With Roe v Wade overturned, will the Supreme Court target our parenting right?

Dr. Leon Koziol

Director, Parenting Rights Institute

Founder and president, Citizen Commission Against Corruption, Inc.

In his ominous concurring opinion in Dobbs v Jackson, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas declared that other landmark rulings should also be overturned based on the reasoning used by the Court’s majority in striking the right to an abortion. He cited gay marriage and contraceptives as some of his targets given their lack of any textual source in our Constitution. Unlike the right to bear arms enshrined by our Second Amendment which the same Court reaffirmed only one day earlier, these rights are not found in any amendment or bill of rights.

This should deeply alarm all parents because the right to raise one’s offspring is also devoid of any textual recognition in that same venerable document, making it ripe for judicial assault. Indeed, like prey evading the shark, it is a right that may be said to be hiding among those targeted for review. Moreover, it is one that is already being bitten apart in our schools, homes and communities. Simply stated, we parents have taken it for granted much like abortion advocates had for a half century.

However, the parenting right derives from a different source than privacy or that “penumbra” of rights found elsewhere in our Constitution which the high court used to rationalize its shaky decision in 1973. The parenting right exists solidly within the “traditions and history” of our republic, and it was unquestioned by the framers of that Constitution in 1787. It was first given formal recognition 75 years ago in the landmark case of Meyer v Nebraska, 262 US 390 (1923) and expanded to countenance grandparent rights in Troxel v Granville, 530 US 57 (2000).

In the latter case, writing for a plurality of the Court, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor declared this right to be the “oldest liberty interest protected by the Constitution.” Hence it may be assumed that this right will remain protected for the foreseeable future because it rests upon a different prong than abortion and privacy. But given the whirlwind of recent Supreme Court rulings, the renewed drive to pack the Court, and outright bedlam across America, we parents must stand guard.

Here at the Parenting Rights Institute we have been acting aggressively to promote fathers’ rights and parental rights generally since 2010. This is largely due to our growing status as a “fatherless America” which, in turn, has triggered widespread violence and declines in our moral fiber as a nation. To that end, as a victim and civil rights attorney, I have exposed judicial corruption that is destroying our families.

This 12-year crusade for overdue reforms led to severe retributions by my profession leading to the loss of all contact with my precious daughters, closure of my law practice and ultimate hospitalization in 2020 for a life-threatening condition. This is the price to be paid by whistleblowers in our third branch of government while the band plays on.” Hopefully my sacrifices will be a beacon of light for parents immersed in the same crusade who are being ignored and censored by our government.

Federal Judge Rules to Consolidate and Continue Parenting Rights Case

Office of Leon R. Koziol
1518 Genesee Street
Utica, NY 13502
Phone: (315) 796-4000



DATE:  December 2, 2010

RE:  Federal Court Decision

A decision was received this past week in connection with a parenting rights test case filed against the New York Chief Justice, Unified Court System and others on November 10, 2010. A federal court judge reviewed the background together with an earlier case filed in February, 2009 and argued in September, 2010. An order was then entered which consolidated both actions with the earlier one designated as the “Lead Case” and the latter one as the “Member Case”. All motions for dismissal filed by the New York court defendants were denied along with the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. Both actions were then allowed to proceed without prejudice to renew those motions in the consolidated action.

This procedure is not unlike one employed in the Oneida land claim litigation of which I was a part during the nineties, see i.e. Oneida Nation v County of Oneida, 132 F. Supp. 2d 71 (NDNY 2000)(involving successful maintenance of gaming compact challenge against tribal motion for injunction). The current“Lead Case”, brought on behalf of “parents similarly situated”  will soon enter its third year with opportunity for class action status in the event other victims of custody, support and alienation practices seek to join or intervene. This is a comprehensive challenge based upon rights protected under our Constitution and can be viewed in its entirety (the “Member Case”) on federal pacer docket and elsewhere on this site. A planning session surrounding this case and a national Parenting Rights Convention is scheduled for December 26-27, 2010 at the Plaza Hotel in New York City, see details on this site.


View Lawsuit Here



Purple Heart’s Final Beat – A Soldier Suicide Story

Koziol Releases Statement Regarding NYS Law License Suspension






Lawyer Richard Fine, 70, Freed From Jail


Jury Sides With Billionaire Donald Bren in Inflated Child Support Battle

A jury sided today with real estate tycoon Donald Bren, ruling that he did not have to pay more than $130 million in back child support payments to his adult children.

(Read More)

Koziol Releases Version 3.0 of Prospectus

August 16, 2010 – Version 3.0 has just been made public. (See Prospectus)

Exclusive: Koziol Releases Updated Prospectus

August 6, 2010 – An updated version of Leon Koziol’s prospectus has been released and made available exclusively online. An accompanying media news release is expected sometime early next week when the document is formally made public.

(See More)

Breaking News!!!

Utica, NY, July 8, 2010, Stephen Patterson wins federal court ruling against the City of Utica.

In a decision handed down today by U.S. District Court, Judge David N. Hurd, Stephen Patterson’s civil rights lawsuit against the City of Utica was allowed to proceed despite motions for dismissal filed by the City late last year. Mr. Patterson’s attorney, Leon Koziol, had filed the case in September of 2009 and argued successfully against the City’s motions on January 22nd of this year. This decision presents the unique perspective of Mr. Koziol winning another case from sidelines.

In related news, it appears from other decisions handed down yesterday in both federal and state courts, Mr. Koziol is expecting to have his licensing privileges restored in the near future.

Looks like Steve is in store for another big monetary award against the City.

Congratulations to both Stephen and Leon!

See Media Coverage: Utica Observer Dispatch , Utica Daily News

Stephen Patterson Speaks Out on January 12, 2010: Video 1, Video 2

Other Related Links: Leon Koziol’s Civil Rights Report to the United States Department of Justice
Video 1 , Video 2


Family Court Jails Mother For Father-Child Alienation Tactics Not Necessarily a Fathers’ Rights Victory

By Leon R. Koziol, J.D.

The jail sentence imposed upon a delinquent mother in a Nassau County Family Court Case on June 7, 2010 should not be hailed as a fathers’ rights victory so much as a demonstration of how barbaric our domestic relations processes remain in the 21st century. The torturous decision in Lauren R. v Ted R. described in graphic detail how a mother abused her state authorized powers as a so-called “custodial parent” to alienate a father from his children. Countless parents and victims will see themselves represented in this classic example of New York’s dysfunctional child governance system.

The summer weekend jail punishment meted out to Lauren R. pales in comparison to the draconian measures taken against fathers who become delinquent in child support (welfare entitlements). Six month sentences are not uncommon for struggling dad’s in today’s economy after years of intangible confinement to a custodial institution of child-rearing.

The insidious problem lies not with the parents, but with the long antiquated “custody” and “support” laws which force parents to fight over their own children. Mandatory awards are imposed upon every parent entering a domestic relations court regardless of circumstances which may call for their rejection. This causes otherwise cooperating moms and dads to engage in child injuring litigation tactics which support a multi-billion dollar child control industry. Lawyers and forensic agents are benefiting at the expense of children and their career aspirations by a guaranteed reduction of the parents’ joint estates through diverse fees, court ordered programs and lost work time. This case may be summed up in its conclusion: some $165,000.00 in attorneys fees which will be addressed when the mother completes her jail sentence.