigan

Turtle island Project Co-founders:

Rev. Dr. Lynn Hubbard

Rev. Dr. George Cairns
---
Turtle Island TV (blipTV)

Turtle Island TV (youtube)

Turtle Island (myspace)

email the non-profit Turtle Island Project:

TurtleIslandProject@charter.net
-------
Anishinaabe News:

NMU Native American student-run newspaper

-------
Democracy Now:
-------

More from Democracy Now on President Bush comments on Native American Tribal Sovereignty:

"Tribal sovereignty means that; it's sovereign. I mean, you're a — you've been given sovereignty, and you're viewed as a sovereign entity. And therefore the relationship between the federal government and tribes is one between sovereign entities." — President Bush, Washington, D.C., Aug. 6, 2004

Asked about Indian tribal sovereignty issues, President Bush so fully flubbed his response that journalists in the room began laughing at him.

Watch following video first minute - then - got to 27 minutes into the 1 hour video - you’ll see Jesse Jackson joking about comment - and then interview with the reporter who asked bush the question

Video & Audio - several formats (do right click “save as”):
http://www.archive.org/details/dn2004-0810_vid
President Bush youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5xVRXLgLxw
Stories:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/186171_bushtribes13.html
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/bushvideos/v/bushismtribal.htm
-------
White House Press Release: What Bush meant to say if he’d stuck to his script:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/08/20040806-1.html
-------

Book “Pagans in the Promised Land” by Steven T. Newcomb (2008):

http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28405454.html
http://www.indiancountrytoday.com/archive/28407494.html
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/04/25/discoverer-delusions
http://www.wiccanweb.ca/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=19853
http://www.kumeyaay.com/2008/01/johnson-v-mintosh-the-christian-right-of-colonization

http://www.target.com/gp/detail.html/602-1027866-8825436?asin=1555916422&afid=yahoosspplp_bmvd&lnm=1555916422|Pagans_in_the_Promised_Land:_Decoding_the_Doctrine_of_Christian_Discovery_:_Books&ref=tgt_adv_XSNG1060

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ISBN=9781555916428&ourl=Pagans-in-the-Promised-Land%2FNewcomb

-------
Lakota Sioux & Rosebud Reservation:
http://www.rosebudsiouxtribe-nsn.gov/history.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosebud_Indian_Reservation
http://www.tradecorridor.com/rosebud/spirit.htm
http://www.sicangufund.org/rosebud/index.html
http://www.travelsd.com/ourhistory/sioux/tribes/rosebud.asp
http://pie.midco.net/lmrose/sicangu.htm
http://www.tolweb.org/treehouses/?treehouse_id=4571
http://www.nps.gov/archive/jeff/LewisClark2/TheJourney/NativeAmericans/LakotaSioux.htm
-------
Native American Religious Freedom Act (1978):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Religious_Freedom_Act
http://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_IndianRelFreAct.pdf
http://www.answers.com/topic/american-indian-religious-freedom-act
-------

During its first year - Aug. 2007 to Aug. 2008 - the non-profit Turtle Island Project held free concerts, free conferences, and many other events including fundraisers for the Northern Michigan University EarthKeeper Student Team in Marquette, MI and for the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society in Mission, SD.

During its first year - Aug. 2007 to Aug. 2008 - the non-profit Turtle Island Project held free concerts, free conferences, and many other events including fundraisers for the Northern Michigan University EarthKeeper Student Team in Marquette, MI and for the White Buffalo Calf Woman Society in Mission, SD.

She grew up poor, raised by Grandma Rosie and Poppa Mac.  Pop was a sharecropper; Grandma was a housewife.  Mama was their first child, born in 1936.

Aunt Pat is her sister; Uncle WF, her brother.  Another sister, Aunt Brenda, was killed in a car wreck when she was 16.

They lived in Atlanta during the Second World War.  Grandma used to tell us about the Blackouts and the radio show "Lights Out!"

My mother has told me stories about her childhood.  Pop worked a lot of different jobs over the years.  He was a moonshiner at some point and spent some time in jail as a result.  He was a law enforcement fellow at some point, too.

Mama went to Washington, D.C., for her senior class trip. 

She and my father got married in 1957.  I was born eleven months later.  Cathy, my sister, was born in 1963. 

I love the pictures of my mother from the time she and my father got married.  They were happy.

My father started his own business, did well, bootlegged beer on Sunday, got arrested.  My mother was there with him the whole time. 

They almost divorced around the time I graduated from high school.  I abandoned them and my sister.  I went to college. 

I don't know exactly what happened.  I knew that my father could be a jerk.  It's a trait I inherited. 

My mother had worked in the textile mills since she graduated high school.  She left that job when the mill closed.  She took a job as a nurse's aide at Brightmoor Nursing Home.

It was a job she excelled at.  She is compassionate.  She helped the people she served.  To this day, when she's out, people who recognize her will stop her and thank her for the care she gave their parents.

My memories of my mother are in little snippets: 

I remember her holding me when I had taken a severe conk on the head and had to be taken to the hospital for stitches.

I remember her singing to me and my sister.  She sang a song that went, "Send me a letter, Send it by mail, Put it in care of, the Birmingham jail..."

I remember her warning me not to run away from home when that activity ran through my circle of friends.

I distanced myself from her.  I guess that's some kind of psychological thing.  I regret it nonetheless. 

