The decision to self-represent reflects a confidence in their own knowledge and ability to navigate the system; for others it’s a distrust of lawyers - Argument To Legal Reasoning Formula

“For some, the decision to self-represent reflects a confidence in their own knowledge and ability to navigate the system; for others it’s a distrust of lawyers.”

The increase in self-representation among family litigants creates challenges for the justice system as well as for lawyers and their clients. It is clear that a significant amount of self-representation will be a permanent feature of family justice; lawyers, judges and the justice system will have to deal more effectively with family litigants without lawyers. There will, however, also continue to be a critically important role for good family lawyers, and the rise of interest in self-representation is actually creating some new opportunities for providers of legal services.

Pro Se HQ: Argument To Legal Reasoning Formula

Excerpt from blogpost:

Let's discuss the arguments that a pro se litigant, attorneys, and judges make during the course of a legal matter before a court of law.

Pro se litigants need to understand the concept of "argument" because this is usually the intersection where the law and (JSHIT) hit the fan.

Any presentation of a basis in law and fact is meaningless without an understanding of the concept of "argument."

When the layman thinks of arguments, he or she usually resorts to the common thought of making statements leading from a premise to a conclusion. To do this is what leads to many pro se litigants failing to present their case properly. This is because their presentation takes on the form of a "street level" argument and it is lacking in a basis in law to support their facts.

The discourse described above can be said to lack "legal reasoning."  Hence, pro se litigants as well as lawyers, and judges must be able to finish or complete this formula: Facts + Laws > Legal Reasoning.

 In chemistry a chemist is able to show, by a formula, that the combination of: A + B > AB, so too the pro se litigant must be able to show that their Facts + Laws > Legal Reasoning, and thereby said presentation becomes persuasive.

Blacks Law Dictionary's definition of the terms is not required to understand the two terms of "argument" and "reason."  The definition given by Merriam Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary for the terms are as follows:

Argument-  2a: a reason given in proof or rebuttal b: discourse intended to persuade 3b: a coherent series of statements leading from a premise to a conclusion.

Reason-  1a: a statement offered in explanation or justification b: a rational ground or motive c: a sufficient ground of explanation or or logical defense: especially: something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible: CAUSE.

Once more I drive home the premise that to take a matter to court you must be armed with a basis in fact and law.  Understanding the definitions above we can see why. 

Starting with a set of facts, the plaintiff or the defendant has to gather evidence to show that said facts did or did not occur.  Then based upon the occurrence or non-occurrence  of some facts he or she must state what the law says if a set of facts has or has not happened. Example: if one takes something that doe not belong to him or her, or he has no legal right to take that thing a theft occurs.  If he or she can prove that they did not take or had a legal right to take the thing a theft has not occurred.

 In the above if a thing is proved to be taken and that the taker lacked a legal right to take the thing the law says that a theft has occurred. Here is where one must get their basis in law correct by referring to the statutes of the jurisdiction that they are in. If I may cross the line and become "long-winded,"

READ MORE

Post by Pro Se Litigation.

Parental Alienation Questions For Alienators

July 4, 2012 - WLYB…..Most “experts” wouldn’t make it ½ thru these questions THANK YOU LINDA

Questions for the alienator’s “expert” witness and/or the child’s individual therapist.

by Kids First - Children's Rights Activists (CRA)

By Linda J Gottlieb

• In your professional opinion, on a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, what is the influence of parents on children prior to adolescence? (this should be a high #, and if not, the expert/therapist should be asked to justify a low # eg. who has the great influences.) 
• And after adolescence? (this should be a relatively high # at least) 
• Do you believe that parental conflict generally has an adverse effect on children and/or causes the child to react negatively in response? Please rate that effect on a scale of 1-10. (this should be a high #, as even the lay person would acknowledge the impact of parental hostility on children. If the expert doesn’t give a high #, he/she should be asked to justify the answer.) 
• So you would (or would not---depending on prior answers) agree with Christopher Barden, PhD., JD., who has received 2 national research awards in psychology and a law degree with honors from Harvard Law school, when he stated, “There can be no credible controversy about the power of parents to influence children.” (The International Handbook of Parental Alienation Syndrome, p. 420)? 
• Would you also agree with Barden when he stated that custody cases require “the critical obligation to carefully review the influence of parents, therapists or other adults on the attitudes, beliefs and memories of children.” (pp. 419-432)? 

