Evidence-Based Approaches to Children’s Needs

We invite interested scholars, child and family professionals, and members of civil society to join us in this exciting new co-parenting venture.

We are looking for reporting proposals that dive deeply into a region or reach broadly across the country, particularly those with potential for radio. (If you have radio skills, that’s a plus.). We plan to establish reporting partnerships in some cases, award freelance contracts in others. This initiative will continue into 2017, so ambitious ideas are welcome.

There is no question that our family law statutes need to be reformed and that there is a great deal of ‘judicial discretion’ in family

Family Court Judges - 2016Family Court Judges2 - 2016

2016 : International Year of Co-Parenting

No Test of Parenting FITNESS - 2015

The first international shared parenting organization has been established to develop evidence-based approaches to the needs and rights of children whose parents are living apart.

Responding to the alarming increase in psycho-social and developmental problems among children whose parents are living apart, 26 leading research scientists, family professionals and representatives of civil society from 11 countries gathered in Bonn, Germany, on 21-23 February 2014 to found a new international organization focused on the feasibility of shared parenting as a viable and beneficial solution for children.

The new association will be known as the International Council on Shared Parenting (ICSP). Shared parenting, according the organization’s by-laws, refers to the equivalent, alternating care of children by their separated parents. The purpose of the association is first, the dissemination and advancement of scientific knowledge on the needs and rights (“best interests”) of children whose parents are living apart, and second, to formulate evidence-based recommendations about the legal, judicial and practical implementation of shared parenting.

Your correspondent, Edward Kruk, of the University of British Columbia (Canada), was elected as President of the new association. The international Council on Shared Parenting is the only international, research-centered association to focus squarely on the emerging paradigm of shared parenting. We have compiled a large body of new research examining child and parent outcomes in shared parenting families, and we seek to integrate this scientific data into family law, policy, and professional practice in the best interests of children.

Vice President Dr. Chantal Clot-Grangeat, Chambéry (France), stated, “Our aim is to find solutions for reducing the problems of children known to arise from family breakdown, such as diminished self-esteem, depression, and possible parental alienation, as well as educational failure, substance abuse, and trouble with the law.” 

Coparenting / International Year of Coparenting‘s eventThe Equal Parent Presumption: Social Justice in the Legal Determination of Parenting After Divorce  http://www.ILoveAndNeedMyDaughter.blogspot.com.  Just now · Miami, FL ·

The trial court modified the parenting plan to designate Father as the primary residential parent.

Mother appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court.

Mother argued her failure to notify Father of Child’s relocation to Texas was a “single violation” that did not rise to the level of a material change justifying a change of custody.

Tennessee courts apply a two-step analysis to requests to change the primary residential parent designation. The threshold issue is whether a material change in circumstance has occurred since the court’s prior custody order. Only if a material change in circumstance has occurred does the court consider whether a modification is in the child’s best interest.

In determining whether a material change has occurred, courts consider the following factors: (1) whether a change has occurred after the entry of the order sought to be modified; (2) whether a change was not known or reasonably anticipated when the order was entered; and (3) whether a change is one that affects the child’s well-being in a meaningful way.

Not every change in circumstance is a material change; the change must be significant before it will be considered material. However, the change does not have to pose a substantial risk of harm to the child. A material change of circumstance may include, but is not limited to, failures to adhere to the parenting plan.

Mother is correct that courts are disinclined to allow a single incident to serve as the basis for changing a primary residential parent designation. For example, in Beckham v. Beckham, the Court stated:

[A]n apparently isolated episode of poor judgment . . . is insufficient to establish a material change of circumstance. If that were the case, no parent ever would be able to maintain custody of his or her children as parents are inherently human and fallible. A parent is not required to be perfect or error free in his/her parenting in order to avoid there being a material change of circumstances.

After reviewing the record, the Court concluded:

[W]e find Mother’s argument unavailing because the lack of notice of her move to Texas is not the sole basis for finding a material change in circumstance. The change in circumstance can best be described as a lack of stability in the life of Mother since she was designated primary residential parent. As the record reflects, Mother’s move to Texas was not her only move, and Mother’s moves have directly impacted [Child] by necessitating changes in schools. As Mother conceded, [Child’s] support system has been “rocky.” At the same time, while his life may have lacked stability at the time of the divorce due to his military career and deployments, Father’s life has become more stable.

