Saw a very frightening show last night on Sex Trafficking.  The United States has grown one of the biggest, if not the biggest, Sex Trafficking capital of the World.  Sorry I can’t remember the name of the show, was wanting to link to it.  I think it was on MSNBC.  Am certain I will repeat some inaccurate details here in trying to describe the situation.

A young girl in the Bay Area was repeatedly raped by her Father from the age of 3 onwards.  At the Age of 8 years old her Father began to pimp her in order to make enough money for the family to buy a house.  The parents divorced when she was a teen and at that time the Mother, needing money, began to pimp the girl.

So, there you go, horror stories beyond anything most of us can imagine.  Her parents are immigrants who follow beliefs that daughters can be treated this way.  I grew up with what I think are pretty conservative values for women’s place in the world.  I’ve discussed my own situation, no sexual abuse, so I’m not saying that this happens only in Asian families.  This is a problem for female children overall in dysfunctional families.

The whole time growing up, this girl maintained a straight A average in school and played on her Soccer team.  She was very close to a teacher, I believe her old Soccer coach.  This young woman then managed to get in to UC Berkeley where she began therapy in order to try to make sense out of her life.  I believe she said that she is now around 25 years old and has stopped talking with her parents since she was around 20 years old.  Her strength is incredible.  She is speaking out in order to help others who might be in this same situation.

The parents were interviewed on the show and didn’t admit to anything.

I read that it was initially created by 2 ad executive guys up in Canada with a poster of a ballerina dancing on a Bull.  Of course, there was already a desire set in motion by the overthrow of Dictators of the Middle East beginning with Egypt.  That’s all the information I care to research on that topic.

Since I’m probably too old to understand what’s going on out there I did begin to look up a couple of wiki articles about the Flower Child movement.  Interesting that so many of the Arab Dictators held power for about 40 years which means that they came into power right as the U.S. was giving its power up to the hippies.

Most of the Hippies were probably from Intact families just because they grew up in the “ideal homes” of the 50s and because they were rebelling against their boring, stable childhoods full of irritable people.  That’s just my take on things, of course, which may diverge from reality.  I think this because Children of Divorce don’t really need to question authority much. We probably weren’t raised by authoritarians (and that’s a good thing, especially if you don’t mind feeling a little unsafe).

What I did notice is that one of the initiators of the Flower Power movement was a painter named Michael Bowen.  Details of Bowen’s childhood on Wikipedia and other sites say that his father was a rich dentist in Beverly Hills.  So Bowen was from an affluent family.  Another stand out detail said that his Mother’s lover was a gangster who was responsible for bringing Bowen to San Francisco for the first time when he was a kid.

There is no mention of parental divorce in Michael Bowen’s biographies, but a biography on his Father’s obituary says that he had divorced Bowen’s Mother in 1944.  This means that Bowen would have been about 7 or 8 years old when his parent’s divorced.

Michael Bowen’s obituary also says that he died of complications from childhood polio.  There’s no mention of having been sick as a child in the biographies.  Children with serious illnesses and who are from divorce probably don’t want to attract much attention to their neediness because they know they won’t get their needs met if they become a burden.  At any rate, it looks as if the LSD fixed whatever ailed him.

Michael Bowen’s parents seem to have been some pretty wild characters so it makes sense that Bowen grew up to not only be an artist but also to have created the first gathering of the Flower Children in San Francisco.  His Father had worked for a gangster in Chicago before becoming a dentist.  When he moved to Los Angeles he met Bing Crosby and became the Dentist who started capping all the Movie Stars’ teeth.  He is said to have created “The Hollywood Smile.”

Michael Bowen’s Mother, Grace, dated the gangster, Benjamin Bugsy Siegel who built the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas.

So, this family was responsible for a whole lot of what the West Coast became famous for if any or all of this information is anywhere near accurate.

The first Love In or Be-In happened on Jan. 14, 1967.  It appears that Bowen made it through a good art school so perhaps he finished college.  I don’t know if he had siblings.  Bowen married 3 times and had two sons and two daughters.

The No-Fault divorce law was created in 1969 and was signed into effect in 1970.  It was created to try to make Divorce a less difficult and stressful experience.  Within the next 5 years probably half the married couples in the State were divorced.  We all got through that time by watching “The Brady Bunch” on TV.  It also wasn’t atypical for kids to get together to talk about their drunk and stoned out parents and how there wasn’t any food in the refrigerator.  Kids were doing all the housework while Mom and Dad dated.  The psychologists became very rich.  Many Mothers became psychologists because they figured that being a Mom naturally led to being a shrink.  What they didn’t know is that they weren’t the caretakers in their families.  Their kids were probably absorbing all their talk about personal problems, failed relationships, stressed out finances, where to live, what to eat.  It wasn’t the other way around.  Am not sure about the Statistics but I remember hearing years ago that one in seven people living in San Francisco was a lawyer.  I’ve also read that San Francisco has the lowest amount of children of all the cities in California.  People move to San Francisco to repeat their childhoods.  Amazingly, when I lived there I noticed that most did not actually come from Divorced families themselves (natives did, of course).

