“It was great to meet with Vice President Biden and have a dialogue about the importance of fatherhood,” Leving said. “During his tenure as a Senator, the Vice President commuted to Washington DC every day from his home in Delaware so he could be with his children. That is the sacrifice of being a father.”

Mr. Leving took the opportunity to present the Vice President with the 2010 Fatherhood Recognition Award, on behalf of The Law Offices of Jeffery M. Leving, Ltd., for being a model to fathers across America.

Jeffery M. Leving is a nationally renowned matrimonial attorney and is the founder of dadsrights.com. On August 5, 2009, Leving was selected as an expert resource for the White House Roundtable & Town Hall Meeting on Responsible Fatherhood.

CHICAGO – Jan 28, 2011 — Renowned matrimonial attorney and radio show host, Jeffery M. Leving will speak at the Women’s Law Symposium sponsored by the University of Illinois – College of Law on February 23, 2011 starting at 5:00pm.  As the featured expert lecturer, Mr. Leving will analyze Gender Equality as it relates to Fathers’ Rights in the context of Family Law.

This two-day premier annual event brings together leading figures in the legal industry and provides a valuable forum for students and faculty to discuss the important developments in litigation theory and practice. This year, the Symposium will focus on the theme of EQUALITY. Panelists will speak on a range of topics, from minority issues to public policy, to the inner-workings of the courtroom.

Named one of “America’s Best Lawyers” by Forbes Radio, Jeffery Leving (http://dadsrights.com) is the author of two ground-breaking books, Fathers’ Rights and Divorce Wars. He co-authored the Illinois Joint Custody Law and is frequently seen in national and local media outlets for his expertise as a children’s rights advocate.  He is the Chairman of the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood (http://responsiblefatherhood.illinois.gov) serving the public at the pleasure of the Governor.
For more information, contact Jennifer Whiteside (312) 296-3666.

Chicago, IL) August 31, 2009 – Gov. Pat Quinn has just signed into law 4 Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood (ICRF) bills that passed both houses of the General Assembly.

“As Chairman of the ICRF, I am pleased to have co-authored these bills. I want to thank legislators from both parties who helped pass these new laws,” said Jeffery Leving.

Mr. Leving summarized the highlights of the legislation:

SB 1628, sponsored by Sen. Iris Martinez and in the House by Rep. Deborah Mell, accomplishes two things: It amends the Paternity Act and other Acts, to insure that both parties be informed to their right to DNA testing before an adjudication of paternity can be made either through a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, court proceedings or by an administrative law judge. It also amends the visitation interference section of the Criminal Code and sets forth that it is now a criminal offense to deny the other parent their right to parenting time or custody time. Previously, only visitation interference was a crime. (Signed into law: August 11, 2009)

SB 1590, sponsored by Sen. Pamela Althoff and in the House by Rep. Sandra Pihos, and which was unanimously passed, allows children and non-custodial parents to use electronic visitation technologies such as email, telephone, internet and video conferencing. Illinois becomes the sixth state to pass Virtual Visitation Legislation and this can open the door to virtual visitation for incarcerated fathers in Illinois. (Signed into law: August 11, 2009)

HB 4008, sponsored by Rep. Jehan Gordon and in the Senate by Sen. Iris Martinez, includes the paternity provisions of SB 1628. It amends the Paternity Act to insure that both parties be clearly informed to their right to DNA testing before a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity is signed or the paternity order is entered by the court or administrative law judge. (Signed into law: August 14, 2009)

HB 2266, sponsored by Rep. Ken Dunkin and in the Senate by Sen. Iris Martinez, amends the visitation interference section of the Criminal Code with the use of terms used in family cases today (i.e. parenting time and custody time). (Signed into law: August 25, 2009)

TO ANY AND ALL OF MY FELLOW VETERANS

My name is Timothy Nicolas Walsh.  I served in the 1st/Batallion of the 503rd Infantry (Air Assault) from January/2003 to December 2005, in Korea and then Iraq.  I am now a father of two awesome little boys and husband to an incredible woman.  I have been through the transition from civilian to service member to combat veteran.  I have gained best life long friends and have witnessed up close with all six senses some of their deaths.  I have the horrible dreams and the cold sweats.  Yet, I still believe truly that the thought of having to answer to other people about my son is very taxing on the soul and mind/heart.  I could not have re-acquired my son without Andrey Filipowicz, one of the members of Jeffery M. Leving’s team of experienced custody lawyers.