• Could you describe what some of these effects are? 
• Can you give some examples as to how children get caught up in their parents’conflicts. 
• You have just confirmed that you recognize the great influence of parents on children as well as the detrimental affects on children due to being exposed to the parental conflict. Yet I did not hear you express how you acquired your expertise in family dynamics. In fact, is it true that you are not licensed in your state of X as a Marriage and Family Therapist? 
• Can you state what training in family dynamics you had in your education for your psychology degree? (I can confirm that they had no more than family therapy 101, IF they had that at all. The LMFT degree, in virtually all states, requires 60 credits, including 2 internships in the provision of family therapy services.) 
• Are you aware of your X State’s criteria for obtaining this expertise and being qualified as a specialist for the licensing of a marriage and family therapist. How much of that criteria do you meet? 
• So could you please state how you are qualified as an expert in assessing family dynamics as well as the adverse effects on children resulting from the dysfunctional parental dyad? 
• What has been your experience in the treatment of families? 
• What is the difference between individual therapy and family therapy? 
• What % do you practice in family therapy and in individual therapy? 
• How many families have you treated? 
• How do you justify individual treatment of the child outside of assessing the influence of the parental conflicts on the child? 
• Have you published books and/or articles on family therapy? 
• Are the X children being reared in a family? 
• Could the behaviors and reactions of the children in this case be indicative of being triangled into the parental conflicts? 
• What causes the symptoms for which you are treating the X children? (Individual therapists will be unable to account for the causes of a child symptoms because there is no empirical evidence for the existence of intra-psychic or biochemical disorders. A family therapist, on the other hand, has much empirical evidence as a family's therapist can see how the child negatively reacts to the parents’ arguing when observing the family in the session.) 
• What is your empirical evidence for the causes you have just expressed? 
• Could you describe any parental interactions which have affected the children in this case? 
• Do you know how the discipline of family therapy labels the family interactional pattern which puts children in the middle of the parental disputes? 
• (It is called triangulation. Child psychiatrist, Murray Bowen, labeled it the “pathological triangle. ” Indeed, Bowen and was so convinced about the family’s role in creating and maintaining the child's symptoms, that when he hospitalized the child, he also hospitalized the entire nuclear family.) 
• Are you aware, Dr. X, that the psychiatrist, Murray Bowen, was so convinced that the parents’ conflict and this triangulation was at the root of the child's symptoms so that when he hospitalized a child, he simultaneously hospitalized the entire nuclear family? 
• Have you heard of child psychiatrist, Salvador Minuchin? (In 2007, he was rated by a research study of therapists as being one of the 10 most influential therapists in the history of psychotherapy. He has written more than 11 books on family therapy. There would not be even a single person trained in family therapy or child psychiatry who has not heard of him.) 
• Do you know what Dr. Minuchin stated about the adverse effects of triangulation on children? (He asserted that it is the basis of virtually all dysfunctional family relationships adversely affecting children, and the concept of triangulation can be readily found in his book entitled, Family Therapy Techniques, 1981. Dr. M actually labeled this triangulation as a cross-generational alliance between the child and a parent who is in conflict with the other parent. This is the key interactional pattern in the PAS family.) 
• So as you confirmed that the X children are being reared in a family, on what basis do you claim your expertise to justify making recommendations for the X children regarding their relationship with their targeted/alienated parent? 
• You really don't have any expertise in family dynamics, do you, to make any assessments and recommendations for the X children and their parental relationships? 
• You testified that the children in this case have reservations about, fear of, and hatred for their targeted/alienated parent. Can say with any certainty that they were not influenced by their other parent? 
• How does the pathological triangle or family dynamics in this case influence what the children say and do? 
• Do you believe that children the age of the X children are cognitively competent and emotionally mature enough to make decisions in their own best interests? 
• What does Piaget state about the cognitive development of a child the age of: (give age of each child). ------Until the age of adolescence, children do not have the ability to think for themselves, and abstract thinking only begins at age 13. (Piaget wrote the bible on the development of epistemology in children as follows: 0-2 sensorimotor 2-7 preoperational 7-12 concrete operational 13-adulthood formal operational = abstract thinking. 
• Given the immature level of these children's cognitive abilities, how do you distinguish the alienating parent’s influence on them their own ideas and feelings? 
• Can you rule out with any certainty that the alienating parent is not influencing them adversely against their targeted/alienated parent? 
• Have you observed the interactions between the children and their targeted/alienated parent? 
• How can you diagnose for a relationship you have never or virtually never observed? 
• Would a doctor recommend heart bypass surgery without having examined the heart? 
• Should a child decide whether to go to school? To medical appointments? 
• Would you say that deciding whether to have a relationship with a parent is as at least a significant decision as attending school or medical appointments? 