I’ve mentioned many times my frustration that the CDC keeps statistics about divorced households for every state except California.  This is Bull Shit, of course.  It’s an extremely deceptive and dishonest way to keep statistics.  Don’t know if they’ve changed during the past year or so since I last checked, but have seen some articles which have turned to the Census bureau for statistics.  I have read a few anecdotal types of articles which say that the Divorce rate for California is around 75 percent.  Since California is the most heavily populated state I imagine that this would raise the National average a bit but what do I know?

What really amazes me is how the Governors of California, a state which touts extreme liberal views (these are true only if one visits select towns and cities along the coast, a total lie for anyone who travels 5 miles inland), has not only never had a woman Governor but has also never had a Governor who grew up in a Divorced family.

I’ve pondered before on this blog about how I think that Children of Divorce, having had to be the adults in their relationships with their parents, or at least having had to grow up much more quickly than the other kids at school, have no or little interest in becoming Governors.  Who the Hell would want to govern a bunch of single parents?  I mean, really.

Can’t remember if I posted on it but I do remember trying to wiki my way through all the Governors in the United States to see if this is typical across the entire country.  It seemed that the Statistics were very low.  I can’t remember what I found, but vaguely remember (and my memory is indeed vague) that the percentage was something like 10 percent of U.S. Governors come from Divorced homes. I never actually added the numbers because many people don’t discuss their childhoods and parental situations.

Barack Obama is from Divorce, though.  So, things may change in this regard.  He was a Senator before he became President.  I’ve mentioned before about how I think that being a Senator might be  something that Children of Divorce would gravitate towards.  Legislation and standing around saying “Can’t we all just get along?” while everyone else fights seems to right up a Child of D’s alley. There’s no way I’m going to research childhoods of Senators.  There are tons of them.  And that’s only one legislative branch.  From the way Congress is going, I’d say that many members of that branch have probably been through stuff that nobody is ever going to talk about.

California does have female Senators but they didn’t grow up in Divorced families.  I think that Politics is a necessary evil so it doesn’t interest me.

So, from the top, we can see why the silence on growing up in Divorce.  People who come from Intact homes just know that Children of D get 2 presents at Christmas and therefore are spoiled. I have no doubt that this includes all the Governors of California’s present and past who just want to give off the aura of a bucolic lifestyle full of total personal freedom.

Voters vote for people who will represent their own personal agenda.  And no one thinks that Divorced kids represent their own agenda. Even the kids who grew up in divorce because even if they’re successful at what they do they didn’t get there by discussing that particular part of their lives.  They probably became successful because they threw themselves into an occupation with more energy than the competition because they had no where else to hang out during childhood and adolescence and college.  There’s no affirmative action for kids from Divorce even though statistics show a very reduced rate for College graduates.  In the land of Psychologists and Lawyers and Real Estate Agents there are no studies about growing up in Divorce.  When you think about it, these are the professions which thrive on a high Divorce Rate.  In Political terms, growing up in divorce ought to be called “The Pity Party.”

One of the questions asked was what age did he recommend buying a cell phone for his children.  He apparently is still married to his children’s Mother because the issue of divorce didn’t come up.  He said that he had bought his oldest son a phone at age 14 but was planning on buying his 12 year old daughter a phone.

I’ve looked around a little and it seems that most parents feel it’s best to give a child their phone when they are around these ages.   Except in Divorces when the average ages seem to be around 8 and 10.  The reason is not as much as for safety, the reason the married parents say they give their children a phone.  But, in divorce it seems that this reduces stress for the parent over having to talk with the ex.  Parents can talk directly with the children.

I definitely haven’t researched this.  It would figure that children of divorce would have cell phones at a much earlier age in the same way that they have to take airplanes by themselves at a much earlier age and they have to adapt to living with strangers.  It sort of amazes me when experts who are married parents don’t even think about children in divorce.  Even at this late date and with single parents bursting out the seams in society.  I looked at one legal site set up out of Massachusetts which talked about how age that children are given cell phones is a huge argument between divorced parents which often requires lawyering.  If it’s not one thing it’s just going to be another.  Divorcing people will have to argue over every last thing.

http://www.sheknows.com/parenting/articles/810085/should-kids-have-cell-phones

This article is about a Mother who couldn’t get food stamps to feed her 2 children.  During an almost 7 hour stand off at the Welfare Office in Laredo, Texas, Rachel Grimmer’s 12-year old daughter posted a few frightening messages on her Facebook account about what she was going through as Mommy waves her gun around in despair.  At one point, she says she’s bored.  Guess perhaps she grew up listening to threatening rants.

At around midnight the Mother shot her two children, the 12 year old daughter and the 10 year old son in the head.  They have survived but are both in critical condition.  Ms. Grimmer then shot and killed herself.  I guess the welfare office supervisor wasn’t harmed.