After a thorough review of the record, we find that Father did show a material change in circumstance. Mother’s move to Texas, by itself, may not rise to the level of a material change in circumstance, but the Texas move coupled with the prior eleven years of moves does.

Accordingly, the trial court’s change of custody was affirmed.

Skowronski v. Wade (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Middle Section, October 27, 2015).

Information provided by K.O. Herston: Knoxville, Tennessee Divorce and Family Law Attorney.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Herston on Tennessee Family Law

Facts: Father and Mother, the parents of Child, divorced in 2003. Mother was named the primary residential parent. Father received minimal parenting time because, at the time of divorce, he was active duty military and subject to multiple deployments.

texas moveIn 2013, Father petitioned for a change of custody. He alleged Mother relocated to Texas without providing notice. He further alleged her home provided an unstable environment.

The proof showed Mother moved 11 times since the divorce, thereby forcing Child to change school seven times. Many of Mother’s moves were caused by her unstable employment history. Conversely, Father had exhibited much more stability.

Child testified that her preference was to stay with Mother, with whom she had lived the majority of her life.

The trial court modified the parenting plan to designate Father as the primary residential parent.

Mother appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals

View original post 515 more words

The safety and well-being of our children and families.

Let us make the politicians and media aware of all the knowledge we have of Family Court and Child Protection

we-lose-20163Citizens from all walks of life very concerned with the safety and well-being of our children and families.votefamily-parental-rights-class-action-2015

“What’s causing the children’s death under the Department of Children and Families and the separation of our families?   One word summarizes it:   GREED.”

we-need-a-winner-2015And that same greed motivation is behind the forced separation of parents in family courts.

If one of the parents has less than 50/50 time sharing, he/she is forced to pay child support, and for every dollar the states spend in child support, the federal government reimburses 66 cents back (so for every $1 the states spend, they receive $1.98 dollars back, a 98% ROI) plus millions in incentives to the states, as per Title IV-D of the social security.

If you or someone you know has been affected by DCF or Family courts, join CAPRA as one of the lead plaintiffs in an upcoming landmark federal class action lawsuit against all 50 States and the Federal Government, because you qualify as: (1) a biological parent whose child custody was unconstitutionally removed without due process; and, (2) you have been directly impacted by that during the last four years, i.e., within the statute of limitations.

This class action is on behalf of *both* types of “family court” – for wrongful victims of divorce-and-similar-with-kids *and* for wrongful victims of child protection services – and includes suing on behalf of ANY parent affected by either “family court” type. 

It’s totally free to join, and the federal court relief being demanded includes the full restoration of our child custody rights under law, plus a nice share of the large amount in civil damages expected. 

Check it out!

Fair4Families - 2015It just requires entering someone’s referral Code to join – so PLEASE use ours – 33183MJ123 –  in the CAPRA registration form, located on the bottom of the homepage  and/or just click on our personal recruitment link to become part of our team

Join the Anti Corruption Act in your neighborhood

Send letters to congress and president requesting DCF reformCode of Judicial Conduct - 2015

Watch and tell others to watch the movie “DivorceCorp.”

The documentary about the Family Court Industry in America, on Netflix!

AND DON’T FORGET TO SHOW SOME SUPPORT, SOME LOVE…TO ALL THOSE FACEBOOK PAGE/GROUP CONTRIBUTORS-MODERATORS-MANAGERS, BLOGGERS, AUTHORS AND WRITERS, ADVOCATES  TRUTH WARRIORS. well, you know..

THANKS!!

Continue reading

Extraordinary Lawsuit Exposes Human Rights Violations in U.S. Courts

gofundme.com/StandupforZoraya
gofundme.com/StandupforZoraya

It is an extraordinary writ for additional reasons including complicity in the human rights violations by a federal judge. This life tenured judge, Gary Sharpe, was previously removed from a case for inventing a human gene yet to be discovered by the scientific community to explain criminal conduct.

Dr. Koziol practiced law in both federal and state courts for more than 23 unblemished years until he became a target of retribution by custody, support and disciplinary judges. They even cited his exposure of judicial misconduct at New York’s prematurely disbanded Moreland Commission on Public Corruption as a reason to keep him in a suspended state concerning his precious daughters and law license.