When I was a senior at the University of Georgia, my parents and sister made a surprise visit.  I was not prepared to see them.  I had been up late the night before smoking marijuana with friends.  They left, hurt.

It's one of my many screw-ups.  But it's one that I regret so much even now.

So.  Today we visited ever so briefly.  I failed again to let her know how much she means to me, how much she helped me.  Maybe that's just how it is.

I like how she tries to paint a picture of me as the ungrateful son. I really have cooked up a serious negative weight here. Just how bad do you want to know your Eternal self over the conditional good feelings that the one who birthed you can give you?

You spent your first 9 months in a flesh body with her voice and mind controlling your development. Then 18 years of further control. And now the various games continue... unless you go ahead and give in. And start to hypnotize yourself with her slogans --- parental respect, be a good person, etc.

Now, the fundamental question she never could answer: who am I? who are you? What do you mean YOU helped ME? Dont you realize that is not even possible? There is no you!!!

Baby movements. No one prepares you for this double-edged sword. No one tells you how amazing it is when your baby gently tickles or prods you, or when you can actually see his little elbow or bum poke out, or when your tummy ripples as he finds a more comfy spot. How you will feel the urge to tell everyone EVERY TIME the baby moves, but you will have to restrain yourself because no one else could give a flying f&&k. And no one tells you about the horrible anxious feeling you have when he has not moved for a while... the nervous, sad waiting as you contemplate the very worst case scenario over and over and over... and the sudden joy of relief when you feel a slight stirring, and then stronger... a kick! Thank god, he's still alive and kicking!

I have been experiencing both these extremes in the last three days. On Friday night in London I did not sleep at all. Eoin was active all night, and not just gentle movements, kicking and twitching and sometimes very fast spasmodic movements that made me start worrying that he was having some kind of fit. And then today, I had so few movements all day that I started panicking, wondering if I should call the midwife. The problem was that someone on the forum had lost a baby at 28 weeks and it seemed as if it was totally out of the blue, she just stopped feeling the movements one day, went to the hospital and they didn't find a heartbeat. The baby had died. I felt very upset by this, and the idea that I could be gaily going about my business thinking it was all okay but actually the baby could be in desperate trouble and I wouldn't even know about it.

But I suppose that's all part and parcel of becoming a mum. Worrying. Needlessly. Or not needlessly - that's the problem, you just don't know. So many things can go wrong, but most of the time they don't, and actually there's nothing you can do to stop things going wrong most of the time so you've just got to relax and realise that you're in the hands of fate. I'm rambling now, so I'll stop here while I'm ahead.

See: Law Commission Supplement to Working Paper No. 96 - Review of Child Custody Law (1986)

Deutsche Ubersetzung

An Introductory Summary

Background - The Law Commission is the body specifically empowered by all governments in Britain to revise laws and propose changes. It has had this role since 1965.

It is an immensely powerful and influential body and as such has attracted the politically motivated.

Much of its work has focused on the arcane, the detail of obscure laws affecting few or no one. However, it is better known to some parts of the general public for its influence on divorce and custody laws. Throughout its 30 year long history it has continually and incrementally altered the basis upon which family law operates. Their unrelenting programme of change has led to a radical new look in regards matrimonial law and rights. It would be untruthful to summarise this programme as benign or in any way beneficial or equitable. It has benefited whole swathes but equally has adversely affected many others.

Critics point to how the Law Commission has legally ‘orphaned’ millions of children by their legal reforms. Today the government concedes that around 40% of all children in a divorce lose touch with their fathers after a few years. No other organisation, they say, could be said to have caused or replicated in peace time a second holocaust affecting millions of children. It was conservatively estimated, as far back as 1979, that as many as 101,837 children were ‘orphaned’ annually by divorce The 101,837 figure is actually the number of couples divorcing who had children, so the actual number of children affected could be as high as 150,000 or 200,000 pa.

Averaging out for the ebb and flows of divorce rates, a projected 3½ million of the UK’s 10 million child population are, or have been, divorce orphans.

In terms of honesty and probity the Law Commission has made blunders and, for political expediency, deliberately mislead. A former Law Commissioner, Ruth Deech, details some of the deceptions in her booklet “Divorce Dissent” (pub’d CPS, Jan 1994).

Introduction

“Supplement to Working Paper No 96”, by J. A. Priest and J. C. Whybrow, is the custody report time forgot and is the research paper every modern researcher ignores – or is ignorant of. It is not freely available on the internet and is not listed in the Law Commission's list of published reports which only go back as far as 1995.

Law Commission Reports (papers) No 91 and No 96 date from the mid 1980s. Both papers informed the process of re-structuring divorce and custody following the 1969 Divorce Reform Act which introduced ‘no fault’ divorce. In the late 1980s reports No 91 and No 96 were combined to become Report No 172.

‘Supplement to Working Paper No 96’ (SWP No 96) is a truly remarkable paper and gives us unique insight into the custody habits of Britain before the topic became ‘politicised’ by feminists.

It is remarkable because it overturns many assumptions and contradicts many of the custody papers of today that reportedly describe this period in time.

Rediscovering the contents of ‘Supplement to Working Paper No 96’ (SWP No 96) could potentially be a knotty, if not an explosive, issue for some researchers. It could endanger many reputations as it is seen to dismiss much of the modern day reservations about shared parenting; undercuts worries about confusing children about which residence is their home; demolishes the argument that it is too complicated a system; and undermines the assertion that ‘sharing with father’ is an entirely untried pioneering technology.

