County mental health official arrested

The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports:

A 56-year-old Santa Cruz County children’s mental health worker was charged with sexual assault of a child in Santa Cruz Superior Court on Tuesday.

Christopher Douglas McCauley, who has posted $100,000 bail, pleaded not guilty and was ordered back in court July 23, Judge John Salazar ruled. McCauley faces 15 years to life in prison if convicted, prosecutor Rafael Vazquez said outside court.

McCauley, of Live Oak, is accused of attacking a child 1995, authorities said. The alleged victim was not a mental health client, and the report recently was made to Child Protective Services, according to the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office.

McCauley has worked for County Mental Health for about 20 years.

He was earning $100k per year in salary and benefits.

I hesitate to post this, because a story like this can destroy a man's career, and the accusation might be completely false. He is innocent until proven guilty.

I do not even know what the article means when it says "accused of attacking a child 1995". If the accusation is about a 1995 attack, then it should be dismissed for all the reasons that we have a statute of limitations.

If a crime was really committed, then why didn't the victim or parent report it directly to police? I would not trust CPS if it were my child.

Sheriff’s deputies have said there might be other victims.

The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office asks anyone with information to call 831-471-1121.

Do they have the goods on this guy or not? Maybe they only suspect him, so they figured that they could arrest him and put out the call for more victims and evidence. If that is the case here, I would hate to think that I cooperated in an evil plot to ruin a man's reputation.

If he has really been molesting kids for 20 years, and using his position as a County children's mental health worker to recruit victims, then I hope that they throw the book at him, and fire his supervisors and enablers as well.

But I doubt it.

I am not sure which is worse. That the County would employ a child molester in a position like this, or that it would frame an innocent man. Based on what I know about CPS, both seem possible.

His lawyer or his friends are welcome to post here anything in his defense.

Psychiatrists and Hair Dryer Incident

Need some proof that psychiatrists and psychologists are screwed up? Here is story of a trivial solution to a nasty mental problem, and it is somehow controversial:

The Hair Dryer Incident was probably the biggest dispute I’ve seen in the mental hospital where I work. Most of the time all the psychiatrists get along and have pretty much the same opinion about important things, but people were at each other’s throats about the Hair Dryer Incident.

Basically, this one obsessive compulsive woman would drive to work every morning and worry she had left the hair dryer on and it was going to burn down her house. So she’d drive back home to check that the hair dryer was off, then drive back to work, then worry that maybe she hadn’t really checked well enough, then drive back, and so on ten or twenty times a day.

It’s a pretty typical case of obsessive-compulsive disorder, but it was really interfering with her life. She worked some high-powered job – I think a lawyer – and she was constantly late to everything because of this driving back and forth, to the point where her career was in a downspin and she thought she would have to quit and go on disability. She wasn’t able to go out with friends, she wasn’t even able to go to restaurants because she would keep fretting she left the hair dryer on at home and have to rush back. She’d seen countless psychiatrists, psychologists, and counselors, she’d done all sorts of therapy, she’d taken every medication in the book, and none of them had helped.

So she came to my hospital and was seen by a colleague of mine, who told her “Hey, have you thought about just bringing the hair dryer with you?”

And it worked.

She would be driving to work in the morning, and she’d start worrying she’d left the hair dryer on and it was going to burn down her house, and so she’d look at the seat next to her, and there would be the hair dryer, right there. And she only had the one hair dryer, which was now accounted for. So she would let out a sigh of relief and keep driving to work.

And approximately half the psychiatrists at my hospital thought this was absolutely scandalous, and This Is Not How One Treats Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and what if it got out to the broader psychiatric community that instead of giving all of these high-tech medications and sophisticated therapies we were just telling people to put their hair dryers on the front seat of their car?

I, on the other hand, thought it was the best fricking story I had ever heard and the guy deserved a medal. Here’s someone who was totally untreatable by the normal methods, with a debilitating condition, and a drop-dead simple intervention that nobody else had thought of gave her her life back. If one day I open up my own psychiatric practice, I am half-seriously considering using a picture of a hair dryer as the logo, just to let everyone know where I stand on this issue.

Okay, half the shrinks were okay with this solution to the problem. But what's the matter with the other half?

I guess someone could say that bring the dryer was not solving the underlying mental problem. But then giving her pills surely does not either. Did they want to give her pills instead? Weird.

I think that the point of the story is that we should put up with Bruce Jenner's mental illness instead of trying to cure him, but I did not read the whole essay. I am just posting it for what it says about divergent views among mental health professionals.

Pope values parents over so-called experts

The Vatican does not seem to have much influence anymore, as it cannot even persuade Ireland to stop same-sex marriage:

The overall result, of course, is most important. With opinion polls suggesting the Yes side will win comfortably, Ireland looks poised to become the first country in the world to legalize same-sex marriage via a nationwide vote.

The Pope has said and done some goofy things, but I am glad to see him stick up for parents over so-called experts:

(Vatican Radio) In his catechesis at the General Audience on Wednesday, Pope Francis focused on the role of parents in the education of their children, which he called “an essential characteristic” of the family.

The Holy Father noted the many difficulties facing parents today, especially those who find themselves in difficult situations. He spoke especially about the difficulties of separated couples, calling on them to “never, never, never take the children hostage!”

