di·vorce – dəˈvôrs/ noun ~ the legal dissolution of a marriage by a court or other competent body.
- verb ~ legally dissolve one’s marriage with (someone).
A divorce can be many things. It is a legal proceeding to end a marriage. Divorce laws differ from state to state regarding the requirements and reasons or grounds for a divorce. The mechanisms and procedures for obtaining a divorce differ from state to state as well. In every state there is a legal requirement that a divorce proceeding be filed to end the legal marriage between a couple.
Preponderance of Evidence Standard
Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents’ DUE PROCESS rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 ).
Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard.
However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 ).
Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children.
Unlike in most court cases, family courts have no jury. This leaves the outcome of each case completely at the discretion of the judge, thereby subverting our basic civil liberties.
In general, it seems that judges are unwilling to explicitly specify whether mothers or fathers are the preferred parents, with the exception of the situation when children are under the age of six, in which case they believe that the mother is the preferred parent. Although they disagreed with the specification of either parent as better than the other, … the disagreement was stronger with regard to the father. Overall, on each of the five items, the means indicated a preference toward mothers over fathers, which are consistent with the theory of maternal preference.
By Dr. Leon R. Koziol
When I heard about Megyn Kelly and this War on Women being waged by Donald Trump, like any conscientious American, I offered to enlist my services to defend our country against a pending invasion. Admittedly I had selfish reasons: two precious daughters, hot girlfriends, the best mom a guy could hope for, and countless women I have protected over the years as a civil rights advocate. God forbid some guy named Trump would harm them in any way.
The problem was I could find nothing to show that this Donald guy harmed any woman, let alone someone I knew. Worse yet, I discovered that I was an unwitting member of the enemy camp, a likely conscript of the Trump juggernaut, a person of opposite gender and a full one-half of the human population. The invaders were everywhere, well beyond the skills of our finest military personnel. It was a war like no other, and I must confess it scared the Hillary out of me.
The first thing I logically did was consult our Constitution to check for veracity. It clearly stated that only Congress could declare this war. Alas there was no such declaration. But because that never stopped any president in recent memory, I knew this war could be occurring without our consent. And that required me to investigate further even if it meant wiping out the other half of humanity and our species altogether. Hey don’t blame me, I had nothing to do with this war.
I then learned that such a war could only be declared by a member of an obscure faction known as IML (Insecure Man-hating Liberals). The other wars included poverty, the environment and the War on Wars (2008 presidential elections). Sadly we lost all of them with the exception of a highly classified War on Fathers in our nation’s family courts. With all of Trump’s wealth and success rates in comparison, I knew we were in real trouble.
So I visited the SWDC (Strategic Woman Defense Command) headed by, you guessed it, Megyn Kelly. Someone named Caitlyn refused entry due to enemy suspicions, but I was able to learn the action plan from e-mails of our former Secretary of State. In a nutshell, it was to fake an attack like Tonkin Bay, alarm the public to expand our federal bureaucracy and raise taxes until the last factory left for China. My gosh, the Soviets were right! We could be conquered from within.
In the end I surmised that Orson Welles must have been a part of all the hysteria. His 1938 radio classic, War of the Worlds, caused widespread panic based on a Martian invasion. Learning from history and the likes of Queen Victoria or Catherine the Great, I concluded that this War on Women was actually a War on Men and an insult to all who served our country in the real wars. Over 58,000 are found on the Viet Nam Wall in Washington D.C. All but eight are men.
August 20, 2015
Dr. Leon R. Koziol
We ask all of our followers to submit copies of this editorial to your local newspaper for publication.
Florida Commission on Access to Civil Justice
Children are human beings, not belongings. Children need the love, caring, nurturing, and guidance of both their mother and father throughout their lives. “Awarding” custody of a child to either the mother or father in divorce creates an atmosphere of contempt and competition, but more importantly it deprives the child of the benefit of the day to day nurturing of either their mother or father.
Research has shown in a dramatic fashion the long term devastating effects removal of a parent has on children. The following statistics from the American Psychological Association found along with other shared parenting research gathered together online at http://www.HelpStopPAS.com have been duplicated in a number of studies, including those from the U.S. Department of Education.