• Then why should they decide on whether to visit a parent or to have a relationship with a parent? 
• What specific examples did the child cite to justify the adverse opinions about and refusal to have a relationship with the targeted/alienated parent? (Generally these (experts) do not follow-up with questions for specific information. If they do, they an answer like “She/he lies. She/he is annoying, etc.” The expert should be questioned about her/his willingness to accept such frivolous rationalizations.) 
• How reliable is client self reporting? (It is not at all, and we accept that as truth in the mental health profession.) 
• Would it not be logical to conclude that the immature emotional and cognitive development of a child would make their reporting even less reliable? 
• Do you know any research on the effects on children if a parent is not meaningfully involved in their lives?  
• When a parent is significantly minimized and excluded from a child's life, what do you think children fill that emotional vacuum with?  
• (Educate the “expert” about such research by using the statistics from Fatherneed and the SPARC statistics. A summary is in the PAS help file which I previously sent to anyone who had requested it.) 
• Would you not then conclude that having a parent eradicated from a child's life leads to emotional distress and behavioral difficulties for the child? 
• And if such eradication was facilitated, either consciously or unconsciously, by the other parent, would you not consider that to be emotional child abuse? 
• Are you aware of any tactics the alienating parent/residential parent employed to interfere with the visits and/or relationship with the child and the targeted parent? (This is a case specific question and should be supported by documentation from the particular case by citing examples of the alienating behaviors.) 
• You made reference to the alienator’s many allegations against the other parent. Do you have no independent verification of those allegations? You really don't, do you? 
• Why would you accept such allegations carte blanche without independent verification? 
• In your professional opinion, what would be the justification or motivations of the residential parent for not encouraging the relationship between the child and the other parent? 
• Do you believe that children are generally healthier if 2 parents remained meaningfully in their lives? 
• You have recommended that contact between the child and the nonresidential parent the only gradually reinstated? What is the research that supports this gradual reunification? (There is none! The propensity for the judicial system to only gradually reinstate visits is not supported by any research whatsoever.) 
• How do you explain that children of military families and who never met their deployed parent, excitedly run to, hug, smile at their deployed parent when that parent returns home from deployment? 
• Is it not true that it is because the caretaking parent talks up the deployed parent and enthusiastically encourages the child to greet the deployed parent explains it? 
• Is it not also true that the psychological and instinctual need and desire to have a relationship with a parent is so overwhelmingly strong that children will easily accept meaningful involvement from a parent from whom they have been estranged? 
• Do you accept the belief of your profession that mental health treatment is curative? 
• What medical records of Mr. X did you examine? What was the timeframe of those records? 
• So those records are not contemporaneous? 
• Have you reviewed the affidavits and/or spoken to his former under care psychologist and psychiatrist when they discharged him from treatment in updating your impressions of Mr. H? 
• Why not? 
• You really have no idea as to the current status of Mr. Xs mental health, do you? 
• What percentage would you say of mental health disorders are accurate with high probability and that the patient would receive the same diagnosis by several evaluators? 
• So if a patient was tested for a medical problem, with all the tests that are given, such as MRIs, EKGs, bloodwork, urine analysis, etc, it would seem that the diagnosis would be pretty uniform by a variety of examiners? What tests are given for the diagnosis of a mental health disorder? 
• The same consensus among mental health experts cannot be said about mental health disorders as for medical disorders, is that not correct? 
• What is the empirical evidence for mental health diagnoses? 
• What accounts for the discrepancy in the diagnoses given to Mr. X as well as the various estimates of his prognosis? 
• In general, what accounts for the varying diagnoses that different mental health professionals will give to the same patient? 
• Is the diagnosis of mental health disorders a science? 
• You referred to Mr. X being given 18 different anti-depressant medications. Would that not possibly indicate that his diagnosis was uncertain and the medication had to be continuously changed for that reason? 
• If a patient received an antibiotic for an infection, you would agree that there would be a high probability that the medication would be effective, correct? 
• So why do antidepressants continually need to be changed? 
• Could it be that mental health diagnoses are not accurate? 
• What in your estimation accounts for the source of depression? 
• What is the empirical evidence for the cause of depression? 
• How do you make a differential diagnosis for the cause of depression between situationally caused v. bio-chemical or intra-psychic based. 
• In your opinion, is it possible that the end of one’s marriage and being deprived of a relationship with one’s children could cause depression? 
• If so, how would you determine that these circumstances do not account entirely for such a person’s depression. 
• You really can't say with any certainty as to whether Mr. X was clinically depressed were situationally depressed, can you Dr.? 
• Are you aware of his current functioning in his personal life? 
• In his professional life? 
• What do you really know about current mental health status? 
• How much would you pay for today's appearance and for your report?