He spoke out strongly against “intellectual critics” who have “silenced” parents in order to defend younger generations from real or imagined harm. This has opened up a fracture between families and societies, leading to a crisis in the relationship between families and society. So-called experts have often taken the place of parents, depriving them of their proper place in the education of their own children, “even in the most delicate and personal aspects of their lives.” Parents often are afraid to correct their children, leaving it instead to experts.

That neatly summarizes a major theme of this blog.

A hot issue in California is mandatory vaccines. Most of the experts recommend the vaccines. At least 95% of the kids get the vaccines, and maybe 1% get a medical exemption. A new law is going to force nearly everyone to get the vaccines.

The risk from the vaccines is very small, but the risk of getting the diseases if you are unvaccinated is also very small. So the benefit of the vaccines is debatable.

There was a measles outbreak in Disneyland, but it was a few dozen adults catching it from a Filipino visitor. A stricter vaccine policy on American schoolkids would not have made a difference.

Nearly all parents are doing what the experts say, and there is little or no harm in others not going along, so what is the problem? Who cares?

I think that it is simply a power play in a plan to eliminate parental rights and informed consent. More of this will come, and parents will not have the authority to rear their kids according to their own beliefs.

Obama pushes for more LGBT kids

The LGBTQIA attacks on the civil liberties of everyone else continue. Now Pres. Barack Obama wants to censor private counseling sessions.

The NY Times reports:

A 17-year-old transgender youth, Leelah Alcorn, stunned her friends and a vast Internet audience in December when she threw herself in front of a tractor-trailer after writing in an online suicide note that religious therapists had tried to convert her back to being a boy.

In response, President Obama is calling for an end to such therapies aimed at “repairing” gay, lesbian and transgender youth. His decision on the issue is the latest example of his continuing embrace of gay rights.

In a statement that was posted on Wednesday evening alongside a WhiteHouse.gov petition begun in honor of Ms. Alcorn, Mr. Obama condemned the practice, sometimes called “conversion” or “reparative” therapy, which is supported by some socially conservative organizations and religious doctors.

The White House statement says:

When assessing the validity of conversion therapy, or other practices that seek to change an individual’s gender identity or sexual orientation, it is as imperative to seek guidance from certified medical experts. The overwhelming scientific evidence demonstrates that conversion therapy, especially when it is practiced on young people, is neither medically nor ethically appropriate and can cause substantial harm.

No, it is not true that the scientific evidence is against conversion therapy.

A dirty secret of the profession is that psychotherapy hardly ever changes or cures anyone. The success rate on most problems is very low, unless the patient is motivated the change in the first place. Mostly counseling just talk to patients to make them feel better about their problems.

I've looked at the supposedly scientific statements against conversion therapy. They go like this: If you assume that sexual orientation and identity are innate and immutable, and that a determination has been made of a particular orientation and identity, then anecdotes suggest that trying to change either is often harmful or unproductive.

There are also anecdotes claiming conversion therapy can be successful, and no good scientific studies comparing them.

In short, there is no good scientific evidence that conversion therapy is any worse than any other psychotherapy.

As a practical matter, the consequence of a law like what Obama proposes would be that if someone is confused about his sexuality and seeks counseling, the counseling will have to encourage him to be gay or transsexual.

You might say that no one should have to endure psychotherapy to change their fundamental beliefs. I would go further, and say that no one should be forced to endure psychotherapy at all, as I believe the whole field does more harm than good, and that forcing it is an abuse of human rights. But the family (and juvenile) court do it all the time. Judges order parents off to counseling because it is supposed to help everyone, or to change behavior in response to dubious complaints, or as punishment, or as some weird fitness test. That is, if the dad does not do the ordered counseling and get a good report, then the judge has an excuse to cut off child custody and visitation.

If the shrinks had any ethics, they would refuse all court-ordered counseling.

Here is a typical response to Obama:

So, this is where we are now.

A mentally ill person wants to be the opposite sex. A counselor suggests that the person consider accepting the natural sex. Mental patient commits suicide and blames counselor’s suggestion of just going natural.

n=1

Based on this sample size, the President (not a psychiatrist nor a peer committee of such) suggests as a matter of public policy and professional practice that mental patients not be counseled to accept their natural sex rather to embrace their delusions of being the opposite sex.

Are we serious?

This is at least as stupid as any religion.

Is the president now some kind of high priest who advises all people on all matters whatever without regard to being entirely unqualified?

This is one of the sickest opinions to come out of the White House. Here is what former VP Dick Cheney says, about other policies:

I vacillate between the various theories I’ve heard, but you know, if you had somebody as president who wanted to take America down, who wanted to fundamentally weaken our position in the world and reduce our capacity to influence events, turn our back on our allies and encourage our adversaries, it would look exactly like what Barack Obama’s doing. I think his actions are constituted in my mind those of the worst president we’ve ever had.

I do not agree with anything Obama has done.

Time-outs allegedly cause brain damage

The current dogma among child shrinks is that time-outs are good, and spanking is bad. However some say that spanking is physical abuse, and a time-out is emotional abuse. Here is a Time magazine article:

In a brain scan, relational pain — that caused by isolation during punishment — can look the same as physical abuse. Is alone in the corner the best place for your child?

Time-out is the most popular discipline technique used by parents and the one most often recommended by pediatricians and child development experts. But is it good for kids? Is it effective? Not according to the implications of the latest research on relationships and the developing brain.

