The Child Support Crisis: What you need to know about draconian enforcements

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Just shut up and pay YOUR child support! It’s a familiar insult which presumes that only one parent has any such obligation and that both parents cannot be trusted to set up their own arrangements free of state supervision. Given the complex society of today, the better assumption is that the state is ill equipped to raise our children and that a nation founded upon a limited government will no longer tolerate its abuses of power.

The euphemistic term “child support” has been conveniently exploited to build a giant bureaucracy focused more on revenue generation and service fees than the “best interests” of our children. Just place the child on top of the state tank and you can crush the rights of the people, even convincing parents to “happily” surrender the ones applicable to their offspring. It’s a tactic used by Adolph Hitler to build one of the greatest war machines in history.

Widespread declines in moral, family and religious values can largely be traced to this surrender. The word combination “child support” has been effective in drowning out the truth about a corrupted process that invites self-serving jurists to tread increasingly upon our most basic rights. These include our fundamental liberty interest in childrearing, Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000) and guarantee of procedural due process, Turner v Rogers, 564 US 431 (2011).

An ominous dissent in the latter case by Justice Clarence Thomas should have all of us alarmed. He bucked the court’s majority by declaring that the due process safeguards required of a support contempt proceeding undermine the state’s interest in a more vigorous enforcement process. This represented a grave departure from reality when taking a deeper look at the draconian enforcement practices that have caused joblessness, homelessness and premature deaths among support debtors.

Such practices have not only “undermined” support capacities, but they have forever ended “child support” in countless cases. Three exemplary deaths over the past decade, Joe Longo, Thomas Ball and Walter Scott, are all that is needed to show the absurdities of the Thomas opinion. Taken together with other victims, it is clear that we have an epidemic underway, one that “shocks the conscience of a civilized society” in violation of substantive due process as well, Rochin v California, 342 US 165 (1953).

Government today is actually manufacturing bad parents through its “custody” and “support” mandates under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. This is the federal funding law that rewards courts by the number and size of support orders they issue and satisfy. Apart from the inherent bias that this has created, the imbalance has yielded a crowd of silent or walking dead, victims of murder, suicides, false charges and domestic violence, others that await justice that never comes.

Police Investigator Joseph Longo was so traumatized after exiting support court that he used a common kitchen knife to commit a murder-suicide at the former marital home. It left four children without both parents and taxpayers with a $2 million lawsuit debt, Pearce v Longo, 766 F. Supp. 2d 367 (NDNY 2011). The court predators kept pounding him with protection orders, support intercepts and career damage without considering the breaking points of their targets.

You should’ve just shut up, Joe, and paid YOUR child support.

Then there’s Thomas Ball, victim of an overzealous child protection agency who sat down one day on the steps of a New Hampshire courthouse to protest family court abuse. But this was no sit-in, no “occupy court” mission. He poured gas over his head and burned himself alive. We cringe at the extreme pain he must have suffered before and during this holocaust. In the end, there was no national coverage, no court reforms, they merely washed his ashes into the sewer.

You should’ve just shut up, Tom, and paid YOUR child support.

Finally we bring you Walter Scott, a black father shot dead five times in the back. He was killed, unarmed, by a white cop while fleeing a child support warrant at a traffic stop. Unlike other BLM victims, this one was not involved in any criminal activity. It was a civil debt, and our government was now killing for money. This obvious fact is never mentioned in the ongoing George Floyd protests because “child support” is the holy grail for feminists and man-haters.

You should’ve just shut up, Walt, and paid YOUR child support.

Even in necessary cases involving absentee parents or public charges, there is little or no accountability for tax-free, support checks used for drugs, partners or vanity excesses. Most contemptuous are the cases where child support is exploited as a tactical weapon for a custody award that inevitably leads to severe parental alienation. Here the one dutifully paying “child support” is, in reality, paying the state to take his children away. Even then, sadistic alienators are not satisfied until their children are brainwashed to hate the other parent.

This author’s ordeal is one such case that features a high school teacher, Kelly Hawse-Koziol.