Earlier Custody Studies

SWP No 96 tells us that not only is it the first time that the judiciary has looked at itself and into the custody patterns it generates, but that there is a distinct North-South divide over the preferred way that parents arrive at custody choices.

Geographically, England’s chain of courts is, like its police forces, divided into semi-autonomous regional ‘circuits’. This allows us to easily detect any North-South divide and its concomitant socio-economic and income level disparities.

The footnotes within SWP No 96 refer to various earlier studies, e.g. the Woldson study, Raikes, and Maidment. These refer to much earlier surveys of divorce and custody patterns. For instance, the Woldson study refers to a study published in 1977 by the Wolfson College, Oxford. This was based on a 1974 sample of 855 court records of divorces cases in England & Wales but also included some Scottish divorce cases (Scotland has a different legal regime to England and different divorce law procedures). The Maidment study of 1976 was a smaller study made by Susan Maidment and is sometimes referred to as the 'Keele Study' into divorce. [1]

Compared with the high level of attention paid today to divorce and custody patterns it is surprising to learn that no Departmental records were kept in the 1980s:

“1985 was the first year in which records of custody and access orders made by the divorce courts were compiled from court returns by the Lord Chancellor's Department.” - para 1.3 –

Regional Variances in Joint Custody

The Law Commission survey of 1985 looked at ten divorce county courts in various court circuits and compared the type of awards they made. The survey was cross-sectional and large - over 82,000 cases were examined.

In common with today there was, nationally, a preponderance of awards being granted to wives and sole custody awards also favoured wives, in strict numerical terms.

However, it should be the level and geographical location of joint custody which should attract our attention. In an east-west line, roughly north of Birmingham, SWP No 96 shows us that the preference in the north is for sole mother custody while south of that line the preference is for joint custody.

Nationally, joint custody awards averaged out at 12.9% but the figure masks the also non-existence of such awards in the north and the 40% levels found in the south of Britain.

"According to the statistical returns of 174 divorce registries, 82,059 custody orders were made in 1985. 77.4% of these orders granted sole custody to the wife, 9.2% to the husband and 12.9% granted joint custody.

National statistics do not exist for previous years. However, an impression of past practice may be derived from past research, as set out in Table 6 in the Appendix.” - para 4.21

Analysing Custody Awards

Figure F.l in the Appendix of SWP No 96, shows the proportion of joint custody orders made in each court circuit. The percentage of joint custody orders made in the Western and South Eastern Circuits was over three times greater than that in the North and North Eastern Circuits, with the other circuits giving middling returns (para 5.2).

The ten chosen divorce county courts were asked to compile statistics for the survey, to look at a sample of children and the three mains types of custody orders made, 1). custody granted to the ex-wife, 2). custody granted to the ex-husband and 3). joint custody orders (SWP No 96, p 38).

The resulting information is displayed within SWP No 96, at Table 7 (p.39) by gender split and by age groups.

Of note is the constantly high but slightly falling proportion of children through the age groups awarded to wives compared with the small but increasing proportion of awards to fathers or of joint custody as the children mature.

Joint Custody Increases

Another Table, Table 6, records the number of wife, husband, joint and 'other' orders, as a proportion of all custody orders made by the divorce courts in each of the studies cited above (the Wolfson study etc).

The Law Commission concludes that the evidence suggests that there has been more than a threefold increase in joint custody orders made upon divorce since the Wolfson study in 1974. (para 4.22).

Among ‘academics’, for some unspecified reason, the resistance to joint custody or shared parenting has always been strong. Today, that opposition is still prominent.

SWP No 96 comments obliquely on the reluctance, the refusal by the illuminati, to accept the need to shift legal reforms in another direction, describing it as seemingly “to reflect an earlier time”.

“The research of Davis, Murch and MacLeod ('the Bristol study') in 1980 seems to reflect an earlier time in the evolution of joint orders.” – para 4.22, page 38.

Significantly, and perhaps this explains the dogged and relentless rear-guard action to notions of father and joint custody, SWP No 96 reports that;

“Results in 1985 from the courts which participated in the earlier studies (Bristol (2) and Wolfson (2)) indicate that in absolute terms the increase in joint custody has been largely at the expense of wife orders.” - para 4.22, page 38

The same citation points out that while joint custody has been increasing at the expense of mother-only custody it has also been at the expense of father-only custody numbers - although the latter ”formed a small proportion of the total number of custody orders at the time of those earlier studies and seem to have been reduced proportionately more in the intervening years,” i.e. would have been felt more keenly.

Joint Custody Awards Are Not ‘Exceptional’

The statistics of those earlier 1970s surveys, e.g. the Bristol study, the Keele study' etc, are displayed at Table 6 with year of publication.

Starting with a small sample size in 1973 (Maidment) and ending in 1985 (Wolfson 2) this independent series of surveys appears to indicate that joint custody moved from around 3% to 18% across a number of geographical court circuits.

Click table to enlarge:

Pivotal Role of Judges

SWP No 96 makes the point that there was no divorce court in Britain that had never made joint custody orders (Para 5.6). Indeed, an increase in joint custody awards (shared parenting) was recognised in Practice Direction 18th February 1980: [1980] 1 W.L.R. 301.

