Guilty of blocking your ex’s parenting time with your children

How you hurt your kids when you don’t share custody – Kidspot

Ever been guilty of blocking your ex’s parenting time with your children?

While it might seem completely justified, it’s important to be aware of the potential ramifications on the long-term health and well being of your child.

Continue reading Guilty of blocking your ex’s parenting time with your children

Advertisements

Vacation While Promoting Family Court Justice

Welcome to Leon Koziol.Com

1233 A scene in Hawaii obtained during a book publishing assignment by PRI Director Leon Koziol

Okay here’s the challenge. And you can do it. No strings or gimmicks. It’s this simple. You got friends, acquaintances, maybe even a few enemies you want to exploit. Sell 10 Court Strategy or Self-Representation Programs featured on the Parenting Rights Institute and Leon Koziol.com websites, and you get round trip plane fare to Hawaii. Sell 20 and get lodging for three days on the romantic island of Maui or bustling Waikiki. Sell 30 and get a week of lodging, minimum 3-star quality, and it will be a winter escape of your dreams.

The best part about this opportunity is that the proceeds will go toward family court reform. But what if you fall short of these numbers? No problem, you will get the standard $50 finder’s fee for each sale should you decide to…

View original post 210 more words

Extraordinary Gift: Your Ordeal in a Book to Last Future Generations

Welcome to Leon Koziol.Com

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

Imagine a divorce or family court victim during the holidays overwhelmed with grief. You could make their day to last a lifetime by making a book possible from their ordeal. Or perhaps you have earned such a gift from your own experience to benefit family readers and the public. You  hear it all the time, people who want to tell their life stories, unique ordeals, perhaps a legacy for future generations. And yet the vast majority are never told beyond the cafés, workplaces, shopping malls and bar stools.

Here at Parenting Rights Institute, we tell phenomenal stories. Rest assured it’s no easy task. There are “turn ’em and burn’em” publishing companies that charge unsuspecting customers as much as $20,000 with no real personal commitment. I successfully sued such a company, a subsidiary of Amazon, which has since gone out of business. They employ…

View original post 259 more words

Family judge admits pedophilia! Would you allow your children in his chambers?

Project Fatherhood FL 11- 2015Bring awareness to the corruption and fraudulent acts of Family Courts and Child Protective Services. Our children, parents and families are being abused, destroyed and in some cases, murdered while the APA maintains its “no policy” policy, which we believe contributes to the problem which consist with the corruption within the system that is supposed to be in the best interest of our children and families.

Welcome to Leon Koziol.Com

img_0510 Removal order obtained by Dr. Leon Koziol from his custody judge, Bryan Hedges, who was declared to have a “reputation beyond reproach” until removed from family court after admitting to sexual misconduct on his handicapped, five year old niece.

By Dr. Leon Koziol

Parenting Rights Institute

As a dedicated dad, I came close to contempt of court many times trying to protect my little girls from harm in New York’s family courts. As an attorney before that, I never once faced such a threat. But as today’s story will prove, fate or the good lord was looking out for us. Brace yourselves for this one!

Many of our followers remain incredulous over my public disclosures of a pedophile family judge, Bryan Hedges, who once presided over a custody war started by my ex-spouse, Kelly Hawse-Koziol (with monumental ignorance). Here at Parenting Rights Institute, we protect unsuspecting moms and dads…

View original post 910 more words

In the Best in Interest of Children ~ Children’s Rights Facebook Group

In the Best in Interest of Children

Quite often, I write about parental alienation and family court bias. Both, of these things do and will continue to occur in its present form unless, something dramatic changes. When we set foot into a family court environment to decide parental responsibilities, we have certain expectations that the term “best interests” of our child will be applied in the fullest measure possible.

Within the family court realm, there are essentially three people who will ultimately have a hand in the decision making process of where our child will live. First, you have an attorney for Mom, an attorney for Dad and finally, the judge who will decide the merits of the case. Obviously, the attorney’s job is to advance their client’s position and most times isn’t worried so much about the best interest standard.

This leaves the family court judge. These judges handle a great many cases that range from criminal to civil to family and anything else in between. As such, it is unreasonable to think that they are experts in all aspects of the law pertaining to the various disciplines. Also, they have limited knowledge of the family outside of what is presented to them in the courtroom. As a result, this can cause a judge to issue an order that may or may not be in the child’s best interest.

When applied, the term “best interest” should meet the legal definition. If, it does not then it is simply a useless phrase that is coined by the administrators of these proceedings to justify their rulings. Just so we’re all on the same page, let’s take a look at this term and what it implies. Though, each state may vary a bit in its definition, they all mention the main points.

Though, there are too many aspects to list in this article however, I will attempt to highlight some of the more obvious and relevant ones used in determining what constitutes the best interests standard. To see a complete list for your individual state, you can do a search of the term. The following are as listed, not necessarily in order.

*The age of the child;
*The relationship of the child with the child’s parents and any other persons who may significantly affect the child’s welfare.
*The preference of the child, if old enough to express a meaningful preference.
*The stability of any proposed living arrangements for the child.
*The motivation of the parties involved and their capacities to give the child love, affection and guidance. *The capacity of each parent to allow and encourage frequent and continuing contact between the child and the other parent, including physical access.
*Methods for assisting parental cooperation and resolving disputes and each parent’s willingness to use those methods.
*The existence of domestic abuse between the parents, in the past or currently, and how that abuse affects the child.
*The existence of a parent’s conviction for a sex offense or a sexually violent offense.
*Whether allocation of some or all parental rights and responsibilities would best support the child’s safety and well-being.