The easy way to avoid this “inconvenient truth” is by detracting from it, i.e. “Just shut up and pay YOUR child support.” Support judges say this without mouthing the words by trashing procedural protections and crafting evidentiary substitutes to expedite a desired outcome. Examples are too numerous but include such fictions as “imputed income” and a substandard level of proof. This star chamber process ignores the right of a “noncustodial” parent to finance a separate home for the same children. It also ignores the horrific collateral harm.

Nowhere is an accounting made of the working parental arrangements upended by this custody and support mandate found in the funding laws.

Such collateral harm does not discriminate. It includes a white mom who drove her children into the Hudson River rather than surrender to a custody and support order. A similar derangement caused another to heinously murder her two-year old girl resulting in a conviction and jail term that will never bring back the child (see Gabriella Boyd Foundation). A black mom in Philadelphia went further. In an overnight rage, she purchased a gun and killed both her children and their dad.

The child victims are particularly heart-wrenching. There’s Kyra Franchetti and Thomas Valva whose young lives were lost to mentally disturbed fathers. An Albany (NY) Times Union story on October 13, 2020 revealed that a child protection agency suppressed 725 child death reports over a decade. This is shocking but not really when considering Governor Andrew Cuomo’s suppression of nursing home deaths currently under investigation. Such tragedies omit the live victims torn apart by court proceedings needlessly protracted by greedy lawyers.

This author was subjected to a sixteen year battle over “child support” which induced the “custodial” mom to brainwash his precious daughters in relentless fashion. This went unheeded by the courts despite the lack of any abuse report or unfit finding and despite father-daughter experiences that would be the envy of most children. Over 40 trial level jurists were assigned to his family proceedings with many removed for misconduct, a national record by most accounts and the price to be paid by a judicial whistleblower.

This is not just a public policy issue or a lack of judicial accountability. It is a growing crisis that has caused more deaths than the coronavirus pandemic. It was the theme of our 3-day Parent March on Washington in 2019, a peaceful protest featuring a lobby initiative, expert speakers, a march down Pennsylvania Avenue under police escort and a concluding vigil for those lives lost to this unjust system. Its goal was to obtain congressional hearings and a Justice Department investigation. But it achieved nothing, only more evidence for BLM to justify violence. Peaceful reform is no match for the gold mine which this system has viciously protected.

If you wish to learn more about this author’s unprecedented ordeal as a judicial whistleblower, consult the many posts at or his 2017 book, Satan’s Docket, soon to be updated with more graphic retributions. You might also be interested in a DVD film entitled “Crisis” based on a true story. It features a triple storm of whistleblowers who take on the DEA, academia and the drug industry as common victims. They illuminate the kind of retaliation exposed here.

Due to the censorship of this vital message, it is critical for readers to make it viral for the benefit of parents, children and families everywhere. The author may be reached at (315) 796-4000 or

4 thoughts on “The Child Support Crisis: What you need to know about draconian enforcements

  1. Michael Lanteri

    You hit the nail 9n the head. Politicians, judges and lawyers do not want the litigation to end. I fought my divorce to the supreme court, lanteri vs Connecticut, to no avail. First amendment rights, pay no respect to any religious ceremony. That alone would have allowed me to keep my premarital assets. The financial part of the divorce would have been done in 5 minutes. Joint property states like Connecticut should be avoided at all cost. I lost three generations of wealth.

  2. Chauncey Otto

    Thank you for these articles, you post.

    Everything you said is true , I have been through it and it’s a sad thing to experience.

    Knowing that the government can just come into your life and take your kids from you with little to no evidence of any abuse ; just violate your rights as a parent so that hey can profit from fathers paying into the system.

    The attorneys won’t help because this is how they eat, so they won’t fight for your right to parent, they will just usher you into the system , take your life savings and lein any property you have so that they can get paid , you lose your kids, your home, income ,self worth.

    It’s tuff, it’s modern day slavery , peoples rights are violated in so many ways and some don’t understand ; and some feel like there is nothing they can do.

    I get it, you’r going up against a system, a machine that cares about generating funds .

    Time lost with your kids and your right as a father to raise your kids stolen from you through a divorce or seperation,

    you would never think that it’s your own government that is oppressing you, a government that has a constitution that limits their power over the people , but today we have laws that violate almost all of our constitutional rights.

    It’s a piece of paper, it means nothing now!

    It’s your own government doing this to you, they don’t want it to be talked about publicly because it’s a gigantic money making racket , void of morals and compassion .