Linda J Gottlieb

Never give up, never retreat, and never, never surrender. GG https://www.facebook.com/groups/ChildrensRightsFlorida/permalink/10151918394310457/

Fatherhood, Mental Health, and the Family Courts

Father-Child Relationships Following Divorce 

Dr. Gordon E. Finley

Department of Psychology

Florida International University
Miami, Florida

The question facing both fathers in particular and society as a whole at the dawn of the twenty-first century is: Are fathers to be - or not to be - a part of the human ecology of children?  Unprecedented and conflicting changes have occurred in the American family over the past half century that have transformed father-child relationships and our expectations for the role of fathers in their children’s lives.  In the 1950s, both the divorce rates and the rates of unmarried motherhood were low, and as a consequence fathers reasonably could count on continuing contact with their children throughout the adult life-cycle.  Beginning in the 1960s, however, the American family has undergone radical transformations, which continue today.  The social context has changed to the extent that some feminists have declared fathers to be non-essential (Silverstein and Auerbach 1999).  For some, America has gone from “father knows best” to father is nonessential.

 Many family forms are present today in large numbers that were infrequent in the 1950s.  In recent years, the percentage of children born to mothers who were not married at the time of delivery has hovered around 33 percent; the first-marriage divorce rate around 50 percent, the permanent separation rate around 17 percent; and the step-family divorce rate around 60 percent (Hetherington and Stanley-Hagan 1997).  What is of critical importance to society is that in virtually all of these events, it is the father-child relationship that is marginalized or severed.  Of perhaps equal importance is the reality that this marginalization and severing of father-child relationships comes at the same time that nurturant father involvement in the lives of their children has become an issue of national concern (Braver and O’Connell 1998; Farrell 2001; Knox 1998; Parke and Brott 1999).

