The volunteer staff of Leon Koziol.Com wishes to extend our heartfelt sympathies to the family of Thomas J. Ball as we were just informed that he took his own life in front of a family court building in New England.
Here is a sad story that came to our attention by one of our many nationwide. June 2011. followers:
We would encourage anyone reading this blog who may be in contact with the family to share Civil Rights Advocate Leon Koziol, J.D.’s “National Father’s Day Message” found at: .
It’s important the family know that Mr. Koziol is working diligently within the system to secure long overdue reform in domestic relations matters given the related escalation of violence. A more ominous sign may exist here in our own small community in Upstate, NY, where a number of of law enforcement officers were victimized both on duty and off duty by domestic relations abuses.
According to research[1] approximately 330 people commit suicide monthly in the U.S. in response to the way family courts and CPS handle divorce, domestic violence and child support. The study points out that the suicide rate for divorced men is 9.94 times higher than the suicide rate for divorced women.
[1] Augustine J. Kposowa, “Marital Status and suicide in National Longitudinal Mortality Study”, Journal of Epideiology and Community Health, Vol. 54, April 2000, p. 256.
The Myth of the 'Primary' Parent
Children affected by divorce fare worse, on average, on nearly every measure of health and emotional well-being including a greater risk of academic problems, alcohol and drug use, poor social skills, depression and suicide, delinquency and incarceration, and poorer physical health and early mortality. The reason for all this has much to do with the fact that one of the two most important people in a child’s life is often relegated to the role of an infrequent visitor, as the above examples illustrate.
This problem may have far-reaching repercussions for all of us. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook school shooter, is reported to have gone downhill when divorce separated him from his father. One leading researcher calls this issue “a serious public health problem.”
These cases are based on the myth that one parent is the primary parent. Judges often decide cases this way even though there is no legal or mental health basis for it. More than three dozen studies over the past 20 years have found that when both parents are loving and competent, which is the case most of the time, a shared parenting arrangement -- with joint decision making and near-equal parenting time -- provide the best outcomes for their children.
This myth seems to have arisen from a legal presumption called the “approximation rule,” which was proposed more than 20 years ago and eventually rejected. Nonetheless, many lawyers, psychologists and judges still follow it because of its superficial neutrality and simplicity. Like many simplistic solutions, however, it’s simply wrong.
WHY IS THIS A CRITICAL ISSUE?
Posted by Children's Rights on Sunday, November 8, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Sunday, November 8, 2015
Posted by Children's Rights on Sunday, November 8, 2015
Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Sunday, November 8, 2015
Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Sunday, November 8, 2015
Neil Lyndon, author of No More Sex War and one of the first men to openly critique feminism, is right to draw...
Posted by American Fathers Liberation Army on Saturday, November 7, 2015
HOW DID CHILDREN OF DIVORCE GET STUCK WITH THE VISITATION PLAN THAT AFFORDS THEM ACCESS TO THEIR NON-RESIDENTIAL PARENT ONLY ONE NIGHT DURING THE WEEK AND EVERY OTHER WEEK-END?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the research that supports such a schedule? Where is the data that confirms that such a plan is in the best interest of the child?
Well, reader, you can spend your time from now until eternity researching the literature, and YOU WILL NOT DISCOVER ANY SUPPORTING DATA for the typical visitation arrangement with the non-residential parent! The reality is that this arrangement is based solely on custom. And just like the short story, "The Lottery," in which the prizewinner is stoned to death, the message is that deeds and judgments are frequently arrived at based on nothing more than habit, fantasy, prejudice, and yes, on "junk science."
This family therapist upholds the importance of both parents playing an active and substantial role in their children's lives----especially in situations when the parents are apart. In order to support the goal for each parent to provide a meaningfully and considerable involvement in the lives of their children, I affirm that the resolution to custody requires an arrangement for joint legal custody and physical custody that maximizes the time with the non-residential----with the optimal arrangement being 50-50, whenever practical. It is my professional opinion that the customary visitation arrangement for non-residential parents to visit every other weekend and one night during the week is not sufficient to maintain a consequential relationship with their children. Although I have heard matrimonial attorneys, children's attorneys, and judges assert that the child needs the consistency of the same residence, I deem this assumption to be nonsense. I cannot be convinced that the consistency with one's bed trumps consistency with a parent!
Should the reader question how such an arrangement can be judiciously implemented which maximizes the child's time---even in a 50-50 arrangement----with the non-residential parent, I direct the reader to the book, Mom's House, Dads House, by the Isolina Ricci, PhD.
Indeed, the research that we do have supports the serious consequences to children when the father, who is generally the non-residential parent, does not play a meaningful role in lives of his children. The book, Fatherneed, (2000) by Dr. Kyle Pruitt, summarizes the research at Yale University about the importance of fathers to their children. And another post on this page summarizes an extensive list of other research.
Children of divorce or separation of their parents previously had each parent 100% of the time and obviously cannot have the same arrangement subsequent to their parents' separation. But it makes no sense to this family therapist that the result of parental separation is that the child is accorded only 20% time with one parent and 80% with the other. What rational person could possibly justify this?