    Child support means slavery !

  3. Anthony Toms

    I lost everything,- the judge imputed 150k salary when I was on unemployment after great recession job loss. Never saw my two daughters one now 21 because can’t rent in America, devastated by losing them caused severe depression,
    Started over at 50,- I dont know how i survived except for my strength,
    I came up with a plan, you cant fight the system its too strong.
    accept it and forget the past.
    I have a new family now with an Asian woman.
    Any man who gets married in America is an idiot. Risk is poverty or death.
    MY son won’t ever.

  4. Going on the attack against the NYS Child Support Enforcement Collections & Suffolk County BSS! They have stopped trying to arrest this guy. Names have been changed to John Doe and Jane Doe:

    Demand to Cease and Desist from sending False Fraudulent Bills
    in VIOLATION of Title IV-D of the Social Security Act

    To Whom it may concern:
    I received a document in the mail called “Child Support” Bill As Of 3/25/2021. I received it on April 19, 2021, almost a full month after the letter was dated. A true copy of the “Child Support” Bill As Of 3/25/2021 is attached hereto as ATTACHMENT “A”. Please be advised that this purported “Child Support” Bill is in violation of federal law, federal debt collection laws, and Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. First, it says that for certain information I have to “Click on NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS on the navigation bar”. I am not a NONCUSTODIAL PARENT under Title IV-D.

