Parent Alienation, a Human Rights Violation So Profound and Widespread that it Demands a Federal Inquiry

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.

How a Parent Alienator was Recommended for an Exorcism in Family Court

Dr. Leon Koziol, Director

Parenting Rights Institute

Yes it did happen, an alienating parent, Kelly Hawse, was so evil in her quest to replace a father for money and status that she was recommended for an exorcism in New York Family Court. It happened in my own divorce case in 2011, the same year that my custody judge was accused and later banned from the same family court after admitting to sexual abuse of his handicapped five-year old niece, Bryan Hedges, 20 NY3d 677 (2013).

Although it may have appeared extreme at the time, this recommendation, made in a third-party affidavit, has been justified repeatedly ever since. 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 has matured here. How could a biological mother work so ferociously and so long to destroy exemplary father-daughter relationships?

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 process focused more on lawyer profits and court revenues than the so-called “best interests” of our children.

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 yield sabotages overdue reforms while creating an inherent or systemic bias among jurists who are given the financial incentive to manufacture as many “custodial parents” as possible while ruling against their “noncustodial” counterparts. This, 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 co-parenting one where parents are treated equally under our Constitution. This would produce vast harm to to a giant bureaucracy built on support collections and court battles. It also explains why shared parenting legislation is opposed by special interests and bar associations across the country. 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. Over time, it can create monsters among parents and children alike. 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.

Parent Alienation Cult

Parental alienation has elevated over the years in the custody playbook to take on the character of a cult in extreme cases. That cult is bent on exploiting custodial authority for ulterior purposes such as child support increases, punishment of an adversary, or replacement of a targeted parent with a preferred substitute. My case had all three but was also laced with an agenda for suppressing my public criticisms of an increasingly corrupt court system.

This agenda empowered my ex-wife, Kelly Hawse, to abuse her custodial authority to levels that exceeded rational and moral bounds. She nurtured an evil to such a degree as to permanently alienate me from my daughters. Once benefited by the standard 85% of time spent with my children under the antiquated system, she was able to orchestrate a false narrative that had me wrongfully defined as an uncaring weekend warrior and “deadbeat” dad.

The two weekends a month typically assigned to noncustodial parents are woefully inadequate to maintain meaningful parent-child relationships. Such arrangements can easily isolate that parent, reduce him or her to an inferior role model, frustrate involvement in school events and create a disconnect even among cooperating parents. But when a scheming alienator is involved, the harm could be much more severe and life impacting.

You would think that lawyers in robes would have the requisite sophistication to detect parental alienation especially when it is occurring before their very eyes. But in my case, the overseers were looking the other way as a means for punishing my public exposures of corruption and efforts to reform this lucrative custody system. Here is an excerpt from my book which exemplifies how brazen the alienation was against me:

To illustrate this aspect of a growing epidemic, on one occasion I was returning from a weekend with my girls at an indoor water park. As a weekend warrior, a noncustodial parent has to maximize enjoyment to offset the alienation process, and my daughters loved these excursions because we lived in snow country. The ex was busy with her anal routine of texting me whenever I was running late. It did not matter that her girls had enjoyed such a wonderful time with their dad. To the contrary, this custodial parent was likely incensed by it.

It got so anal that I texted back that I was in Rio to make up for all my deprived parenting time, my way of saying enough is enough. It was pathetically obvious that this was a facetious text as it was sent from her driveway, and she could verify the girls’ exiting my vehicle from her picture window. Nevertheless, to my utter shock, I was hauled into family court days later to defend against a show cause order limiting my geographic activity to two local counties.

Incredibly, a hearing was actually held on the Rio caper in May, 2011 with my children’s assigned lawyer (William Koslosky) questioning, quite astoundingly, whether I was truly in Rio while dropping off his “clients.” I refused to answer on “stupidity” grounds despite the judge’s directive to respond. My refusal was then used against me with our first forensic evaluations ordered of mom and dad. Supervision was later imposed. More on that under the subject ‘forensic funny farm.’

Other playbook antics included the scheduling of discretionary activities on weekends. The rationale used here was that these were extensions of school-related events that truncated my parenting time. Sometimes my entire period would be preempted by events in other states where I was remanded to observer status. Ever the schemer, this abuser would then convey privately, and contrary to court order, that I was not interested in the girls or their activities. A secret bond was established which lasted to the time when all contact had ended. Even a senile judge could discern the alienation agenda, but each one I petitioned would find a way of excusing it.

Coming Tomorrow: History Repeats Itself with a Relocation Concealment to Keep the Alienation Forever in Play

Also Note:

This author will be making a formal presentation before a Blue Ribbon Panel of New York’s newly installed governor, Kathy Hochul, on the subject of forensic evaluation abuses in family court. We will keep you posted. 


New Report: Custody Court Dysfunction May Claim Your Children, Health and Livelihood

 

1217
Stay healthy, happy and out of custody court so your hard earnings can be spent on better things than lawyers, court induced addictions and lucrative evaluations

By Dr. Leon R. Koziol

Is anything worth your health? Do you enjoy fighting over your children while lawyers and court operatives disgorge you of your earnings and assets. If you have an income, children or assets of any kind, the sky’s the limit for conflict orchestrated by profiteers in custody court.

They’ll tell you it’s all in your children’s best interests when advised to file a contested divorce or family court petition for custody or support. But they’re really talking about their own children, if they even have them, where the fees you pay are ultimately spent.

Get the vital details in a new report released this past week by our public interest group, Parenting Rights Institute. Share it with your lawyer, obtain expert assistance, but most of all, get a real world perspective on how these courts truly operate.

It was authored by a parental advocate who spent more than two decades litigating in these courts. The alarming content is based on many months of research and interviews with divorce and family court victims from around the country.

We rely on donations to make such work possible. Your help is vital. This report must be shared with persons or entities with resources to help us open offices in every state. Custody Court Dysfunction is a growing epidemic traced to PTSD, Parent Alienation Syndrome, moral decay, health care costs and productivity declines in the workplace.

Contact us at our office at (315) 380-3420 or direct at (315) 796-4000. We also offer a Court Program for self-represented parents and those wishing to consider mediation and other litigation alternatives at http://www.parentingrightsinstitute.com. We also prepare book manuscripts for those wishing to publish their court ordeals.

Download our report at:  https://www.scribd.com/doc/309595636/Custody-Court-Dysfunction