Obviously, the Social Worker could have used some training.  He’s obviously telling lies all over the place about what was done to help.  And there are obviously some racial issues going on here.

The kid in this situation doesn’t ask for help, probably would resist it if it were offered, and it won’t be offered anyway because family, friends, and psychoblabbers  can’t stand the drama or even actually are amused by it.

The article tries to make sense out of the relationship between this family and the welfare system and it can’t.  It’s so unbelievable it sounds like Alice falling down the rabbit hole.

This brings up a lot of issues.  But, for right now,  I pray that those kids will recover.

Here’s a good article from Australia about Filicide.  That’s people who kill their children.  Talks about connection with Divorce.  And the tendency for everyone around, friends, family, therapists, etc., to go into denial, or at least do nothing.   The grandmother wrote back on Facebook to her granddaughter that she was “there for you.”   She could have at least told the kid to take her brother and go hide or to fake a convulsion to distract the adults.

“Mental Health, Filicide, Parental Separation and Divorce:  The need for early intervention and a better coordinated approach.” by Dr. Daniell Tyson and Prof. Thea Brown.

EDIT added December 28, 2011:  Both of Rachel Grimmer’s children died within 2 days of the shooting.  May they Rest in Peace.

I suppose that this just goes to show how the actual personality of a step-parent might not always be the real issue here (although I don’t want to discount when it is).

The Biological Mother who resents the ex-StepMother calling the kids “her own:” 

The StepMother who resents not being able to call her stepdaughter’s kids her “Grand children.”  This one is interesting because the blame is placed on the daughter. No mention of how overwhelming it would feel to have to take car of your first child, your Mother’s resentment of the overbearing and needy step-mother, as well as the overbearing and needy step-mother.  Oh and there’s the noncomittal father who doesn’t give a shit but mostly blames his daughter for his wife’s b.s.  The message is written as if the Father had written it.  Which never happens because Father’s never intervene, so obviously the column is bogus.  Amy says that he can’t expect anyone to “reason” things out.  I think the daughter is being extremely reasonable about how much she really owes her parents.  She is probably trying to not repeat their mistakes, after all, and in that case, the girl-child can’t give into everyone else’s selfish needs all the time or she will end up hating her husband just the same way her Mother probably hates her Father.

Anyway, Amy does actually publish this stuff, so at least she’s not in denial that the issues exist.  Advice columnists, like Psychologists, are like large corporations.  They know where the bread is buttered and they side with the money.  Amy could tell the parents that their situation is simply way too stressful for most children to handle and to back off.  I guess that would get boring to read week after week.  And who wants to confront an overbearing woman who has taken on the role of “Stepmother?”

A review on family justice which was headed by a man named David Norgrove has just published a 220-page study on divorce which is intended to become law.  I’m not sure if it actually is law at this point or is just pointing out that current studies show what is actually best for the children.  And that’s scary.

The study suggests that couples do their own divorces rather than jam up the legal system.  I’m sure if they could, they would, but anyone who has seen a divorce from a kid’s point of view knows that parents going through a divorce don’t exactly think in logical, straight lines.

Nearly half of all British children will become Children of Divorce by the time they are 16 years old.  That’s higher than in the U.S.

Britain has free health care and can track children’s health better so probably can truly look at the effects of divorce on children. One of the following links says that 75 percent of children are said to suffer significantly from their parents’ divorces.

Grandparents have very restricted access to their grandchildren and will have to apply through the courts for access to visit grandchildren.  There’s something in this that I’m not understanding.   In the U.S. I doubt that Grandparents create worse conditions.  I think that kids whose Grandparents let them live with them are in better shape a lot of the time.  I think that this might be true if there is only one boy in the family, because Grandmothers probably favor their grandsons.  That might not be true, but, who knows?  There aren’t any studies in the U.S.

I’m not sure what the study actually has to say about this but there appears to be a tightening on father’s rights as parents.  It has been decided that children suffer too much from being shuffled back and forth between households so Fathers will have less access to their children.

I agree that the shuttling back and forth seems nuts to me, but I think that it works in some families.  It’s great that the courts are aware of this and it’s too bad the parents and the shrinks stayed in denial on this one.   In the U.S. there are studies about how boys suffer from divorce because they don’t have Father figures, so I doubt that back-peddling into the single Mother household mentality helps.  Boys end up hating themselves if they have to see how much their Mothers suffer because they are alone.

To be honest, I doubt that daughters will suffer too much by having limited access to their step-mothers and step-sisters in most cases.

I think that it’s much more important for courts to make certain that remarriages don’t screw kids out of their education, healthcare, and inheritances, than by trying to intervene and deny parent-child relationships.  Those are areas which I think a court should write in to the law.  If the parents can’t provide an emotionally safe situation for their kids then I don’t think that the courts will help by controlling who has access to the kids.  In the end, I agree with Norgrove, but I don’t think that his study is coming up with the correct solutions.

It would definitely make sense if Britain completely got rid of marriage since the divorce rate is so high anyway.