Studies in neuroplasticity — the brain’s adaptability — have proved that repeated experiences actually change the physical structure of the brain. Since discipline-related interactions between children and caregivers comprise a large amount of childhood experiences, it becomes vital that parents thoughtfully consider how they respond when kids misbehave. Discipline is about teaching – not about punishment – and finding ways to teach children appropriate behavior is essential for healthy development.

So what about time-outs? In most cases, the primary experience a time-out offers a child is isolation. Even when presented in a patient and loving manner, time-outs teach them that when they make a mistake, or when they are having a hard time, they will be forced to be by themselves—a lesson that is often experienced, particularly by young children, as rejection. Further, it communicates to kids, “I’m only interested in being with you and being there for you when you’ve got it all together.”

Here are some psychologists disagreeing:

Unfortunately, none of the authors’ conclusions regarding the rejection of time-out or the use of “time-in” are directly supported by research evidence, nor do they reflect a clear understanding of correctly implemented time-out.

Decades of carefully controlled studies support the efficacy of time-out when used correctly with regard to the child’s developmental and emotional status and in the context of a broader behavioral management program. Time out appropriately used involves explaining to the child during a non-crisis time how and why the procedure is being used. At the end of the time out the child should be praised and rewarded for following the procedure, a parent hug works well at this point—akin to what Siegel and Payne Bryson refer to as Time In.

Maybe so, but Decades of carefully controlled studies also support the efficacy of spanking when used correctly.

I am just trying to follow the science here, and from what I see, there is very little evidence that any one parenting strategy is better than any others. I have my preferences, but I cannot prove that they are best. The so-called experts who try to tell us what is best are not following the science.

This NPR This American Life podcast discusses a related problem in schools:

Stories of schools struggling with what to do with misbehaving kids. There's no general agreement about what teachers should do to discipline kids. And there's evidence that some of the most popular punishments actually may harm kids.

Choosing male therapist over dad

Slate's Prudie advice column says:

Q. ... I am a single mother with a 14-year-old son. ... I am losing sleep and I don’t want to succumb to letting his father deal with this, but what should I do?

A: First, watch the coming of age movie, The Squid and the Whale, then read Portnoy’s Complaint for some background on teenage boys ... Your son should see a male therapist—he needs intervention with someone who can be a trusted, calm, helpful adult.

I am skipping the details, because they are implausible, but I agree with CH:

Prudie’s (aka Emily YOFFE’s) answer is mostly anodyne, though she can’t resist the femtard compulsions to demonize the biological father and rationalize cutting him out of the picture, and to suggest “therapaaaaaah” for the boy. Yes, that’s the answer to all the problems that boys cause empowered, independent women: Therapy. While you’re at it, why not pry his eyeballs open and have him watch 48 hours of uninterrupted footage of suffrage marches and The View?

“I don’t want to succumb to letting his father deal with this”

Gotta love the pathological, unrelenting selfishness of single moms. Yes, don’t succumb to letting the kid have a talk with his real dad about something that his dad would intuitively understand. Better to yell at him for soiling your cuntrags.

I post this as an example of today's simple mom mindset. Not only does the mom avoid the dad, she gets advice to prefer a male therapist for the boy.

Here is another letter:

Q. Last Week’s “Want to Go Alone”: I’m the woman from last week’s chat who took a promotion and transfer without telling my husband. My husband is a big fan of yours, and he correctly guessed who had written that question. He’s upset, but our marriage has been shaky for so long that I think we’re both relieved. I wanted to mention that I did get help and a diagnosis of post-partum depression after our daughter was born. The meds I took only numbed my dark thoughts toward the baby. Even though I continued therapy after my maternity leave finally ended, I was still unable to develop positive feelings for her. I feel that my moving will be good for us all.

Huhh? This woman is so insane that she has to take anti-psychotic drugs to prevent her from killing her own baby. And she tells strangers than she is leaving her husband and daughter before telling them. No therapist tells her how sick she is.

Amicable divorce is just as damaging

The conventional wisdom among psychologists and other shrinks is that divorce is a good thing if the parents have "grown apart" and seek personal happiness elsewhere. But they all say that they should be amicable for the sake of the kids.

The UK Daily Mail throws cold water on the idea:

Amicable divorce 'is just as damaging for children': Impact of a split on youngsters is same if couple remain friends or not

Divorcing parents who try to maintain an amicable relationship for the sake of their children are doing nothing to help them, a major study suggests.

The impact of the split on youngsters is the same whether or not the mother and father keep cordial links, it found.

The findings undermine a Government-backed consensus that the harm caused to children by separating parents can be limited if the couple remain friends. ...


But the researchers, headed by Dr Jonathon Beckmeyer of Indiana University, found that these children’s problems were no worse if their parents continued to row and bicker with each other after the divorce.

It is just one stupid study, and I would not take it too seriously. A reader comments:

Did they compare it to children whose parents don't divorce, but who live in constant violence and conflict? I'm pretty sure that the children are more damaged by fighting and violence in the home than by the divorce afterwards.

I don't have an opinion about this, except that the shrinks should get some data before dispensing their bad advice.

There is something freaky about a very amicable divorce. It is supposedly done for the sake of the kids, but I am not sure it is a good thing to lie to your kids about what is really going on, or to demonstrate that you are willing to destroy a marriage for trivial reasons.

