Couldn't happen to a nicer guy

[stoney]

I'm worried about those poor kids. They have to witness all this & their young little minds are going to blame themselves. They are extremely impressionable at this age (6 & 8). I have no doubt that Leon loves them, but he is harming them a great deal with all this circus.

Heaven forbid his live-in girlfriend gets pregnant..

[denise]

Leon is a disgusting little man. He was a creep before he fathered children, and I can see that becoming a father has done nothing to improve his character.

Furthermore, it really shows that any man can be a father (if they are able to give the "donation"), but it takes someone special to be a dad.

[Clipper]

It is sad that he has decided to use his support payments as a sword in his battle against his ex-wife and the court system. He must be really losing it if he ever thinks he is going to beat the system.

As a divorced father, I resented having to work several jobs to pay my support payments also, but it is what a responsible adult has to bear for their failed marriage.

I think that the system IS turning the corner toward a more fair and equal treatment by the courts. I don't know about Oneida County, but we know a woman down here in Tennessee that pays her husband some big time alimony and support, because she chose to leave her family for another man. The husband quit his job and stays home with the kids, and SHE pays him alimony until such time as the youngest child starts school, and then he will be required to return to work.

[stoney]

From the Utica Daily News~~

Frank McBride, a local radio personality and Proctor graduate, offers his weekly take on the world, the area and the things he can't believe. Never short of opinion, McBride isn't for the sensitive reader.

Another week goes by, and the virility of the stupidity displayed by some people still amazes me.

ON LEON KOZIOL

Let's start with the original O.G. Leon Koziol and his interview on the "Keeler in the Morning" on Thursday morning. Was I the only one who walked away saying perhaps the best thing for his kids(two adorable little girls) was not to expose his kids to him or his nonsensical approach to child rearing? For him to say, and I am paraphrasing, that the cause is more important, than him seeing and spending time with his kids is perhaps the greatest detriment to the cause of fathers rights.

Nothing should be more important for a non-custodial father, than to spend time with his kids. Is the term "visitation" a terrible way to describe the act? Of course it is. The only time you hear the word visitation is when we are talking about child custody issues and prisoners. So, yes the terminology needs to be changed. When it comes to child support, his contention that child support is like prostitution "you are paying to see a child" is absurd. Mr. Koziol’s children live in the household of another, in this case, his former spouse. Part of the cost of supporting his issue should be borne by the father. How can you contend differently? Are the numbers wrong? Oh sure they are.

But C'mon Man, you cut the check! Because they are your kids! You dance to the tune the judge plays, because they are your kids.

When you say anything different, when you do anything different, you are saying there are things more important (Susan B. Anthony??? Really?!?! And nobody has punched your ticket yet???) and you do a tremendous disservice to Fathers everywhere. And above all, you do a disservice to your kids.

You sound like an idiot.

Something tells me your kids are better off with the status quo. What tells me that you ask?? You did.

[bobbbiez]

Bottom line..................once a dirt-bag, always a dirt-bag!

He made a habit of always representing dirt-bags so why should this surprise anyone.

[Swimmy]

Just wanted to update anyone wondering how biased the court system is against "good" fathers. On Friday, I had a trial where dad agreed to a joint custody arrangement between himself, the child's mother, and the child's maternal aunt and uncle. The law is clear what needs to be done. Guess what, dad will walk away with custody after the next court appearance. And down here, no one knows about this fool up there. In fact, I mentioned it in the attorney's room, and everyone of them said this comparison to Rosa Parks is not only the saddest joke they've ever heard, but that it is a huge disgrace to the legal profession and hope he gets disbarred. Food for thought.

[stoney]

On the radio he also compared himself to Nelson Mandela.

[denise]

I'm sure Leon's kids would be happy to have just a plain old dad instead of a soapbox champion.

[bobbbiez]

From his recent actions sounds like his kids would be better off without him influencing them in his manners.

[denise]

True.

[Swimmy]

You can see why a judge would find it in the girls' best interest to limit their trauma with their "father." I put father in quotes because he is certainly NOT acting like a father.

[Clipper]

I can only imagine the embarrassment of having a person's divorce and custody battle dragged through the media and the blogs.

Everyone has a right to an opinion, as long as they don't overstep the law and offer lies or libelous statements. I understand that he is very upset by the negative publicity and lack of support for his stand on the issues, but I don't think it is against any law to be of the opinion that he is making a large mistake in the manner in which he is handling this matter, and that he must have lost his mind if he thinks he will WIN a case when he is in clear contempt of the court.