The father-child relationships of children born to never-married mothers is tenuous, and in any case beyond the scope of this article, which focuses on the consequences of divorce for children and fathers.  The most powerful determinant of father-child relationships following divorce are the policies and practices of the family court system, which awards either sole custody or primary residential parental responsibility to the mother around 85 percent to 90 percent of the time.  Fathers generally are awarded “visitation” - a term abhorred by father advocates, who view visitation as structuring the role of the father as a visitor in his child’s life rather than as a meaningful parent.  What this means for fathers and children is that they are living in different residences and see each other on a limited and fixed visitation schedule, which is determined by the courts or negotiated “in the shadow of the law”.  Thus, what was formerly daily father-child contact in a shared residence now becomes infrequent contact on a fixed schedule, with father and child living in different residences.  Under these court mandated circumstances, the father-child relationship is at greater risk of being marginalized or severed than is the mother-child relationship, since mothers and children continue to share a residence and have daily contact.

The risks of negative consequences for fathers and children as a result of the marginalization or severing of the father-child relationship with divorce appear to be substantial for both fathers and children.  An early review of the literature (Thompson 1994) provides one of the best discussions of the issues to date.  Ross Thompson’s lasting contribution was to focus on the division of the intangible assets of a marriage, the emotionally meaningful relationships between the former spouses and their offspring.  While much of the dominant discourse on divorce at that time tended to focus on the division of the tangible assets of divorce (primarily financial assets), Thompson had the foresight to focus on the emotional relationships between former spouses and their offspring, as well as the long term impact of these relationships on the lives of fathers and children.

Consider first the consequences of divorce for fathers (Amato 2000; Braver and O’Connell 1998; Knox 1998; Parke and Brott 1999; Thompson 1994).  Compared to mothers of divorce, fathers of divorce have higher - and often substantially higher - rates of: suicide, depression, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, poor health, work problems, relationship problems, and social isolation.  Although  numerous explanations for these negative outcomes for fathers have been proposed, those favored by father advocates focus on  the loss of meaningful contact with their children.  The core argument here is that postdivorce father-child relationships are of critical importance not only for the well-being of children, but also for the well-being of fathers.  Additionally, some of these negative outcomes for fathers also likely stem from the changing role expectations for fathers that began in the mid-1970s.  Beginning in the mid-1970s, fathers were increasingly expected by society to be involved in nurturing their children.  At the same time, however, the opportunity structure for the fathers’s nurturing involvement with his children was decreasing, due to increasing rates of divorce and unmarried motherhood.  Such a conflict between changing role demands and changing opportunity structures hardly can be conducive to either fathers’ or children’s physical or mental health.

For children, the consequences of divorce are commonly negative.  The most significant  exception is that divorced children from high-conflict marriages fare better than children who remain in high-conflict intact marriages.  The negative consequences for children of divorce, as compared to children of intact families, are immediate, short-term, and long-term.  Although there currently is intensive debate in the scholarly literature regarding the magnitude and subtlety of these negative effects, there nonetheless is substantial evidence to suggest that the consequences for children of divorce are present and pervasive, and that they include higher levels of academic problems, a higher rate of dropping out of high school, conduct problems, poor psychological adjustment, psychological distress, poor self-concept, low social competence, precocious sexual activity, teen pregnancy, alcohol and drug use, long-term negative health consequences, and relationship difficulties in adolescence and adulthood  (Amato 2000; Booth 1999; Emery 1999).  There also is a growing realization that divorce does not affect all parties in the same way.  Outcomes of divorce are mediated and moderated by a variety of factors inherent to different families, different children, different fathers, and different mothers, as well as by their social and economic context.  Indeed, very recent longitudinal studies suggest that some of the negative outcomes of divorce for children formerly attributed to the act of divorce are manifested prior to the event of divorce.  In short, the picture is complex and evolving.