I say if my wife wants a divorce I would never want to be amicable with her - you are either with me until the end, or you will never be a part of my life EVER.

I get that too, and I am not sure it is good to be friends with someone who betrayed you.

You cannot base the results on the say so of parents. Lets be honest what parent is going to admit that the children are in need of the non custodial parent, after all that won't help their agenda in forcing the non custodial parent out of the children's lives. When my mother threw my dad out of the house in a temper, my brother and I were made to choose between dad and mom, if we even let show any emotion we would be made to feel bad and guilty, we weren't allowed to talk about my dad or say anything nice about him, in the end we bottled it up and just got on with life. Children know when to keep quiet and its usually a self preservation tool, I speak from experience. If you truly have your children's best interests at heart, you must fight for 50/50 shared custody, where both parents are as equally involved as the children's lives as the other, children should never have to feel like they have to hide their emotions during divorce, its not good for them.

There are a lot of dads who give up on child custody because they think that a legal fight would be bad for the kids. If the system worked right, 50/50 shared custody would be automatic, and not require a fight.

Right to record cops

More and more, courts and others are affirming a citizen's right to video-record police officers doing their jobs. Here is the latest:

In a statement of findings and recommendations filed last week, a US Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of California affirmed that a woman on searchable probation had the right to videotape three officers who came to her home to search it.

From the court opinion:

The complaint alleges that defendant violated plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment when he took her laptop away after she informed him that she was recording the search of her residence. As early as 1995, the Ninth Circuit has recognized a “First Amendment right to film matters of public interest.” Fordyce v. City of Seattle, 55 F.3d 436, 439 (9th Cir.1995). Other circuits have similarly held that the First Amendment protects an individual’s right to record police officers in the course of carrying out their duties. See Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir.2001) (“The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within [the First Amendment].”); Gilles v. Davis, 427 F.3d 197, 212 n.14 (3rd Cir.2005) (“[V]ideotaping or photographing the police in the performance of their duties on public property may be protected activit[ies]”); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir.2000) (“The First Amendment protects the right to gather information about what public officials do on public property,” including the right “to photograph or videotape police conduct.”). ...

There simply is no principled bases upon which to find that although the right to record officers conducting their official duties only extends to duties performed in public, the right does not extend to those performed in a private residence. The public’s interest in ensuring that police officers properly carry out their duties and do not abuse the authority bestowed on them by society does not cease once they enter the private residence of a citizen.

To the contrary, there appears to be an even greater interest for such recordings when a police officer’s actions are shielded from the public’s view. Further, there is no reason to believe that plaintiff’s status as a probationer would diminish the public’s interest in how police exercise their authority in a private citizen’s homes….

Similar reasoning should apply to other govt officials, such as judges, CPS, forensic psychologists, etc.

Getting pointless advice from therapist

Here is a letter to a stupid newspaper advice column:

Carolyn: I have my first therapy appointment scheduled for this weekend. I never wanted to go, but my wife convinced me that issues I struggle with were damaging our marriage. I can't help but feel like I'll be smarter than the therapist when it comes to knowing what I need, and that I'll find his advice pointless.

Still, I want to do this for my wife and marriage. Do you have any advice for how a nontherapy-believer can keep from self-sabotage? I want this to work, even if deep down I don't believe it can.

I hate to tell him, but getting pointless advice is not the worst possibility. The therapist is likely to give destructive advice that his wife may foolishly follow.

The columnist replies:

Do you go into doctors' offices thinking you know more about anatomy and biochemistry than your doctor? Into a garage thinking you know more about cars than your mechanic? Into a class thinking you know more about the subject than the teacher?

Why do you assume there's no way a therapist can know more about emotional patterns and habits than you do?

A man often does go to a garage know more about what his car needs than the mechanic.

A better comparison might be to a chiropractor or an accupuncturist. The scientific studies show that most of what they do is worthless, and likewise for marriage counselors.

Carolyn reverses herself after this comment:

Re: First-timer: Most therapists do not give advice, at least at first. If you go in expecting to be told a bunch of answers in a couple of sessions you're going to be disappointed. Good therapy starts just by having a conversation about what's bothering you and having the therapist listen. It is a big leap of faith, but you have to sort of trust that process.

So he is better off assuming that the advice will be worthless after all.

Sluggish cognitive tempo is the new ADD

Just when I thought that the shrinks already had too many excuses for drugging kids, the NY Times reports on a new one:

With more than six million American children having received a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, concern has been rising that the condition is being significantly misdiagnosed and overtreated with prescription medications.

Yet now some powerful figures in mental health are claiming to have identified a new disorder that could vastly expand the ranks of young people treated for attention problems. Called sluggish cognitive tempo, the condition is said to be characterized by lethargy, daydreaming and slow mental processing. By some researchers’ estimates, it is present in perhaps two million children.

Experts pushing for more research into sluggish cognitive tempo say it is gaining momentum toward recognition as a legitimate disorder — and, as such, a candidate for pharmacological treatment. Some of the condition’s researchers have helped Eli Lilly investigate how its flagship A.D.H.D. drug might treat it.

“This is a concoction to justify the giving out of medication at unprecedented and unjustifiable levels,” Keith Conners, a psychologist and early advocate for recognition of A.D.H.D., said of the rising rates of diagnosis of the disorder.

The Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology devoted 136 pages of its January issue to papers describing the illness, with the lead paper claiming that the question of its existence “seems to be laid to rest as of this issue.” The psychologist Russell Barkley of the Medical University of South Carolina, for 30 years one of A.D.H.D.’s most influential and visible proponents, has claimed in research papers and lectures that sluggish cognitive tempo “has become the new attention disorder.”

You can bet that the drugs for this will be abused.

Major League Baseball bans a lot of performance enhancing drugs, but if the player has a documented attention deficit, then he gets to take pills to increase his alertness.

Lesbians arrested for child abuse

The worst parents are the psychotherapists, lesbians, and adoptive parents. This story has the combination, along with bankruptcy and welfare.

The Monterey Herald reports:

One of two women accused of starving, chaining and abusing three children in Monterey County is a former correctional officer, while the other was a businesswoman and counselor at clinics in California and New Mexico, according to their online professional profiles and court filings.

Sheriff's deputies rescued three children from the couple's residence on Russell Road north of Salinas on March 14, citing horrific conditions and an "emaciated" 8-year-old girl who looked like "a concentration camp" victim, said Monterey County Sheriff Scott Miller.

Also taken from the home were two boys, ages 3 and 5.

Miller said Eraca Dawn Craig, 31, and Christian Jessica Deanda, 44, are accused of felony child cruelty, false imprisonment and other charges.

Deputies conducted a wel­fare check at the house after the children didn’t show up for an unspecified appoint­ment, detectives said.

They found the children, who were home-schooled, living in squalid conditions and “fairly dire straits,” Miller said.

The girl was the most abused, deputies said, though all three had bruises and other marks and ap­peared to be malnourished.

Officers said they found signs the girl had been chained to the wall about four feet above the floor, and said she may also have been held in a closet.

Investigators believe she had been shackled at times at the ankle and at other times by a collar around her neck.

One deputy reported the girl was chained “to keep her from obtaining food.”

Miller said it appeared she had “hardly eaten for months.”

The girl and the 5-year ­old boy were legally adopted children, he said, while the 3-year-old boy is the biolog­ical son of one of the women, who are domestic partners.

The rescued 8-year-old girl was immediately hospi­talized for around five days, Miller said, and appeared to be “very traumatized.”

“It seems that the little girl was the major target of this abuse,” he said. “It was a particularly heinous case.”

He said there were in­dications the women were preparing to leave the area very soon.

Detectives said moving boxes were already packed and the women told them they were planning to move to the Fresno area.

Miller said when children are rescued from terrifying conditions, they’re not usu­ally “jumping up and down in joy. They may have for­gotten what joy is like.”

Profiles leave no clue

Law enforcement’s de­scription of the grim sce­nario stands inmarked con­trast to the women’s online business profiles.

Posting as Cristian De­anda- Craig on LinkedIn. Com, Deanda wrote about her cactus nursery in New Mexico: “I am currently in a place that makes me happy both personally and profes­sionally. I left me (sic) job to be home with my kids. I loved gardening and soon found myself selling flowers to neighbors. So my partner and I started our business — the best decision ever! I enjoy watching my kids grow and my flowers!”

Under previous jobs, she lists work as an HIV pre­vention case manager at John XXIII AIDS Ministry in Salinas from 2001-2004, and later as a psychosocial therapy manager at Valen­cia Counseling Services in Estancia, New Mexico.

Deanda was also a pro­gram manager at a transi­tional housing facility for men in Gallup, New Mex­ico, according to the profile.

Public records show she has lived in Castroville and Salinas as well as New Mex­ico.

Deanda and Craig were scheduled to be married March 29, according to an online gift registry.

Craig, whose profile is listed under Eraca Craig-Deanda, earned a bachelor’s degree in auto mechanics management from Hartnell College in 2013, according to the site.

Before that, she was a de­tention officer at the Navajo County (Ariz.) Sheriff’s Of­fice in 2005-2006 and a cor­rections officer at a New Mexico corrections facility from Dec. 2006 to May 2010. More recently, her occupa­tion was listed as auto me­chanic.

Records show she left New Mexico in May 2010, moving to the Russell Road address in unincorporated Monterey County.

Soon after moving back to Salinas, Craig filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy.

Almost immediately, she began defaulting on agreed­ upon monthly payments, federal court records show. The case was ultimately thrown out for failure to pay, just two days before her arrest.

Craig earned around $36,000 a year as a New Mexico correctional officer, according to her filing, but was receiving unemploy­ment assistance and food stamps in Salinas at the time of her bankruptcy pe­tition.

The three children were listed as her dependent sons and daughter in the filing, which was made when her youngest son was 6 months old.

Neither woman appears to have a criminal record in Monterey County, accord­ing to court records.

Asked why his office took so long to announce the arrests, Miller said of­ficials were still investigat­ing the case and wanted to wait until after the women were charged by the Dis­trict Attorney’s Office and arraigned in court.

They were arraigned in Monterey County Court on Tuesday and are being held at Monterey County Jail in lieu of $50,000 bail each, al­though Miller said late Fri­day officers were in court asking for the bail amounts to be raised.

Deanda and Craig are scheduled for a preliminary hearing March 28.

Not too long ago, these unstable lesbians would not have been able to adopt kids because they would not have been considered fit parents.