The authors’ inquiries as to why some courts awarded more joint custody orders than others suggested that the disparity reflected differences both in the courts' approaches and in the proposals put forward by spouses across the country.

Today, it is unlikely that any representation by a male spouse would influence the award of sole custody to the mother.

SWP No 96, at Para 5.6, describes how the regional pattern masks a consensus amongst the judges interviewed that, where possible, both parents should continue to be involved in their children's upbringing after divorce. The inference is that by creating a truly equal partnership of child care after divorce there is less acrimony between the parents.

However, from the interviews with the judges, three different approaches to joint custody were apparent:

1. promotion of the joint custody option (i.e. pro-active)
2. a non-interventionist or laissez-faire attitude towards the parties' proposals as to custody
3. scepticism about, or actual discouragement of, joint custody

Interestingly, several of those judges commented that “they felt they were working in isolation, that they were not aware of the practice in other courts and, prior to their appointment, usually working as barristers, they had gained little or no experience of children's cases” – a situation still complained of twenty years later by fathers groups in the 1990s and which led to the replacing of the CWO (Court Welfare Officer) regime with CAFCASS.

The approach/views of the judges are considered in more detail in the full version (below) along with other factors which appeared from the interviews to be influential on the type of orders made. (para 5.7).

Judges Alone Increase Joint Custody

Courts registering exceptionally high numbers of joint custody orders, that is to say around 30% or more of all custody orders, are largely confined to the southern parts of the country. The judges in those courts actually endeavour to promote joint orders.

Judges who were interviewed for the survey revealed that in a broad range of cases joint custody was often suggested at the “Children's Appointment’ meeting. This was true even though it may never have been raised with the parties before and even though a previous court may have awarded sole custody to one of them.

Courts issuing high numbers of joint custody orders are typically served by one or two judges who have developed a common practice. In contrast, less consistent returns were associated with courts which see a high turnover of judges, many of whom may sit only occasionally or temporarily. (In this last comment we see that the consensus in 1985 was probably in favour of joint custody by the more progressive elements and that the authors SWP No 96, might also be well disposed to that option).

Several of the courts which made a high proportion of joint custody orders issue informative literature inviting both parents to the children's appointment (para 5.8). This education of parents (and brief though it is), may, according to the authors of SWP No 96 possibly lead to a higher proportion of couples indicating a preference for joint custody.

The attendance of both parents upon the judge where the options and the possible ‘outcomes’

can be explained clearly enhances the court's prestige and authority in the eyes of those that are forced to be its clients.

Married or divorced, it is reasonable to assume that both parents want “the best for their children”, and therefore, if the axiom “Knowledge is Power” is true, the court based educational episode will encourage patens to opt for harmonious post divorce relations and/or joint custody. Indeed, some courts will only suggest a joint order if both parties are present.

“From our study, the literature seems to serve its purpose in that in these courts there has been noticeably higher attendance by both parents, sometimes in over 50% of cases." Several courts also encourage solicitors to come to the hearing (and endorse the Green Form for attendance), which may enable additional flexibility at the appointment if, for example, a parent is unsure whether to accept the suggestion of joint custody.”

In stark contrast to the last 20 years, the authors of SWP No 96 note how CWOs (Court Welfare Officers) in 1985 appeared to be very favourably disposed towards joint custody. They commented how it actually made their lives easier.

Promoting of Joint Custody

In an atmosphere where judges see the positive benefits of joint custody (shared parenting), where CWOs actively embrace the concept, and where solicitors are encouraged to promote the concept as an option to their clients, its works extremely smoothly with a remarkably low incidence of cases being returned to court for non-compliance

Joint custody could once again become a reality, today, if the actors in the family court were predisposed to create a conducive environment by simply re-introducing the option of joint custody to parents.

Contrary to Amanda Finlay’s misplaced belief (a civil servant at Min of Justice, 2002), no primary legislation would be required to effect such a change.

Though judges liked to see CWO available and to read their favourable custody recommendations, SWP No 96 makes it clear that awarding joint custody orders did not hinge solely on the presence of CWOs or their acceptance of that option.

The presence and/or availability of a Court Welfare Officer did not make joint custody more or less likely, as para 5.9 makes clear:-

“ … the newly-raised joint [custody orders] option did not always coincide with a high proportion of joint orders it did facilitate such awards. (Para 5.9).

In fact, SWP No 96 finds that joint custody orders may also result from the work done by the CWO in preparing a Welfare Report and it is noted that the officer's role has, of late, “become less investigative in some areas and more aimed at obtaining an agreed solution.”

Conclusion

It is a supreme irony that the Children Act 1989 - designed to be the “New Deal for children” discarded all the best elements of SWP No 96 and incorporated only the worst.

Joint custody died the day the Children Act 1989 was enacted and instead of having a choice or moving to a de facto regime of joint custody, the nation had thrust upon it the austere one- size-fits-all regime of the north, where spouses preferred to see wives looking after children.

Para 5.31 reminds us that, “wives received care and control five times more often than husbands.” Husbands being given care and control in 20% of cases today would be an idyll.

In 2008 wives receive the equivalent of care and control in 90% + of cases. Many if not all ex-husbands would wiling trade the present situation for a 5:1 ratio

After the Children Act 1989 all parental choice disappeared. No longer could parents in any part of the country choose to have joint or shared parental care over their children. The better choice for all, namely of joint custody was unceremoniously taken off the table. It no longer existed. The trend identified in Law Commission Report No 96 was killed off.