I guess when you are a noted personality, and you put your face on an issue such as this, you subject yourself to public opinion and comment. I feel his pain, but he is the one that has made it a public interest story, not the blogs.

Larry Jr has started a new blog called www.gothamcitynews.com. It seems to be a "pro-Leon Koziol" blog, as Leo is a friend of Larry's and has successfully represented him in a lawsuit against the city of Utica. So I guess there is two sides to every story and a place to make your feelings known on a blog, whether pro or con.

I know that most comments I have read on UDN's site, here at the corner, on Topix, and in the OD comments section are NOT real pro-Leon.

[Swimmy]

Clipper, the cause for father's rights is a legitimate cause. At the preliminary stages of any family court case, the mother often gets the benefit of the doubt. A good lawyer can get around it and fight for the appropriate result in trial or a settlement. But leon's position is decidedly detracting from that cause. His position is not only illogical, but ignores factual cases. I respect Larry's opinion, but he too is ignoring the true circumstances. Leon's "cause" is NOT the same and reflective of the many deadbeat dads who try to champion a valid cause as their own to disguise their disdain to support their own children. As I stated at the onset of this thread, the majority of cases have a fact pattern like this: mom is primary or sole care provider. Dad is bread winner. Under best interest of the child standard, it is lunacy to uproot that role simply because dad now expects to be an equal care taker in order to avoid child support. I've seen it time and time again, dad puts up a heart felt argument for equal visitation, only to rarely exercise equal visitation and fight any changes merely for money reasons. leon falls into this category. Where the fathers are truly and factually equally involved in their children's lives, the courts award equal visitation and joint custody.

The other thing about joint custody is the ability of the parents to cooperate and agree on parenting issues and to nurture healthy relationships between the children and the other parent. Courts are not afraid to change custody to dad where there is evidence that mom is intentionally attempting to sabotage dad's relationship with the kids. But often times, fathers are too concerned with petty issues of their relationship and cannot stop running their mouths about how horrible their exes are. If they shut up long enough to listen to the advice their attorneys offer, they would realize that such derogatory remarks may make them feel better, but also keep them from having a joint custody arrangement. Again, it's about the children, not the parents or the deadbeat parents trying to avoid paying child support and hiding behind a legitimate cause to do so.

[Clipper]

I am glad you pointed out the distinction between custodial parent and breadwinner Swimmy. That is EXACTLY why most cases are decided in the manner in which they are.

I was not always happy with the support payments that judge committed me to, but I was NEVER in a position to provide the home for my boys that their mothers were. In their teens, two of my sons came to live with me, but as little guys, I was not equipped to care for them and they would have been in child care all the time while I worked. It is selfish to consider the children as chattel to be fought over in the divorce settlement. Unless the mother is not fit to have custody, most children are better nurtured and much happier living with the mother.

[stoney]

Feb 21, 2010 20:29:43 GMT -5 Clipper said:

It seems to be a "pro-Leon Koziol" blog, as Leo is a friend of Larry's and has successfully represented him in a lawsuit against the city of Utica.

That's not exactly true, Clipper. The city settled out of court for $75,000 since that was cheaper than paying lawyers to engage in a court battle. The city never admitted any wrong-doing, & are pretty adamant about that.

From www.Lawyersandsettlements.com ~~

City Hall Employee
Utica, NY: (Dec-03-07) Larry Tanoury Jr., a former City Hall employee, brought charges against the city of Utica, alleging that his civil rights were violated when he was fired from the Urban Renewal Agency in 2004. Tanoury claimed that he was fired from his position as marketing director for the city's Urban Renewal Agency, and then arrested during the next several days for allegedly harassing Mayor Tim Julian and for using a city credit card to purchase $15 in gasoline two hours after his termination.

As part of a settlement reached, the city approved of paying Tanoury, 28, $75,000 to resolve allegations. City officials, however, stood firm in their defense that they did nothing wrong and they downplayed the settlement as a very inexpensive resolution. Under the settlement agreement, Tanoury Jr. was acquitted of the harassment charge, the gas theft charge was dismissed, and now city officials have agreed to resolve his civil lawsuit as well. [UTICA OD: CITY HALL EMPLOYEE]