Book about recanting false accusation

Here is a video promoting a 2010 book on “My Lie: A True Story of False Memory”.

Meredith Maran: “When I was in my 30s I accused my father of molesting me, and then I realized it wasn’t true”

Friend: “The same thing happened to me”

The accuser is also the victim here, as some evil shrink convinced her to blame all her emotional troubles on some fictional abuse.

Note that the friend is still playing the role of a victim when whe says “The same thing happened to me.” People are responsible for their false accusations. But give the author credit for having the guts to come clean with the truth.

Wives happier with men not doing housework

LA psychotherapist Lori Gottlieb writes in a popular NY Times article:

A study called “Egalitarianism, Housework and Sexual Frequency in Marriage,” which appeared in The American Sociological Review last year, surprised many, precisely because it went against the logical assumption that as marriages improve by becoming more equal, the sex in these marriages will improve, too. Instead, it found that when men did certain kinds of chores around the house, couples had less sex. Specifically, if men did all of what the researchers characterized as feminine chores like folding laundry, cooking or vacuuming — the kinds of things many women say they want their husbands to do — then couples had sex 1.5 fewer times per month than those with husbands who did what were considered masculine chores, like taking out the trash or fixing the car. It wasn’t just the frequency that was affected, either — at least for the wives. The more traditional the division of labor, meaning the greater the husband’s share of masculine chores compared with feminine ones, the greater his wife’s reported sexual satisfaction.

This is one of many research results showing that what women say they want is quite different from what actually makes them happy. The NY Times article is mocked by Chateau Heartiste, as he explains it much better than the newspaper.

Men can get their relationship advice from women and effeminate shrinks, or from the manosphere. It is remarkable how often the advice is diametrically opposed. The manosphere often has social science studies and field experiments to back up what they say.

In other research, a study claims that psychotherapies for newlyweds does not work any better than watching Hollywood movies.

Update: Here is a list of thinks men say to women, with advice from a woman to never say them, and advice from a man explaining how they can be used in flirting.

Dad unfit parent for refusing son McDonalds

One of the bad things about the family court and CPS is that parents have to walk around on pins and needles out of fear that some stupid shrink will second guess some routine parenting decision.

The NY Post reports:

A Manhattan dad is not lovin’ McDonald’s right now.

Attorney David Schorr slapped a court-appointed shrink with a defamation lawsuit for telling the judge deciding a custody battle with his estranged wife that he was an unfit parent — for refusing to take his son to the fast food joint for dinner.

“You’d think it was sexual molestation,” Schorr, 43, told The Post Thursday. “I am just floored by it.”

Schorr says in his Manhattan Supreme Court suit that E. 97th Street psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller filed a report saying he was “wholly incapable of taking care of his son” and should be denied his weekend visitation over the greasy burger ban.

Schorr, a corporate attorney turned consultant with degrees from NYU and Oxford University, had planned to take his 4-year-old son to their usual restaurant, the Corner Café on Third Avenue, for his weekly Tuesday night visitation last week.

But the boy threw a temper tantrum and demanded McDonald’s. So he gave his son an ultimatum: dinner anywhere other than McDonald’s — or no dinner.

“The child, stubborn as a mule, chose the ‘no dinner’ option,” the disgruntled dad says in the suit.

This poor dad is reduced to Tuesday night visitation with his 4yo son, and does not even have the authority to choose a restaurant.

“It was just a standoff. I’m kicking myself mightily,” Schorr said.

“I wish I had taken him to McDonalds, but you get nervous about rewarding bad behavior. I was concerned. I think it was a 1950s equivalent of sending your child to bed without dinner. That’s maybe the worst thing you can say about it,” he said.

Adding insult to injury, he said: “My wife immediately took him to McDonalds.”

Upon reflection, Schorr said he should have remembered that mother knows best.

“The first thing I did was I questioned myself,” he recalled.

“Had I done something wrong? I did what any 43-year-old Jewish man would do — I told my mother. I said, ‘My God, did I do something wrong here?’

“Even my mother, the strictest mother in the world, said, ‘Why didn’t you just take him to McDonalds? What were you thinking? You know that this is a divorce situation.’”

Apparently Jewish mothers do not believe that dads should have the autonomy to decide whether to eat at MacDonalds. Jewish judges, commissioners, and pychologists do not necessarily realize that non-Jews are a lot less likely to see it that way.

Schorr claims that Dr. Schiller only interviewed the child and his mother and never asked for his side of the story before telling the court she was gravely concerned about Schorr’s parenting.

Bari Yunis Schorr sued her husband for a divorce in 2011, just four years after they married in a lavish ceremony at the St. Regis Hotel in Manhattan.

She recently filed motions asking the judge to punish her husband for flouting court orders and for a judgment on nonpayment of child support.

Her attorney, Louis I. Newman, declined to comment on the McDonald’s matter.

“It’s a litigation between Mr. Schorr and Mrs. Schiller,” Newman said.

In the past two and a half years that he has had partial custody of his son their time together “has run smoothly without incident” save a scraped knee, Schorr insists in the suit.

He wants the shrink to return the $2,750 he paid for the evaluation.

I hate to say it, but the dad is not going to get his money back. psychiatrist Marilyn Schiller is probably incompetent or corrupt or both, but she is probably also immunized by the family court.

