By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
Parenting Rights Institute
Are you concerned about the state of parent-child relations in our divorce and family courts? Have you gone there trusting that justice will be served only to learn all too late that orchestrated controversy led you to the brink of bankruptcy? Are you aware that your constitutionally protected parental rights are being eroded with an ultimate goal of having the state assume control of our families?
Parents are 150 million strong in this country, yet we have little voice in our government. Not a mention was made of our struggles in either political convention or in any presidential debate. Every aspect of our private lives has been infringed through state power exceeding that of the NSA, IRS or FBI. Our children have lost college funds and their health to lawyers and court appointed psychologists, see i.e. Universal Health v United States, No. 15-7 (6/16/16)(teen girl referred for mental treatment suffered a stoke leading to her death due to incompetent drug administration).
Clearly an epidemic is underway warranting the attention of our high court. There are dedicated advocates doing our best to reverse this trend. However it is a trillion dollar industry protected by special interests. Many parents, fed up with this system of mandatory custody and Title IV-D incentives have turned to our federal courts for relief. But in virtually all courts across the country our cases have been dismissed. The Supreme Court rejected at least three of them at a single conference on September 26, 2016. Over 750 petitions were supposedly reviewed at that conference.
Of the 10,000 petitions filed each year, 9,900 are rejected. While abortion, gun rights and capital crimes are regularly heard, not one shared parenting case has ever been heard. The last time a related issue was taken up, it was to explain how a father could be properly jailed for child support without an attorney, Turner v Rogers, 564 US ___ (2011). The last time custody was addressed, it was in Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000), but that case focused on grandparent rights.
In Michael H. v Gerald D., 491 US 10 (1989), the Court turned down a biological father’s rights despite good child relationships based on a statute which presumed the legal father to be the husband when a child is born during an adulterous marriage. In Santosky v Kramer, 455 US 745 (1982), the Court ruled unconstitutional a family court process, but that was in the context of terminating parental rights. In Caban v Mohammed, 441 US 380 (1979), the Court ruled that a father had equal rights with a mother to contest adoption. That pretty much sums up the importance of our nation’s moms and dads in the eyes of the Supreme Court in modern times.
As a result I have pressed on with reform efforts despite all the sacrifices and set-backs. Within 24 hours of my latest denial on Monday, I filed for another personal writ before the Supreme Court, raising new issues concerning its accessibility for parents across America. To that end I contacted a Supreme Court clerk in August to confirm that an extraordinary writ could be sought under Rule 20 should my petition be denied. That option is still available but I will not undertake the complexities of filing unless I can get thousands to join. Joinder is not allowed after a petition is filed although supporting briefs can be offered.
Of course we can expect detractors and pontificators. But until the retributions for my reform efforts, I maintained a successful and unblemished constitutional rights practice for more than 23 years. My achievements on 60 Minutes and New York Times can be found at www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. Put simply, history can be made with your participation. I will be providing regular updates on this site: http://www.leonkoziol.com. I can be contacted at the PRI offices at (315) 380-3420 or e-mailed at email@example.com. All joiners must provide an electronic or regular address with phone number for confirmation purposes.
I am asking fellow victims, current and potential family court litigants and concerned citizens to set up and circulate an on-line petition under the following issues which can be modified or supplemented:
1) Has the Supreme Court rendered itself inaccessible to petitioners and the vast majority of our citizens in violation of due process and Article III of the Constitution?
2) Has the Supreme Court erected and ratified onerous obstacles to federal court jurisdiction for parents victimized in divorce and family courts contrary to due process, a fundamental liberty interest and genuine principles of federalism?
3) Has the Supreme Court encouraged or justified private remedies for law abiding citizens to vindicate their constitutional rights when its duties were abandoned here?