As you can see, there are many different aspects that judges must take into account when deciding the issue of parental responsibilities. None of these should ever be taken for granted lest, the child suffer due to the absence of one of these considerations. However, not all of the above mentioned are equally applied and sometimes, are ignored.

Should one of the parents display an unwillingness to follow these guidelines of best interests, then allocation should be given to the parent who is a willing participant. However, this does not always happen. There are times when the judge in these cases have demonstrated a certain level of hostility and bias towards one of the parents, attorneys or both, Further, their lack of understanding family law to the fullest, ignorance of motivating factors such as, parental alienation is a fairly common occurrence.

It is for these reasons that judges should be required to outline the guidelines, according to their respective state and go through them line by line explaining why each one is in compliance with their orders. I believe, that should a family court judge be required to do this, the very essence of transparency would eliminate any erroneous ruling and the best interest standards would be fully administered and served.

Finally, family court judges must be required to take educational classes to learn about a child’s best interest, as it applies to governing law. Lastly, family law cases must be separate from criminal and civil courts to insure that the judges are not only qualified but, also specialized in these matters. In allowing these things to take place, we may start to see some semblance of “best interest” standard being applied.

By David Shubert

Please, help spread the word by sharing this article on your timeline, with family and friends!

Visit me at www.facebook.com/BringBackChianne to read more articles or www.facebook.com/HopefulFather and click on friend request or even better, click on Follow me for notifications of new articles!

Source: Children’s Rights Facebook Support Page

¿Por qué necesitamos la Enmienda de Derechos Parentales?

Noventa años atrás el Tribunal Supremo declaró que…

“el niño no es la mera criatura del Estado; los que le crian y dirigen su destino tienen derecho, asociado con el alto deber, de reconocerlo y preparar [al niño] para obligaciones adicionales.” ~ Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Hace cuarenta años la Corte siguió esta línea de razonamiento al pronunciar que el…

“rol primario de los padres en la educación de sus hijos está ahora establecido más allá de toda disputa como una perdurable tradición americana.”  ~ Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972)

Sin embargo, en el año 2000 la Corte abrió esta disputo de nuevo. Una ley en el estado de Washington le dió a cualquier persona la capacidad de anular la decisión de padres buenos en el asunto de visitación.

La persona solo tenía que clamar que sería “mejor” para el niño permitir que la persona tenga derechos de visitación.

Cuando la Corte Suprema revisó la ley en el caso Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000):World is round - 2016

  • Hubieron seis opiniones diferentes y ninguna alcanzó cinco votos (una mayoría);
  • El juez Scalia sostuvo que los padres no tienen derechos de cualquier índole que estén protegidos por la Constitución;
  • El juez Th omas fue el único de la Corte que indicó claramente que los derechos parentales reciben la misma alta norma jurídica de protección dado a otros derechos fundamentales.

El apoyo por un alto concepto de derechos parentales fue socavado por esta decisión de la Corte.

Hoy numerosas cortes federales rechazan tratar estos derechos como merecedores de protección al nivel de otros derechos fundamentales.

Es el deber del Congreso aclarar la confusión causada por esta decisión astillada.

Continue reading ¿Por qué necesitamos la Enmienda de Derechos Parentales?

Is There a Difference Between Motioning for Reconsideration or Rehearing?

Ask any civil trial lawyer in Florida how many days one has to move for rehearing of an order simply granting a motion for summary judgment, and the odds are good the lawyer will respond, “Ten days.” Pursue the matter further with the lawyer, and ask where this 10-day period is set forth in the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and the lawyer will invariably point to Rule 1.530, which by its title governs motions for new trial and rehearing.

Rule 1.530, however, provides that a motion for rehearing must be served no later than 10 days after “the date of filing of the judgment in a non-jury action.”1 An order simply granting a motion for summary judgment is not a final judgment; rather, it is a nonfinal order.2 So, too, are myriad other orders entered by a trial court before final judgment. Attorneys in Florida nevertheless regularly file “motions for rehearing” directed to such nonfinal orders. Often they believe they must do so within 10 days. Sometimes they also believe that such a motion tolls the time to seek appellate review of the nonfinal order.

Motions for rehearing of nonfinal orders are not authorized by the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.3 Noting that motions for rehearing are exclusively governed by Rule 1.530, the Florida Supreme Court has observed that “[u]nless the filing of a motion for rehearing to an interlocutory order is authorized by a rule of court promulgated by the rule-making authority, then its filing is improper.”4 Indeed, it is not unheard of for an attorney to file a motion for “rehearing” of a nonfinal order and subsequently be confronted with a response from the other side echoing the court’s language and declaring that such motions are unauthorized and improper.

Yet while the rules of civil procedure themselves do not authorize motions for rehearing directed to nonfinal orders, a trial court does have the inherent authority to reconsider and alter or retract such orders prior to the entry of final judgment.5 Rather than constituting a motion for rehearing under Rule 1.530, a motion directed to a nonfinal order is actually a “motion for reconsideration” based upon this inherent and discretionary authority of the trial court.6 Despite this distinct and well-established basis for reconsideration of interlocutory orders, there still exists confusion among many practitioners about the differences between reconsideration and rehearing.

Much of the confusion stems from the fact that parties and the courts frequently use the terms interchangeably, at least in the context of motions directed at nonfinal orders. This is perhaps understandable given the lack of any rule-based authority for reconsideration of nonfinal orders; the articulation of the trial court’s inherent authority has of necessity come through the development of the common law. An attorney will, therefore, only be aware of the basis for reconsideration — as well as its effect on any subsequent appeal — from the case law.

Common Law Origin of Motions for Reconsideration

Continue reading Is There a Difference Between Motioning for Reconsideration or Rehearing?