Eating the dog food

People wonder how so many family court judges, shrinks, lawyers, and others could participate in so many policies that seem so contrary to fairness, justice, common sense, and the public interest. They wonder how so many people could do so much evil without some far-fetched conspiracy theory. The simplest explanation I can give is that they eat the dog food.

Microsoft has a doctrine it calls eating your own dog food. It means that they have to use those company products if they want to keep cashing those company paychecks and stock options. They are happy to do it.

There is a related concept called Eating your own dog food, also defined here. That connotes true-believing cult-members in a suicide pact. That is a good term for people on a self-destructive ideological mission, but most of these family court jerks are more like blood-sucking leeches than kool-aid drinkers.

The dog-food eaters disclaim any responsibility for whether the policies are good or bad. They are just going along with the system in a way that allows them to cash their paychecks.

Court upholds California psychotherapy ban

I have posted before about a California law limiting psychotherapist free speech, and now there is an appealls court ruling. AP reports:

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court sided with California on Thursday and upheld the first law in the nation banning a psychological treatment that seeks to turn gay youth straight.

In a resounding, unanimous opinion, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found the state law barring the so-called gay aversion therapy legal in every respect.

The judges said trying to change a minor’s sexual orientation through intense therapy appeared dangerous, and that California lawmakers properly showed that the sexual orientation change efforts were outside the scientific mainstream and have been rejected for good reason.

“One could argue that children under the age of 18 are especially vulnerable with respect to sexual identity and that their parents’ judgment may be clouded by this emotionally charged issue as well,” Judge Susan Graber wrote for the court panel.

Sound convincing? Here is what the opinion actually said about Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (“SOCE”):

In particular, the legislature relied on a report created by
a Task Force of the American Psychological Association. That report resulted from a systematic review of the scientific literature on SOCE. Methodological problems with some of the reviewed studies limited the conclusions that the Task Force could draw. Nevertheless, the report concluded that SOCE practitioners have not demonstrated the efficacy of SOCE and that anecdotal reports of harm raise serious concerns about the safety of SOCE.

I do not have any personal knowledge whether SOCE works or not. But lets compare this to other therapies. A local child get put on Risperdal, but order of family court quacks. That drug is so dangerous that late-night TV has ads from law firms seeking users for class action lawsuits. (Update: They say to dial 1-800-BAD-DRUG.)

Most, if not all, of the common psychotherapies have not had their efficacy demonstrated, and have anecdotal reports of harm. I would not mind seeing them all banned. No one ever showed that SOCE is any worse than the others.

This is a direct attack on parents being able to use their own judgment in the upbringing of their kids. California schools how require teaching LGBT history and values in all grades, and soon it will be illegal for a parent to tell his own child that it is better to be straight.

Baby girls cause divorce

Some economics research hasshown, according to a new Freakonomics podcast:

Couples who conceive a child out of wedlock and find out that it will be a boy are more likely to marry before the birth of their baby.
Parents who have first-born girls are significantly more likely to be divorced.
Fathers are significantly less likely to be living with their children if they have daughters versus sons.
In any given year, roughly 52,000 first-born daughters younger than 12 years (and all their siblings) would have had a resident father if they had been boys.
Divorced fathers are much more likely to obtain custody of sons compared to daughters.

A 2003 Slate article also said daughters cause divorce.

I found this surprising at first, but there is a plausible evolutionary psychology explanation. Boys require much more investment for their eventual success. A mom is apt to think that she can raise the girl to be a marriageable woman without the dad. A boy is more difficult. See also this 2010 summary.

To the evolutionist, "survival of the fittest" really means survival of whatever results in more grandkids. If your purpose in life is to have grandkids, it is much easier if you have girls. You can be a terrible parent, and your girls turn out to be narcissist sluts, and you will probably still have grandkids. In fact, if you send the girls to graduate school to prepare them for some elite career, you are less likely to have grandkids. On the other hand, boys usually have to have a successful career to attract a mate and have kids.

It sounds unjust, but from this evolutionary view it makes much more sense for a family to invest in the boys, and not the girls. In particular, the parents need to stay married to do it right.

Schools and others in the USA treat girls much better than boys. Boys have more obstacles, and rearing a boy is more work. Moms are more likely to understand that they cannot do it alone, and want the dad investing in the boy's future so that he will successfully marry and reproduce some day.

The theory of evolution does not depend on anyone consciously using this reasoning, any more than it depends on fishes consciously deciding to crawl out of the water and live on land 100s of millions of years ago. The point is that if some people have genes and behaviors that lead to more grandkids, then those genes and behaviors will increase every generation.

To my surprise, the podcast did not mention this explanation. The research economist said that he could only think of three explanations, mostly having to do with dads not wanting daughters. But his three seem unlikely to explain anything. First, parents in the USA want daughters as much as sons, if you look at adoptions and other situations where the parents have a choice. Second, it is usually the mom who files for divorce, not the dad. If daughters are causing divorce, it seems likely that the moms are the ones deciding that the girls do not need dads.

Steven E. Landsburg wrote this followup to his Slate article:

A number of readers offered the comment that, evidence be damned, they would simply never believe that the children's gender could be relevant to a divorce decision. My favorite of these came from a therapist in Iowa — it would probably be inappropriate to mention her name, so let's just call her "Bozo the Therapist" — who took me to task for the "archaic notion" that children ever have anything to do with divorce. Unless she's been practicing not in the state of Iowa but on the planet Iowa in some distant solar system, Bozo must win the prize for "least observant therapist in human history." The fact is that children do affect divorce decisions; if we didn't know this from statistical evidence, we'd still know it from common sense. And to a smallish but non-negligible extent, girls cause more divorces than boys do. Ignoring those facts won't make them go away.