While the consequences of divorce for the father-child relationship can be viewed from many different perspectives, the perspective least explored focuses on the voices of children of divorce  themselves.  One view comes from the longer-term, retrospective perspective of adult children as they look back on how they wished things might have been in their relationships with their fathers - their perceptions of the wants, regrets, and missed opportunities of father involvement caused by divorce.  In a recent study (Finley and Schwartz 2001), a colleague and I asked children of both intact and divorced families “What did you want your father’s level of involvement to be compared to what it actually was?”  The critical results demonstrated that, as compared with adult children of intact families, what adult children of divorce wanted most from their fathers was companionship, sharing activities, leisure/fun/play, providing income, emotional development, and caregiving.  What was most important to children of divorce were the emotionally meaningful intangible assets lost through divorce (Thompson 1994) - the “being there” assets of affection, emotional connection, and companionship with their fathers.  If fathers and children are to be spared the suffering that goes with the current situation, then changes must occur in social attitudes, social policies, and social practices that reinvigorate the father-child relationship following divorce.

There are many changes that have the potential to enhance father-child relationships, including (1) restructuring the divorce industry to provide equal opportunity for both fathers and mothers to maintain meaningful postdivorce relationships with their children;  (2) replacing the inherently adversarial family court system with one based on a vision of divorce as a social service rather than a legal service; (3) changing the dominant discourse on divorce to emphasize the research findings that show fathers and mothers to be equal in their parenting skills and capacities; and (4) reducing the use of  false abuse complaints as a tool to gain a competitive advantage during custody disputes.

There is ample evidence to indicate that the filing of false abuse allegations during custody disputes has severe emotional, social, and mental health consequences for the child, for the targeted parent (mostly, but not exclusively, the father), as well as for the parent who filed the false allegation (as mediated through the increasingly disturbed behaviors of the child who served as the tool for the false allegation). Through proactive interventions, both the domestic violence industry and the divorce industry have the opportunity to better serve the best interests of the child by reducing false abuse allegations.  Such proactive interventions would maintain the falsely accused parent (again, most commonly, but not exclusively, the father) as an important figure in the human ecology of the child (Farrell, 2001; Finley, 2001; Tong, 2002).

The interventions suggested above have the possibility of reinvigorating and enhancing postdivorce father child relationships.  They contain the seeds of hope for improving the quality of life and well-being of all members of the former family triad - children, fathers, and mothers - as well as facilitating the transition to the uncertainties of postdivorce family life.

References and further reading

Amato, Paul R.  2000.  “The Consequences of Divorce for Adults and Children.”  Journal of

Marriage and the Family 62: 1269-1287.

Booth, Alan.  1999.  “Causes and Consequences of Divorce: Reflections on Recent Research.”

Pp. 29-48 in The Postdivorce Family. Edited by Ross A. Thompson and Paul R. Amato. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Braver, Sanford  L., and Diane O’Connell.  1998.  Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths.  New

York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Emery, Robert E.  1999.  “Postdivorce Family Life for Children: An Overview of Research and

Some Implications for Policy.” Pp. 3 - 27 in The Postdivorce Family. Edited by Ross A.

Thompson and Paul R. Amato. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Farrell, Warren.  2001.  Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the

Children We Love.  New York: Tarcher/Putnam.

Finley, Gordon E. 2001.  “Reduce false-abuse reports.” The Miami Herald, December 28, 2001,

p. 6B.

Finley, Gordon E. and Seth J. Schwartz.  2001.  “Father Hunger, Divorce, Family Court, and the

Reconstruction of the Essential Father.” Poster presented at the meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.

Hetherington, E. Mavis and Margaret M. Stanley-Hagan. 1997.  “The Effects of Divorce on

Fathers and Their Children.”  Pp. 191-211, 361-369 in The Role of the Father in Child

Development. 3^rd ed. Edited by Michael E. Lamb. New York: Wiley.

Knox, David.  1998.  The Divorced Dad’s Survival Book: How to Stay Connected with Your

Kids.  New York: Plenum.