All that was offered in return was the theoretical and ethereal concept of “joint parental responsibility” for both parents but which was devoid of teeth, meaning or power.

The two reports, i.e. Law Commission Reports No 91 and No 96. were supposedly to give birth to the Children Act 1989 but the process, if we put it into its historical context, was overtaken by the events at Cleveland in 1987. The scandalous allegations of child abuse probably coloured deliberations.

Between February and July (1987) 121 children on Teesside were taken from their families and placed in care.

Dr Higgs and her colleague Dr Geoffrey Wyatt believed a controversial diagnostic practice called RAD - reflex anal dilatation - indicated abuse had taken place.

In just five months Dr Higgs had diagnosed 78 children as having been the victims of sexual abuse and Dr Wyatt 43.

On July 9, 1987 the Secretary of State for Social Services ordered that a public inquiry be held into the scandal

Not for the first time private law and public law became inextricably liked and tangled. Measure better suited to ‘public law’ was mixed in with divorce or ‘private law’. The Children Act of 1989 is around about 90% public law in its focus.

Explaining the north-south divide is not easy. It could be due to the heritage of heavy industry centred in eh northern counties or it could be a culture, heritage or social expectations. It may simply be that the north is more conservative in adopting new values and that its outlook reflected more closely that of the 1960 epitomised by a ruling given by Lord Justice Denning in 1962:

“ . . . . one must remember that to be a good mother involves not only looking after the children, but making and keeping a home for them with their father, bringing up , , , , the children in the love and security of the home with both parents. In so far as she herself by her conduct broke up that home she is not a good mother” – Denning, Re: L 1962.

It could be a cultural imperative or the division could reflect the socio-economic realities. The north might see itself as more “macho” and for it to be more natural for women to look after children. The south might see itself as more likely working flexi-hours than shift work patterns, and in the 1980s being more likely to having households with to income earners.

SWP No 96 points, at para 5.37, to another possible reason for the North south divide when it states that ‘several judges thought the sharing of care and control may be a "relatively middle-class option" on account of the extra resources required to make it work.’

The “Conclusions”, to be found in Part VIII of Supplement to Working Paper No 96, is unsatisfactory in that it does not contextualise events. Rather it treats the results in a disengaged even detached manner that reflects only the mechanics and is only sympathetic to the clinical ‘technicians’ views.

Given the adage that “Man is the measure of all things”, [2] there is a ample reason to add to that meagre conclusion in this Summary and counter the cold summation in SWP No 96 with a ration of humanity. Of necessity this will slightly lengthen the Executive Summary but the detour is a small price to pay.

In some regards it was unfortunate to have undertaken a survey in 1986. It was a year in the middle of a decade that saw seismic changes and was yet on the cusp of more.

The decade opened with the Thatcher years; a depressed economy with growing inflation and unemployment. Employment gives men especially, a sense of identity and purpose.

A depressed economy saw dozens of large employers close, laying-off tens of thousands, e.g. Rubery Owen. This was followed by the Falklands War in 1982 and the protracted Miner’s Strike of 1984 to 1885.

Charles Murray author of “The Emerging British Underclass” (Civitas, 1990) charts the rise of the underclass in the UK back to the 1970s. Murray defines the growth of the underclass as being due to three factors; “unemployment, violent crime and illegitimate births”. He hypothesises that the underclass stems from a lack of socialisation resulting from absent fathers. Into this mix the Children Act 1989 ensures that father have less to do with their children after divorce.

The 1980s was the decade when the soaring cost of weddings was increasingly given by young people as the reason for not marrying and the view was gaining ground among young brides that if they had made an error of judgement in the choice of groom, they could ‘easily’ get a divorce

The Finer report of 1976 had given an impetus, via additional allowances and state benefits, to single mother births. By 1979 single motherhood they had increased 18% from 1971 and had almost doubled by 1989.

Feminist academic and writer, Carol Smart, is cited several times in SWP No 96 together with her book “The Ties that Bind” (1984). Reflecting the fashions of the day her book is openly feminist and deals with, the law, marriage and, quote, “patriarchal” relations.

The only counter point to these expressions is Robert Mnookin’s “Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law” (USA) and ‘The Case of Divorce’ (l979) C.L.P. 65, but these deal more with negotiating gambits and models, thus denying SWP No 96 from giving a balance picture.

For studies closer to the ‘human’ condition of the divorce process ‘Justice and Welfare in Divorce’, by Mervyn Murch, 1979, is cited as is, Children in the Middle, by Ann Mitchell, (1985).

Interestingly, Carol Smart see the matrimonial reforms of the 1950s as culminating in the Divorce Reform Act 1969 - not the 1969 Act acting as a trigger for subsequent reforms.

Some of those pre-1969 matrimonial reforms included:

The current view in the 1980s, vis-à-vis divorce, still reflected that of the 1960s. Little attention was pad to the impact on, and the price paid by, children in such family manoeuvrings.

In the pre-1969 era it was more or less true to state that adults sought a divorce as a vehicle to a new marriage.

It is also true to say that all over Europe, the politics of the day were favourably inclined to the inevitability of victory of socialism in some form, over capitalism. Learning from those countries that had undergone radical change (the Eastern Bloc) was obvious.