The facts are clear and worth reporting, but there's legitimate controversy about what they mean. There are three key facts: 1) Parents of daughters are more likely to divorce than parents of sons; 2) in multichild families, parents of daughters are more likely to try for another child than parents of sons; 3) divorced mothers of daughters are less likely to remarry than divorced mothers of sons.

I would not be surprised if most therapists are out-of-touch on this issue. They usually say that the cause of most marital problems is a lack of communication. Often it is kids, money, habits, values, etc. And sometimes it is too much communication.

Under the care of a team of shrinks

The NY Times is pushing psychobabble about its embarrassing candidate for mayor:

As Anthony D. Weiner tries to repair the damage left by new revelations about his online behavior with women, one question nags at voters and those who once supported him: Why did he do it? ...

His pattern of behavior is intriguing to mental health professionals and experts on sexual behavior, who — while they emphasize they cannot offer an authoritative diagnosis without examining him — discussed a variety of possible explanations for such conduct.

Some suggested the indiscretions might be an addiction with neurological roots. Others theorized that Mr. Weiner, a Democratic candidate for mayor of New York, could be meeting sexual needs unsatisfied in a marriage. And still others said he might be driven by a combination of a mood disorder and feelings of inadequacy to seek reassurance about his masculinity from women he had never met. ...

Mr. Weiner has shared only limited details about his treatment. In an interview during the early stages of the campaign, he said that, after his resignation, he had sought help at a mental health clinic in Texas and hired a therapist. Last week he suggested that he still had a team of people caring for him.

That last item would be the biggest negatives for my vote. Anyone under the care of a team of shrinks is unfit for office.

People say that he is disrespect to women, but the dark truth is that women love a jerk like him. US News reports:

Anthony Weiner loves the ladies, and apparently they love him back.

Sugar daddy dating website SeekingArrangement.com found that 78 percent of female clients aged 18-26 approve of Weiner.

Here is some anti-child advice:

Cheryl and Ellis Levinson believe they made a very grown-up decision not to have kids.

It was early on in their 28-year relationship when the San Jose couple conceived their emotional choice. While Cheryl, a psychotherapist, had never yearned to give birth, Ellis, who worked in entertainment and journalism and now has a consumer blog, had once dreamed of having his own offspring.

Yet, as they matured together, they began to observe the risks of bringing children into the world -- everything from dangers to the children themselves to the risks to a planet already burgeoning with overpopulation, suffering exhaustion of its natural resources and tainted by climate change and pollution. ...

The Levinsons recently published, "Enough of Us: Why We Should Think Twice Before Making Children" (iUniverse), a book that advocates for being "childfree" ...

I agree. There are too many people in the world, and psychotherapists should not be having kids. We need mentally stable and productive people.

The Thinking Housewife reports:

FOSTER parents in Massachusetts must undergo ten hours a year of “LGBT sensitivity training” and state workers are “weeding out” foster and adoptive parents who disapprove of homosexuality.

And weed out those who disapprove of transgenderism also, I guess.

Local shrinks demand more money

The Santa Cruz Sentinel reports:

Santa Cruz County has been turning to psychiatrists who take temporary assignments to fill gaps left by those on staff who retired or left for private practice.

The shortage of psychiatrists means patients with mental issues must wait for an appointment.

"It takes two months to get the evaluation scheduled," said Dr. Patrick Teverbaugh, a psychiatrist who has worked for the county for 21 years. "There's this incredible turnover, which is not the best psychiatric care to change one's doctor every few months."

Nine doctors -- six psychiatrists and three physicians -- have left since 2011, according to the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, which negotiated a one-year contract that expired in November.

Talks reached an impasse in May and mediation is planned for this month.

The sides are at odds over pay and benefits.

The psychiatrists and physicians are asking for a cost-of-living increase and a retiree health stipend the same as other county retirees.

According to Teverbaugh, physicians voluntarily lowered their retiree health stipend 10 years ago in order to offer a pay differential for a child psychiatrist, which he called a "rare" specialty.

Really? Is it hard to find child psychiatrists? It seems like a trivial specialty to me.

She said the median salary for a psychiatrist in Santa Cruz County is slightly less than $220,000, citing figures from Salary.com.

If the comparison is narrowed to psychiatrists in the public sector, Santa Cruz fares well, according to county personnel director Michael McDougall.

He said a January survey found Santa Cruz County pays psychiatrists 1 percent over market compared to eight Bay Area county governments.

"We compensate at a higher rate than all of them except Santa Clara (County)," he said.

The 2012 Santa Cruz County government pay database shows one psychiatrist earned $239,000, with six earning $147,000 to $208,000.

They are making a lot of money to be complaining. But then so are the BART workers.

Why I'm dumping you

Slightly off-topic, but his list is funny. It reminded me of my wife's divorce papers, where she wrote hundreds of papers enumerating all of my faults. At least they do not have any kids, or else some stupid shrink would be studying these one-by-one and forming as opinion about the BIOTCh (best interest of the child).