Psychologist Robert Bauserman, Ph.D., of Administration/Department of Health and Mental Hygiene in Baltimore, Maryland conducted a meta-analysis of 33 studies between 1982 to 1999 that examined 1,846 sole-custody and 814 joint-custody children. The studies compared child adjustment in joint physical or joint legal custody with sole-custody settings and 251 intact families. Joint custody was defined as either physical custody – where a child spends equal or substantial amounts of time with both parents or shared legal custody – where a child lives with primarily one parent but both parents are involved in all aspects of the child’s life. This article will appear in the March issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, published by the American Psychological Association (APA).
Children in joint custody arrangements had less behavior and emotional problems, had higher self-esteem, better family relations and school performance than children in sole custody arrangements. And these children were as well-adjusted as intact family children on the same measures, said Bauserman, “probably because joint custody provides the child with an opportunity to have ongoing contact with both parents.
These findings indicate that children do not actually need to be in a joint physical custody to show better adjustment but just need to spend substantial time with both parents, especially with their fathers, said Bauserman. Also, joint custody couples reported less conflict, possibly because both parents could participate in their children’s lives equally and not spend the time arguing over childcare decisions. Unfortunately a perception exists that joint custody is more harmful because it exposes children to ongoing parental conflict. In fact, the studies in this review found that sole-custody parents reported higher levels of conflict.
Harvard also conducted studies with the following results:
Adolescents After Divorce, Buchanan, C., Maccoby, and Dornbusch, Harvard University Press,1996.
A study of 517 families with children ranging in age from 10.5 years to 18 years, across a four and a half year period. Measures were: assessed depression, deviance, school effort, and school grades. Children in shared parenting arrangements were found to have better adjustment on these measures than those in sole custody.
With these statistics it is easy to see that shared parenting is in the best interest of the child. Shared parenting legislation would also strengthen our family values and society as a whole. A study conducted by Richard Kuhn et al with The Children’s Rights Council showed a decline in divorce rates in states that allow joint physical custody.
The evidence reported in the paper indicates that widespread acceptance of joint physical custody will not increase the divorce rate, and may in fact reduce divorce. States whose family law policies – either by statute or through judicial practice – encourage joint custody have shown a much greater decline in their divorce rates than those that favor sole custody. REMEMBER THE $50 BILLION DOLLARS.
The decline was attributed to a number of factors. States that favor sole custody in divorce may thus expect to see more divorce than states that encourage joint custody. On a practical level, joint physical custody makes it less likely that a parent can move to another city to eliminate interaction with the other parent. Because both parents provide for the child directly, child support payments may be somewhat lower with joint custody, reducing financial motives for divorce. Perhaps most significant, joint custody also removes the capacity for one spouse to hurt the other by denying participation in raising the children.
A vast amount of research has found that shared parenting will not only strengthen the institution of marriage in our country but also give our nation’s children the love and companionship they need from both their mother and father to mature into productive and respected members of our society. Shared parenting is no longer a concept that needs to be debated; it has been tested and proven to be the preferred custody arrangement in a divorce situation. In absence of mental illness or abuse children are entitled to the right of a close continued relationship with both parents without interference from either parent or the court.
With this information it would be abusive towards parents and children not to act in the children’s best interest. The best interest of the children is equal time with both parents; shared parenting.
With this in mind consider the findings from the United States Department of Education:
“More than a quarter of American Children, 24 MILLION, do not live with their father. Girls without a father in their life are two and a half times as likely to get pregnant and 53 percent more likely to commit suicide. Boys without a father in their life are 63 percent more likely to run away and 37 percent more likely to abuse drugs. Both girls and boys are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to end up in jail and nearly four times as likely to need help for emotional or behavioral problems.” — HHS Press Release, Friday, March 26, 1999.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent and serious matter.
HOW THIS WILL HELP
Lawyers and Judges have fiduciary duties under their codes of conduct to “insure the Integrity of the judiciary and the legal system” (Canon 1 and RPC Preamble #1 )” and to report to the appropriate authority if a lawyer or judge engages in conduct that runs contrary to promoting “public confidence in the judiciary and the rule of law” (RPC 8.3, Canon 3(b)(5) and Canon 1 and RPC Preamble #6 respectively) which may “injure our system of government under law” (Canon 1).