Using official British figures, Ronald Fletcher estimated in his book “The Family and Marriage in Britain” [3] (1966) that 75% of divorces ended in marriage. This apparently blindingly obvious benefit of divorce - and how it appeared completely manageable - lay behind the thinking of the 1969 divorce reformers. They could see no serious problems.

However, the pre-1969 era was one where divorce was a ‘last resort’, not a first option; it was usually difficult to obtain and the court had to be convinced by good reasons to grant a divorce.

Sadly, after the 1969 reforms re-marriage never took-off on the scale anticipated and it is only now, 40 years later, that the numbers of re-marriages are approaching those expected levels. In the meantime many children have grown up either with no father at all or a series of ‘fathers’.

At the time the views of social commentator Prof. Ronald Fletcher, lent weight to the school of thought that divorce did not weaken marriage and, strictly speaking (i.e. all things being equal), that is still true today. Conversely, as soon as one of the parameters changes the whole premise is called into question together with the validity of the model.

Did the reformers of 1969 naively believe that it would simply be a matter of making one or two gear changes from 50,000 divorce pa to today’s level of 180,000 divorce pa ?

Perversely too, contemporary thinking led to the belief that increased permissiveness would actually strengthen marriage.[4] The ‘Strengthening of Marriage Bill’, 1964, was just such a manifestation which, fortunately never saw the light of day. This Bill would have recognised de facto or “common law” wives, i.e. cohabitee relationships.

However, a portent of things to come emerges form Carol Smart’s appraisal of the cumulative effect of matrimonial change.

Although she sides with Fletcher’s view that the 1969 Divorce Reform Act did not weaken marriage there is an acceptance that in so ‘regulating the family less’, the 1969 Act and its predecessors actually ‘legitimates the states surveillance and interference into private [i.e. family] matters’.

With hindsight the 1969 reforms were handled incorrectly. The following 20 years are littered with additional matrimonial amendments in an effort to get the new law to work as planned.

If 1986 was the last time custody was examined in detail by the judiciary it is high time that custody was afforded the same mental effort as divorce with a tough and thorough investigation.

There will be those that argue the reforms of the Children Act 1989 were also bungled; that children have become the property of the state – that they have been ‘nationalised. If that is the case, parents have been returned to a feudal past in having no real control and final veto unless permitted.

For the majority of this summary spouses and their divorce have been the prime focus. However, SWP No 96 also deals with non-married fathers and mothers, and their illegitimate children. This topic has to be addressed, of course, but in so doing it tends to muddy the waters in the same way that mixing public with private law leads to a lack of precision.

In 1985 to 1986 the number illegitimate births was a small but increasing phenomenon – one that is usually traced from 1971 or to the Finer Report changes of the mid 1970s. Traditionally, the needs of unwed parents and dependent children were very different and the duties of the putative father are completely dissimilar to that of a legally married father with legitimate children. In such circumstances the father never had guardianship rights – they vested solely with unmarried mother. She had no tangible claim over him for maintenance and he had no right to care or influence the children. They were as separate as two individuals can be. However, by in the mid 20^th century and the creation of the ‘welfare state’, this sharp demarcation became blurred

At para 5.43 the report speaks of one solicitor in the North East mentioned ‘other instances’ of orders that favoured of the (ex-cohabitee) ‘father of an illegitimate child’. [5] This instance of such an order and such circumstances are as rare today as they were in 1985 so why it was deemed worthy of inclusion is obscure.

From SWP No 96 we learn that the D.H.S.S. was not consistent in its advice to women who had ‘dependent children’. In a survey in Sheffield in 1980, SWP No 96 found that the D.H.S.S. in some circumstances “encourages wives to take their husbands back to court annually to recoup the annual shortfall for the state” following increase in supplementary benefit rates.

While not a wholly dependable picture, it gives a flavour of mothers on the borderline, be they unwed or the spouses of low-income-husbands, and the attitude of the state at street level. Although SWP No 96 does not spell it out the impression is given that it is the unmarried mother and the illegitimate child that is most in need of maintenance orders and who feel the need to repeatedly return to court. The reciprocal of this is that where fathers ‘feel’ or are engaged with their children such topics are not a problem.

The problems attending maintenance payments for children and getting the sums paid is one that has never been properly resolved. It is a problem common to all countries and civilisations and one that in Britain can trace its ancestry back to 1500.

It is therefore incongruous that the Children Act 1989 should opt for the most litigious option.

It would be wrong to believe that all the current difficulties relating to custody etc date from the Children Act of 1989. Probably the fist divorced fathers group to be set up was FNF in 1976. This tells us that all as not well in the mid to late 1970s. However, by the early 1990s fathers and men’s groups were springing up and creating a Men’s Movement, e.g. Dads after Divorce, UKMM, Mankind, UK Fathers, Equal Parenting Alliance, Men’s Aid, and of course, Fathers 4 Justice etc.

This period (1970s) also saw the beginning of the fudge between children of married couples and children of non-married couples, i.e. the changes to illegitimacy and inheritance. By 1995 the Office of National Statistics (ONS) was not always making the distinction.

Changes in ‘expectations’ were endemic among separating couples in that females could negotiate a lump sum (1961), could not be thrown out the matrimonial home were given by Denning the status of “beneficial interest” and unmarried cohabitees could gain as much as a married women in any financial settlement.