Parke, Ross D. and Armin A. Brott.  1999.  Throwaway Dads: The Myths and Barriers That

Keep Men from Being the Fathers They Want to Be.  Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Silverstein, Louise B. and Carl F. Auerbach.  1999.  “Deconstructing the Essential Father.” 

American Psychologist 54: 397-407.

Thompson, Ross A. 1994.  “The Role of the Father after Divorce.”  Pp. 210-235 in The Future of

Children. Vol. 4, no. 1, Children and Divorce. San Francisco: Center for the Future of Children.

Tong, Dean.  2002.  Elusive Innocence: Survival Guide for the Falsely Accused.  Lafayette, LA:

Huntington House Publishers.

Post by Stop Mental Child Abuse.

Post by Children's Rights.

Post by Children's Rights.

A scathing expose of the fraud inherent in the use of "expert" psychological testimony in the courtroom.

From the high-profile murder trials of the Menendez brothers and Jeffrey Dahmer to personal injury, product liability and child custody cases, lawyers across the country have increasingly turned to "expert" testimony from psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers to influence the decisions of judges and juries.

Psychologist Margaret Hagen, a professor and medical industry insider, details the very real danger of this booming business. In every state, a child can be taken away from a parent on the strength of five minutes of "neutral" testimony from a social worker. A criminal suspect's freedom or incarceration can depend on a superficial psychological examination performed by an incompetent, overworked, or, at worst, paid-off psychologist. Parole hearings hinge on the testimony of similarly incomplete or fraudulent evaluations, allowing "rehabilitated" violent criminals back onto the street to commit more heinous crimes, with no accountability for the reviewing "expert." Unmasking some legal psycho-expertise as a total fraud, Dr. Hagen instructs readers to protect themselves and their families from being victimized by psychological testimony in the courtroom. In today's frenzied legal climate, her insight and wisdom make for provocative, compelling and invaluable reading

Post by Disability Rights Florida.

Source Reference

Related articles

• New Blog on the History of Mental Health (Chiara Thumiger)
• National Mental Health Awareness Month
• A Devoted and Loving Father ~ Stand up for Zoraya - GoFundMe
• It is largely fatherhood which makes childhood possible
• Tell the American Bar Association Why You Read This Blog
• Hold Family Courts Accountable
• Would you support social security title IV D and family law reform? Asks ChangePolitics
• "The only normal people are the ones you don't know very well."
• Must Read!!! Family Court and NSA Whistleblowers: What They Have in Common
• The Evidence Standard To Fight Corrupted Family Courts

Child Support Heading for the Supreme Court?

Post by Children's Rights.

Child Support, Like Obama Care, Headed for the Supreme Court « Leon Koziol.Com

Administrators Note:

The following column was published on March 6, 2010, as a special to the Utica Observer-Dispatch. It properly described child support as a welfare tax upon fathers and non-custodial mothers (roughly half of the separated parenting population). Now, this very issue will be presented before the same Supreme Court that ruled yesterday that the health insurance mandate is a valid welfare tax (transition to a socialist government). The relevant writ in Dr. Koziol’s Parent Vs. State will be filed on Constitution Day, September 17, 2012. We are asking all victimized parents of divorce, custody and support laws, to join us in a rally on the steps of the Supreme Court. Together, we hope to convince our nation’s high court to hear this precedent setting case regarding crucial family issues.

Published Guest Column:

David Dudajek
Opinion Editor
Observer Dispatch
221 Oriskany Plaza
Utica, New York 13501

Dear Editor:

If you believe that children require money more than they need their fathers, read no further. This column is based upon traditional beliefs, biological equality of parents and our cherished rights under the American Constitution. It is made necessary by gross mischaracterizations of my child support/license suspension headlines.

The public’s diverse experience with domestic matters has made me an undeserved sounding platform for gripes having no relevance to my personal case. After commending my civil rights accomplishments, for example, writer Mary Ules “takes offense” with my sacrificial stance on child support by citing irrelevant parallels to her life as a single mother during the eighties. A gender insecure Robin Cecilia follows with a gripe in outer space proclaiming ownership rights over children based on a birthing process caused by human evolution.