The problem: these self-regulating privileges devolved to a point where judges and lawyers have absolved themselves of these “fiduciary duties” and in fact have absolved themselves of their lawful duties. Said another way, the public’s confidence in the judiciary and in the rule of law has been severely injured by the moral and ethical inbreeding in self-regulation. Richard A. Posner, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, writes, “Moral inbreeding may be as dangerous as biological inbreeding”. Clearly the legal profession has been inbreeding for decades and this accounts for the ethical and moral mutations that now plague our justice system.
A national, nonpartisan,nonprofit citizens’ organization documenting how judges break the law and get away with it.
Our Mission . . .To improve the quality of our judiciary by removing political considerations from the judicial selection process and by ensuring that the process of disciplining and removing judges is effective and meaningful.
Dear Attorney General of the United States Please Hear My Cry!
A SYSTEM OF INJUSTICE
WHAT TYPE OF CASE: FAMILY □ HOUSING □ CIVIL □ CRIMINAL □ SMALL CLAIMS □ APPELLATE □ SUPREME □
DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR COURT FILES WERE TAMPERED WITH BY CLERKS/JUDGES? YES □ NO □
IF MORE THAN ONE OFFICE FILL OUT SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR EACH COMPLAINT
WERE YOU ARRESTED?
DATE YOU WERE ARRESTED: ____________
DATE YOU WERE CONVICTED: ______________
COURT LOCATION: ______________________________________________ JUDGE: _________________________________
NAME OF PROSECUTOR:
DID YOU HAVE AN ATTORNEY? __________
NAME OF YOUR ATTORNEY:
WAS THIS A PUBLIC DEFENDER?________
WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME OF YOUR CASE: ____________
IF DCF CASE, WERE YOUR CHILD(REN) TAKEN AWAY?
HOW MANY CHILDREN? ________
IF CHILD SUPPORT CASE, DID DSS AND ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE REPRESENT THE OTHER SIDE?
WHERE DO YOU BELIEVE THE MISCONDUCT STARTED: POLICE _____ PROSECUTOR______ JUDGE________OTHER __________
WHAT HAPPENED? WHY DO YOU BELIEVE THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL SYSTEM MISTREATED YOU?
DID YOU REPORT THE MISCONDUCT? ____________ IF SO, TO WHOM? ______________________________________
WAS THE PERSON REPRIMANDED? __________ IF SO, HOW? _________________________________________________
(Use additional sheet if necessary)
DO YOU BELIEVE YOUR STATE AND/OR FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED? YES □ NO □ DON’T KNOW □
I attest under penalty of perjury that my statements are true to the best of my knowledge.
Mail to: The Attorney General of the United States, Dept. of Justice Rm. 4400, 950 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W,Washington, DC 20530-0001 – Fax no. 202-307-6777 Email: Askdoj@usdoj.gov
(Keep a copy for your records)
NOT A LAWYER —-LEGAL STATEMENT —–NOT an Attorney, Lawyer, Juris Doctor, Barrister, Solicitor…you get the idea. NO legal advice on this entire blog and this site is for information only. Nothing here should be construed as legal advice. While we find the information here interesting, we may not be in agreement with everything. The SOLE opinion of posts are for education purposes ONLY. Please voice your opinion on your experiences, evidence, nightmare, and documentation! ADVISORY~~> This site is for information only. Nothing here should be construed as legal advice. While we find the information here interesting, we may not be in agreement with everything. Nothing should be taken as fact without verification.
STOP ABSOLUTE DISCRETION OF FAMILY COURT JUDGES
Story ~ A 14 year-old daughter and big sister, was ILLEGALLY ABDUCTED nearly 3 years ago, no abuse, no neglect, just false accusations and…Read More
By Leon R. Koziol, J.D.
A professional firm hired to evaluate this website issued a report this past week ranking it in the 18,000 range for activity worldwide. This was noted as a very high status considering our utter lack of financial support and the likelihood that there are that many websites in New York City alone. It may also be explained by unique niche we have filled regarding overdue reforms in family court.
For the past six years I have provided you with updates of my good government efforts, exposed public corruption and assisted victims to survive costly and needless custody or support battles. And if you’re a regular follower, you also know that I have paid a heavy price for my exercise of constitutionally protected free speech. Unfortunately I have found that our third branch of government remains largely immune from accountability and the retaliation has severely impaired…
View original post 1,619 more words