    Further, (1) there has been no administrative or judicial hearing regarding the above person, “Jane Doe”, determining her income eligibility.
    Second, (2) there has been no validation of any debt.
    (3) There is a presumption that Jane Doe, being a woman, is unable to be self-sustaining. Not only is this not true, since there was never any hearing to determine that, it is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and discriminatory against men. If Jane Doe is unable to be self-sustaining, custody of the children MUST be immediately removed from her for negligence.
    (4) I am NOT an “absent parent”.
    (5) The Title IV-D system requires an “absent parent” and is based on the erroneous presumption that dads won’t support their children unless they are forced to pay. It was never validly determined that I was a “dad”.
    (6) The Title IV-D system in New York State and the other 49 states provides a huge bureaucracy to support one parent against the other parent at the expense of that “other” parent and the children. This violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    (7) The Title IV-D system is giving Jane Doe a fraudulent sense of invulnerability in that she has the full weight of the state against me, John Doe, even though NO valid court order issued by a valid court for child support exists.
    (8) I have NEVER BEEN DIVORCED! The New York State Title IV-D system, directly and indirectly linked to the Federal Title IV-D system of the Social Security Act, is creating and providing an unconstitutional incentive to cause divorce.
    (9) Title IV-D is “public law” inserted into family court “private law”. This is further unconstitutionality since “public law”, or welfare, falls under Title IV-A, and cannot be used as “private law”, thereby defrauding me and all other men ordered to pay child support, whether valid or not.
    (10) All New York State Family Court Judges, and/or New York State Supreme Court Justices (including Appellate Judges of the New York Supreme Court), are paid by a “pool of money” developed by Child Support collections money put through the system. This is an unconstitutional conflict-of-interest, requiring immediate disqualification/recusal of ALL New York State Family Court Judges and Supreme Court Justices in any divorce matter involving ANY child support matter.
    (11) Recusal of Judges is required since the United States Supreme Court held in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 129 S.Ct. 2522, 2254 (2009), holding that: “The Due Process Clause incorporated the common-law rule requiring recusal when a judge has “a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest” in a case, Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523, 47 S.Ct. 437, 71 L.Ed. 749, but this Court has also identified additional instances which, as an objective matter, require recusal where “the probability of actual bias on the part of the judge or decisionmaker is too high to be constitutionally tolerable,” Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35, 47, 95 S.Ct. 1456, 43 L.Ed.2d 712.
    (12) Title IV-D requires the following false and fraudulent presumptions that before child support can be ordered, (a) a woman cannot work outside of the home, (b) a woman is expected to stay home with the children, (c) a woman is unable to self-sustain without assistance of the government or a man, (d) men are always the wage earners, (e) dads do not participate in the rearing of the children, (f) unmarried fathers or divorced fathers are considered “deadbeats”.
    (13) The NY State Child Support Bill As Of 3/25/2021 is in violation of the authority of the Title IV-D Social Security Commissioner’s authority to implement Congressional mandate in some “reasonable manner”. U.S. v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299, 307 (1967).
    (14) The U.S. Supreme Court in Blessing v. Freestone, 520 U.S. 329 (1997) held that Title IV-D does NOT create an “entitlement program” for women, yet based on NYS Child Support Processing Center, an administrative collections agency without constitutional authority, acts as an “entitlement program” for women.
    (15) The NY State Child Support Processing Center, as part of the state’s Title IV-D program based on the Commissioner’s mandates to operate in a “reasonable manner” has neither operated in a “reasonable manner”, nor operated constitutionally.
    (16) NY State’s Title IV-D services, in conjunction with Federal Title IV-D services is “raiding” the private sector to maximize federal incentive funds, and “raiding” my life, bank accounts, wages, and ability to live, in the process, without ever finding out if Jane Doe is income eligible or legally eligible for Title IV-D services.
    (17) The NY State’s Title IV-D services is a real party in interest in any Title IV-D case where there has been an assignment of child support, whether valid or not, and is therefore subject to being sued for violations of constitutional rights and common law rights of either parent.
    (18) The NY State’s Title IV-D Child Support Processing Center and services, is a “public” entity. It has no authority or right to intervene, interfere with, intrude, or infringe in “private” divorce, child custody and/or child support matters or proceedings.
    (19) These are unconstitutional acts by the NY State Title IV-D Child Support Processing Center, and any and all other child support entities.
    (20) The judges in the above captioned matter have lied to John Doe by telling him that (a) he is divorced when he was not; (b) that he owes child support when no valid order was ever issued in any valid state court hearing; (c) judges lied when they said that they require wage withholding in ALL child support cases (only applies to real Title IV-D cases where welfare is involved); (d) they lied when they said that ALL wage-withholding must be done through a Title IV-D system.
    (21) The Title IV-D agency is only in place to protect the government’s money interests of the state and county; and purportedly does not represent either parent or the children.
    (22) The Title IV-D agency representing and protecting the government’s money interests of the state and county is now liable to John Doe for money damages, since, by assignment of support to the agency, they have entered the case as a debt collector, liable in damages to John Doe.
    (23) John Doe was never given a copy of the Title IV-D services application that may or may not have been completed and filed by Jane Doe to show (a) Jane Doe was eligible for services, (b) whether she disclosed her income required for Title IV-D means testing, (c) to show whether or not there is a process in place for Due Process required by state and federal law.
    (24) There is no evidence of proof by the NY State Title IV-D services agency/child support processing of any application approval process or assessment process granting Jane Doe any Title IV-D services, as required under the Code of Federal Regulations, 45 C.F.R. §303.2.
    (25) There has been no evidence of proof by the NY State Title IV-D services agency/child support processing of any investigation or verification of accuracy of information submitted by Jane Doe on her application for IV-D services, as required by 45 C.F.R. §303.2.
    (26) There is no evidence of proof by the NY State Title IV-D agency/child support processing of any process in place to close the child support file when one (1) parent, John Doe, objects to being forced to pay child support through a Title IV-D agency when he is capable of raising the children, if Jane Doe is unable to support herself or the children. See 42 U.S.C. §1301 (d) (Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing any Federal official, agent, or representative, in carrying out any of the provisions of this chapter, to take charge of any child over the objection of either of the parents of such child, or of the person standing in loco parentis to such child).

    Based on the aforereferenced points above, the New York State Child Support Processing Center is an unauthorized, unwarranted agency acting outside the intended limited scope of the Title IV-A and Title IV-D Welfare Services Program. The malicious, fraudulent and knowing acts of the Title IV-D NY State Child Support Processing Center is GOVERNMENT OVERREACH. It constitutes fraud, deception, false representations on sworn government documents, racketeering, tampering with cases, obstruction of justice, and other criminal acts and civil liabilities.

    The above numbered account alleging the unverified debt of $6X,XXX.XX must be closed forthwith for violations of Federal law and Federal regulations. Any and all monies taken by NY State Child Processing Services prior to the 3/26/2021 “Child Support” Bill must be reimbursed in full to John Doe forthwith.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s