The problem with this platform is that I owe no child support to either Ms. Ules or Ms. Cecilia and certainly nothing to my ex spouse. My hard earnings are owed only to my dear children, and I need no government directive, vindictive lecture or career blackmail to recognize this. It is a principle of natural law fully protected but not properly enforced under our Constitution.

Successfully observed by committed parents since the beginning of civilization, this principle has become tortured by a mandatory custodial institution of childrearing for those who simply choose to live apart. It is a gender discriminatory process which places money and children over parents as a part of a barbaric and never ending “custody” war, hence the social and moral breakdowns of our day.

Our Constitution prohibits government interference in childrearing privacy unless serious abuse, neglect or abandonment is found. No such finding could be made or even concocted when I quietly filed an uncontested divorce in September, 2005 immediately prior to my prominent bids for public office. It was based upon more than one year of successful (joint) childrearing activities in separate homes. However, when the state intervened in February, 2006, based upon a money collection formula, four years of escalating controversy brought us to the world stage at the United Nations.

During this period, my petitions for parenting time were routinely denied while money petitions were vigorously enforced. This led to the absurd result that I was paying the state and its appointed “custodial” parent to systematically end my parent-child relationships. Support money was being diverted from my children to lawyers and court costs thereby making me the sole payor for both sides of the process. This is not uncommon to countless oppressed fathers simply due to an arbitrary caregiver doctrine and their gender status at birth.

Such discrimination is rationalized for the same reason that slaves, ethnic minorities, and women were oppressed in an earlier era: free labor and arbitrary empowerment. Unlike dictatorial regimes, however, our government has perfected this oppression through legislative propaganda which exploits the child into a multi-billion dollar industry, fleecing parents of finite resources and discouraging income productivity.

Quotes and sound bites to a vast audience unfamiliar with a complex case could not hope to overcome decades of stereotypes and draconian laws designed to perpetuate this child control industry. My best hope, therefore, existed in a news conference at my home where genuine child support could be observed first hand. A father’s mortgage, taxes, play areas, and holiday enjoyment are a father’s child support, made impossible when a third of income goes to taxes, and another third to a support collection unit.

My point continues to be this: a self sufficient father has the same right to enjoy a family unit as a self sufficient mother. An American form of government encourages each to grow those units. Under the current socialist form, I nevertheless satisfied years of one sided obligations until they were abused without any child payments in return. This showed not only that I was a responsible parent, but prepared to commit my career to enforce God given rights to raise my children.

Unlike the fifties, a vast majority of today’s parents are raising their children in separate households. If we can bus five year olds to school, we can certainly allow fathers in the same communities to enjoy equal time with their offspring. Such logic, however, would negate the need for lawyers and child support transfers as the engine behind federal grants and collection unit interest revenues to a dysfunctional state government.

In short, the privacy right which I have been compelled to secure through the courts is a meaningful father-child relationship free from joint power abuses by the state and a superior creature of law known as the “custodial parent.” It may be analogized to the woman’s privacy right established in Roe v Wade.

For those still clinging to the current antiquated system, however, child support is a welfare payment because it lacks accountability. Abuses such as drug or gambling addictions, lawyer generated controversies, partner support, income destruction and father replacement agendas, are highly disguised in our overburdened courts. Still unanswered by my government is how I am supposed to raise my children without a 23 year law license.

Very truly yours,

Leon R. Koziol
Parenting Rights Advocate
(315) 796-4000

Please help support the efforts of Dr. Leon Koziol and The Parenting Rights Institute today!

Miami judge calls child support prosecutor’s actions ‘reprehensible’ - Miami-Dade - MiamiHerald.com

Miami-Dade State Attorney’s office must pay $7,645 in legal fees to a man who was wrongly accused of owing money to his ex-wife.