• 

Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute

As a long time victim of retaliation for my exposure of corruption in our divorce and family courts, I have had little contact with my precious daughters for the past seven years. The exposed judges and lawyers have made this happen by exploiting a vulnerable “custodial parent” to complete a punitive agenda of erasing me from their lives. Their goal, reckless or otherwise, was to deter future whistleblowers while rewarding their parent accomplice.

That accomplice, Kelly Hawse-Koziol, was sufficiently naive to sacrifice her moral fiber in this evil agenda for monetary gain and status. I have never been reported for child abuse or neglect, nor have I ever been found to be an unfit parent. Instead I was subjected to abusive and conflicting conditions to render any child contact impractical. I called it contempt by ambush. It was either surrender my rights or face jail time on concocted grounds.

So evil was this agenda that its parent accomplice was recommended for an exorcism in a third party affidavit. It happened shortly before our custody judge was banned from the bench after admitting to sexual abuse of his handicapped five-year old niece, Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013). His replacement, Michael Hanuszczak, was forced to resign after sexually harassing his court clerks. Another replacement, Gerald Popeo, was publicly censured for physical threats and racial slurs made from the bench. It is all a matter of public record.

Although it may have appeared extreme at the time, this recommendation of an exorcism has been justified repeatedly over time. I have spent more than 30 years in these courts, 23 as an accomplished trial attorney, 15 as an alienated “non-custodial parent,” and I have yet to see anything like the evil which enveloped my case. How could a biological mother work so ferociously and so long to kill an exemplary father in favor of her preferred substitutes?

More alarming, how could 40 trial level jurists ultimately disqualified from my originally uncontested divorce overlook this deranged agenda? How could our First Amendment be so mindlessly erased along with my parenting rights simply to avenge opinions that hurt their feelings? The simple answer is that this agenda was never treated as a human rights violation as it should have been. So let us analyze one aspect of this right known as parental alienation.

Syndrome, Symptom or Satanism: How Can Parent-Child Alienation Be Rationally Explained?

This exorcism event may not stand for any legal precedent, but its evolution could help victims better understand parental alienation. A growing outcome of an antiquated child custody system, it has proven to have no remedy or loss compensation in either federal or state court. Many observers, qualified or not, have focused on a complex analysis, but as you should discover here, parent alienation is really quite simple and begging for overdue reforms.

Parent Alienation Syndrome

The needless destruction of parent-child relationships in divorce and family courts was recognized early on by a psychiatrist, Dr. Richard Gardner, during the 1980s. He gave it the name Parent Alienation Syndrome (PAS), and despite its popular recognition, this syndrome was never accepted by Gardner’s profession. Meanwhile, hundreds of conditions in its DSM manuals continue to be employed in custody evaluations for insurance purposes.

Parent Alienation Symptom

Similarly, the same courts have refused to give this horrific condition any meaningful acceptance. To answer this abdication of duty, I have asserted in my reports and legal briefs that parental alienation is neither a psychological condition nor a syndrome of any kind but a symptom of a dysfunctional judicial process focused more on lawyer profits and court revenues than the so-called “best interests” of our children.

Parent Alienation: A Human Rights Violation

Parental alienation is, very simply, the by-product of a toxic and adversarial court system. Our federal government rewards it by the number and size of support orders it issues. Parents are therefore required to name a “custodial parent” as a condition for a lawful separation or divorce not because it advances any child interests but because it yields untold profits and billions of dollars in performance grants under Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. This implicates a number of basic rights.

Fundamental Right of Parenting

Like the abortion right, the parenting right is not found among the textual provisions of our Constitution, but the two have taken opposite paths since their earliest recognition by the Supreme Court. The more recent one that prevents life, Roe v Wade, 410 US 113 (1973) has grown in legal protection whereas the older one that enhances life has been seriously eroded, Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923). This is very evident in divorce and family courts where the latter right is rarely even mentioned.

The notion that judges and their agents can torture that right simply because two parents are separated is little more than propaganda to justify a lucrative enterprise. Profits and revenues do not constitute a “compelling state interest” sufficient to overcome the kind of sweeping destruction which parent alienation clearly produces. However, the strict scrutiny required for such intrusions is routinely sidestepped without so much as a pause in countless cases. Mine is one but compounded by other fundamental rights that are, in fact, stated in our Constitution.

Due Process

The parenting right continues to receive protection by our Supreme Court but analyzed predominantly in modern day contexts, i.e. Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000). However the federal incentive grants which harm this right have yet to be addressed despite their creation of an inherent or systemic bias which also violates due process, Gibson v Berryhill, 411 US 564 (1973). Put simply, jurists are given the financial incentive to manufacture as many “custodial parents” as possible while ruling against their “noncustodial” counterparts.

Equal Protection

This prejudice, in turn, incites emotional outrage among the inferior parents who rightfully feel discriminated and abused by a decisional process that they are not properly acclimated to by their legal representatives. Such grants are not justified when this two-caste framework is replaced by a shared one where parents are treated equally under our Constitution. But this would produce vast harm to to a bureaucracy built on support collections and court battles.

This all explains why shared parenting legislation is opposed by special interests across the country and why I was so viciously targeted for my precedent-seeking cases. Such opposition is mindless given the collateral damage which the outdated system produces. The arbitrary custody mandate can transform a cooperative child rearing environment into a barbaric contest reminiscent of the Roman Coliseum.

Conclusion

Over time, the antiquated custody mandate can create monsters among parents and children alike. Its source in a parent classification law compels a federal inquiry into funding abuses and human rights violations. In my newly published book, Whistleblower in Paris, I document the carnage with numerous examples of child homicide (i.e. Gabriella Boyd), suicide attempts (Alec Baldwin), murder-suicides (Investigator Joe Longo) and even a self-immolation (Thomas Ball).

You can obtain a free insight on the book’s website at http://www.whistleblowerinparis.com.