It is an ordeal which reads like a John Grisham novel. Now you can read it here. The text of Koziol’s lawsuit explains how these domestic courts are seizing increased controls over our children for fee and revenue generating purposes to their ultimate detriment, why our society is suffering as a consequence and how the moral fiber of an entire nation is harmed.

If you have a similar ordeal which needs public exposure, feel free to contact Leon for a free publication consultation at (315) 796-4000. He is being retained by abused parents to write books.

As a published author his professional services can be reviewed at Leon Koziol.com
Please share this link

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Welcome to Leon Koziol.Com

Dr. Leon R.Koziol in Paris seeking international recognition of human rights violations in America’s domestic relations courts

While our federal government is promoting human rights across the globe, its military is returning to domestic courts which exploit children for profit. That’s the opening statement in a precedent seeking action being filed on November 16, 2015 in a federal appeals court in Manhattan.

Known as a mandamus action, it seeks extraordinary relief due to human rights violations exhibited by presiding judges abusing public office to promote a trillion dollar industry in America’s divorce and family courts. It is a “must-read” for any abused parent. See a copy of Dr. Koziol’s mandamus action:(Click Here)

The lawsuit targets judicial corruption, free speech retributions and a federal funding scheme known as Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. Highly suppressed in public, this law rewards state judges for the number and size…

View original post 332 more words

Family Court’s Violations of Parent’s Inalienable Rights Protected by the United States Constitution.

d0640-civil2brights2bin2bfamily2blaw

Let's Defend Our Families!

We are a coalition of ordinary Florida citizens from all walks of life very concerned with the safety and well-being of our children and families. We believe that we must unite to defend our families for their is great power in unity: “Though one may be overpowered by another, two can withstand him. A threefold cord is not quickly broken”  (Ecclesiastes 4:12). We are an army of parents and families defending our children. Please, help our families by downloading our flyer and passing it along to your friends and families.VoteFamily Flyer

Dysfunctional Family Courts - 2015Why say NO to attorneys in the Legislature?
See explanation.Parental Rights Class Action Lawsuit - parentalrightsclassaction-com

Continue reading

FAMILY COURT’S TEMPORARY” ORDERS THAT DRAG ON FOR YEARS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND VIOLATE OUR RIGHTS AND OUR CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

iINGUANZO V. ROSE - CAUSES 2015“[T]his United States Supreme Court has provided definitive guidelines for child custody, as a parent’s Constitutional right t…o exercise, which every state in the Union can choose to ignore, as long as the order is ‘temporary.’

Family Courts routinely generate ‘temporary’ orders which carry on without expiration, and may represent persistent violations of parent’s Constitutional right to the care custody and control of their offspring.

Lower [Family] courts do not have the discretion to temporarily ignore a fit parent’s fundamental rights protected by the Federal and State Constitution just because custody proceedings are pending.”

*Note: It is a common family court tactic to take kids away from Protective Mothers “temporarily”, which ends up being for a very long time. [Later the judge often uses the fact that s/he does not want to disrupt the children’s lives by giving custody back to mom/dad.]

This achieves the first step in the silencing/Stockholming process: Isolate the victims from anyone who supports their accounts of abuse. This enables the perpetrator (with or without help from corrupt court-appointed psychologists) to coerce, threaten, brainwash and/or Stockholm the child(ren) into recanting (or at least staying quiet about) the abuse.

Victimized by Family Court - Judge Soto Miami Florida - 2015

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

FAMILY COURT VICTIM

This is EXACTLY what has happened to ME!!!!!!!!!!!! I am still on a “temporary” order going on 2 years now. Of course, no-one will want to “interrupt” my daughter’s life now after 2 years. Even though it was OK that it was interrupted when she was legally kidnapped. This is EXACTLY what has happened to me to a tee. Still on a “temporary” order 2 years later and meanwhile my child has been alienated from me and brainwashed (Stockholm Syndrome, Trauma Bonding, Parental Alienation Syndrome). amber alert childs mind

Of course, no one will want to interrupt her life now, 2 years later. The abuser will win by default and I will end up bankrupt. I 100% agree with this lawyer. These temporary orders should be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Ruining lives every day. PLEASE SHARE THIS TO EDUCATE AND BRING AWARENESS. pa.ten

 
FROM “SAFE KIDS INTERNATIONAL” FACEBOOK PAGE:
 
Attorney Michelle MacDonald Contests “Temporary” Orders Depriving Protective…

View original post 223 more words