Welfare benefits payment were fudged from ‘contribution’ based to ‘needs’ based, entitling anyone, usually women, to claim benefits from a regime they has not paid into. Welfare benefits once paid only to legal spouses became payable to female cohabitees.

The fudge process went further and affected property law. No longer was legal ownership of property a guarantee of “quiet enjoyment” and a protection from confiscation. The otherwise innocuous Land Charges Act 1972 was by legal gymnastics transformed to give courts the power to transfer property, i.e. the matrimonial home, from the owner to the other spouse.

It should come as no surprise that the bonds that held society together and upon which communities depended began to unravel.

Comparing the potential that SWP No 96 held out for the future with what is now on offer, - now that we have arrived in that future – is nothing short of scandalous.

The difficulty that has bedevilled a satisfactory resolution of child custody after divorce, not only in 1986 but today in 2008, is that policy makers have tried to devise a model that can accommodate the spouses who divorce, with unwed mothers, with funded and under-funded children, with low, medium and high income earners, all against a background of public law priorities.

The ‘Conclusions’ chapter of SWP No 96 (Part VIII), has the air of being out-of-touch which by today’s standards of knowledge, even among the public at large, would not be tolerated.

The level of ignorance displayed by judges in 1985 is numbing. – and some would argue it is not much improves in 2008

For instance, at para 5.34. SWP No 96 records several judges that were interviewed as believing that a joint custody arrangement would be positively dangerous. [6]

Some judges were of the opinion that 'custody' meant 'care and control' and could only comfortably separate the concepts when giving examples of care and control in a third parties contexts.

Further, the judges they spoke to

“were all cautious about not making any order as to care and control [i.e. cautious or unsure about the no-order rules], or ordering that it be shared” [meaning that the no- order be shared between both parents].

“Another [judge] wondered if he had power to make no order.”

SWP No 96 construes the concerns articulated by the judiciary about sharing arrangements (joint custody) as stemming from the risk that the child might feel it has no primary caregiver.

By this is meant a person who is solely responsible for the child’s welfare and with whom he has a secure "base camp". It must be said that this is not entirely logical as a child inside an intact family would have two, no one, caregiver.

More telling is the replies recorded by the authors of SWP No 96; “Even in courts with low joint custody rates, most of the judges recalled having met cases with sharing arrangements”. In other words, joint or shared custody was not unheard of even in courts where it was not the normal practice. That statement cannot be made today.

Another statement that cannot be made today for fear of bigotry is found at Para 8.3 where the authors record that amongst court officials, and solicitors, there was “substantial support” for the role of child care to be played by the female and ‘where practicable’, for the male to be confined to paid employment. With 50% of the work force now made up to women the principle underpinning the 1985 stance for women to be given custody, and or care and control, has vanished.

The prejudices of 1985 are unreformed and still with us in 2008 when at para 8.3 we read:

Some solicitors were clearly cautious about fathers' prospects of success in contesting custody.

In no case before a domestic court in our survey did a father's custody claim succeed over a mother's objection.

The solicitors interviewed, for example, believed that clients generally equate custody with exclusive control over the child's upbringing. (para 8.2)

Despite claims at one point that, “It seems that it would be less confusing, and in some cases less damaging, were there to be less pressure from all sides towards obtaining a court order”, this view is contradicted by para 8.7 which determines;

“The most helpful order in many cases would deal with the child's residence, with whom he may stay and whom he may visit for shorter periods. It should seek to avoid giving the, often false, impression that other persons are being shut out of involvement in the child's life.”

The riches of Supplement to Working Paper No 96 have been veiled for too long.

It is a hidden gem with a crouching tiger that stalks the subtext.

ooo0 - END – 0ooo

See: Law Commission Supplement to Working Paper No. 96 - Review of Child Custody Law (1986)

Footnotes

Those miles that you made us walk last summer's morning
Even now when I look back,
I never thought that it would end

Those where the times when I learned a little bit more about my baby brothers,
That even as tall and big they were,
We could have fun as if tomorrow we wouldn't wake up with sore tights

So, even when I don't want to go back
I never got the chance to say thank you,
Thank you mom for making my heart stronger.

Because now,

That path that we traveled together, those miles that we walked, make me smile
Thank you mom for loving us so much.

pic credit to stock.xchng

There are at least three things you really want to be doing but you will not, or cannot, do what's necessary to make them happen.

There are at least three things you really should be doing but you will not, or cannot, do them.

There are at least three things you really should not be doing but you will not, or cannot, avoid doing them.

Nothing feels right.  There are elephants in all the rooms.  You are tired in a way that has nothing to do with the hours of sleep you've had or the hour of day it is.  

You learn something about yourself so suddenly and inadvertently that it makes you cry but you turn your face away so no one can see.  No one who will understand.  No one who loves you.

You've been thanked sincerely for the work you do, complimented, given small sincere hugs by small sincere children.  You're sure you are secure in several ways in which you wouldn't have thought you could be secure even a few months ago and yet you still feel small.  And useless.  And tired in a way that has nothing to do with the hours of sleep you've had or the hour of day it is.

You know better but can't be better.  You try hard to respond differently but aren't sure which "difference" is the right one... The one that will actually make things different; the one that will actually make things better.

You feel whiney and stupid just thinking about any of this sort of shit.

And you'd really be better off unconscious.

When Baby is Born – first four weeks

1.    Have a soft cloth beanie for straight after delivery.

2.    Don’t push your darling little bundle of delight on to anyone else. Grandmas seem to be the exception, but older men and singles especially – ask first and invite them if they’d like to hold your baby.

3.    Most baby gifts come in the month after baby is born.

4.    Have a blackboard that you put outside the main entrance for those first 3-6 weeks – “Mother and baby are sleeping. Please leave a note or come back in an hour. Thanks.”

5.    Do NOT be afraid or too polite to ask any of your visitors to leave or to help you with a job, like hanging up the washing or tidying a room.

6.    Especially in the first 6-8 weeks, have a list of little chores to do for visitors who come for more than half an hour. [We’re serious!]

7.    Invest in an answerphone, so you can hear the messages left. This saves you having to rush to the phone when bathing, dressing, feeding baby or when sleeping or too knackered!.

8.    Our answerphone message in the first month went: “Mark and Johanna have a baby girl called Grace, born on Saturday 13 December. Please leave your name and number after the beep and we’ll get back to you. Bye.”

9.    Sticky tape cards onto baby’s room door.

10.  Nappy liners [1-3] make useful reuseable washcloths.

11.  A basket on top of baby’s clothes drawers holds together: creams, lotions, scissors or snips [to cut clothing labels], Pamol [paracetamol], Infacol [for colic], pen, gift record book, hair brush, talc, cotton buds.

12.  Extras for your baby’s room may include: musical cube or mobile [if you like Brahms’ Lullaby]; black, white, and red shapes or toys for newborns; draped string to hang cards on.

13.  Tick ‘yes’ for all free samples of products.

(c) Johanna Whittaker, May 1998, six months after my first child was born.

... more next Monday ...

Why is it that so many questions are asked? and concerns shared? when the questions were answered and the concerns addressed some two thousand years ago?

Why is it no one will take heed and listen?

Simply, because that which it calls itself "religion" has had it's way with the multitudes, and especially the educated, those who were taught that reading, memorizing and then passing a test on that which is in a book is the source of "knowledge" ;-(

Sadly all that is "known" is but "the colored marks written on a dead tree" ;-(

Such "head" knowledge is a prime reason that today, natural Creation(land, air, water, vegetation, creatures) is being destroyed, and that which is of The Great Spirit(Light, Truth, Love, Peace, Life, Hope, Grace, Mercy, Faith, etc.) is being perverted ;-(

Sadder yet? Those who "see" religion for what it is, yet allow religion to have it's way with them ;-(

The prime purpose of that which is called "religion" is to insure that "The Way of Truth will be evil spoken of" ;-( (2Peter2:2)

Once again, some two thousand years past, the answers to what Truly matters were revealed".

"How are we ever going to improve things with the culture and lifestyles we are so entrenched in?"

"Love not the world, neither the things in the world!" (1Jn2:15)
And, "Whoever loves this world is the enemy of GOD!" (James4:4)
For "The WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one!" (1Jn5:19)

"If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me(The Messiah) before it hated you." (John15:18)

And it was promised that "evil men and seducers would grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived". (2Timothy3:13)

The Messiah did not come to make this wicked, evil world a better place!

So, for the "entrenched", "The Call" was given and yet remains, "Come out of her, MY people!" (Revelations18:4)

"Come Out" of this wicked, evil world and it's systems of religion!

"Improve things"? No! Simply, "Come Out" from among those who are destroying and perverting Creation! No longer be of those who believe they "know" what is best! Be of those who desire above all else, "Father(Creator), not my will, But THY Will Be Done!"

I believe the "imag"ination of those reading this, and who despise "religion", is quite active now, "imag"ining, "ah, this one's just another catholic or christian, must be but another one of those "religious" hypocrites!"

Or the religious ones reading this, even as they have their portion in the destruction and perversion of Creation, "imag"ining, "Who does he think he is?", "Nobody's perfect!", and a favorite line of both the religious and irreligious, "You can't judge me" ;-( When in Truth it is their own Creator given conscience that convicts them!

Truth is, "Pure religion and undefiled before GOD The Father is this, to visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction and to keep oneself unspotted by the world." (James1:27)

Simply, all other religion is impure and defiled!

Yes, and even "atheism" is a religion! Self-worshippers see their 'god', the one they serve, each and every time they look in a mirror ;-(

Sadly, there are many who have allowed what is called "religion" to have it's way with them, and so it is that many who "see" the destruction and perversion of Creation return to their "mother earth", yet sadly never experience The Oneness that is in and of "Our Father", HE WHO IS in Heaven ;-(

Yet there is Hope!

For Miracles do happen!

Hope is there would be those who experience The Miracle that is receiving "a love of The Truth" for they will "see" The Light that is The Messiah, and they will take heed unto The Call of "Our Father" to "Come out of her, MY people!"

They will no longer be of those who are destroying and perverting Creation.

They will "see" that "A Simple and Spiritual Life is the only Life that will survive!"

Forever.......

Peace, in spite of the dis-ease(destruction and perversion) that is of this world and it's systems of religion, for "the WHOLE world is under the control of the evil one" indeed and Truth.......

Truth is never ending.......

The comment from "A Momma Hug"  has prompted me to write this post.   Rose Marie said that she is sure that her Mother will be one of the first people that she sees when she gets to