I am writing a blanket statement to you with intentions to inform you of a special group of people. They are very military/veteran friendly, extremely knowledgeable, and the best part about them is the fact that they are a team of nineteen to twenty Family Law Attorneys. You have to be extremely careful with the lawyer you choose to represent you. The first gentlemen whom I replaced with this law firm was actually a Real Estate Lawyer posing as a Family Law Attorney. I have to fire him and go for the real deal as soon as I found out.

I searched the Internet, the papers, the yellow pages, and all I kept seeing was the Fathers’ Rights motto.  I thought to my self “these guys only cater to the wealthy”.  Out of desperation, and lack of good impression I clicked on their motto.  I kept telling them on the phone and in person that I was not a wealthy man.  Any one who is not a fool that the fees for an attorney in and field will tend to rack up.  One of the first and lasting impressions of trust that I have for them was the fact that they didn’t treat me like a fool and tell me otherwise.

Andrey Bohdan Filipowicz was the attorney that The Law Offices of Jeffery Leving gave to me.  I can call him Andrey because of the very rare friendship that can develop between an attorney and the client.  He calls me Tim by the way.  When I first me Andrey, he almost towered over me, and I thought to myself that he looked more like a body guard than a lawyer.  I soon found out that there was a powerful mind behind that serious face of his.  He told me who he was, what exactly he did, and how much the firm charged for his services.

I appreciated his honesty and thought about my son’s future for a day or two.  “I am a construction worker”, I thought to myself.  During that time I made around $2,000 – $2,400 per month and that’s during a semi decent work season!  How was I going to pay for this?  Am I crazy?  I thought about all eighteen years my dad fought and fought to get more visitations.  How I was constantly turned into a weapon against either of my parents.  I thought finally about the only thing missing from my dad’s team of just him against my mom, and a whole court system biased on the side of only the mother at every case I have heard of.  I considered the possibility he lost every time with not an inch of gain that whole time.  What was missing from my dad’s team was a lawyer.

I figured that it was possible I could spend a great deal of money on an attorney and not get what I want, and what my son deserved.  I also knew that if I went in with a knowledgeable professional, that I wouldn’t leave the fight empty handed like my dad with only a two week vacation with me to speak of.  I was reborn in the Infantry of the U.S, Army to fight through over whelming odds, not run around them or just give up.  I am not going to be a statistic and wind up a week-end parent, paying God knows how much child support so that the “winning parent” can spend my hard earned money on God knows what other than spending it on my son.  Even if the money was put in the right place, I thought “she would always say that the end product came from her.”

I came to the conclusion with a sense of urgency that I will fight like my dad did for 2, 6, 18 years or the rest of my life because he (my son) happens to be my beautiful child too.  I wanted the same chance to mold my son into a fine young man as my good father does.  I am going to do this the right way and have the best by my side to the end.  I will bepart of my CHILD’S LIFE.  I WILL have a say so in my child’s up bringing.

On the custody questionnaire that the law firm gave me, I (with some/small doubt in my mind) asked for sole/full custody, and the battle started out with more ugliness than I had imagined.  Contrary to what I thought would happen, they (the opposition in its entirety) butchered my good name in being a combat veteran in that the fact I have P.T. S.D., memory loss and  bi-polar disorder (among more problems) was used over and over again to disqualify me as a parent.  Evaluation after evaluation I went through (about three) and to my delight, I passed.  Over time, as the bill grew, Andrey pointed out to me the fact that ‘we only appear once a month, some of the office work I do gets put on the bill, but this case is not like the six year cases in the past.  Yours may wind up being around two and a half years.  As far as the cost, you aren’t paying twenty  percent of two thousand dollars per month for 18 years.  ($108,000)  (more if he goes to college and private school.)  You are paying a small fraction of this for a lot less time.  We are doing very well.  You are doing very well; we will fight to try to get what you put on your custody questionnaire.

And you know what?  Andrey was right.  The firm put me on a deal with the bill at a monthly rate, and the case started when my son was three months old.  My case ends on February 9, 2008, which is the final status date on the case.  My son is now two and a half years old, and I’ll give you three guesses who won sole/full custody…. You got it, ME! After it became clear that there was no settling the case Andrey tried the case, and won me custody.  The status date is so the Judge can see how everyone has adjusted, and to see if the child’s mother could have some more visitation.

Through out the two year custody battle, Andrey up-dated me on everything affecting the case, good and almost never bad.  When there was a rare occasion that a perversion of the law came up and Andrey was undecided as to what action to take, he referred to one or two of his twenty team members for the right avenue of approach.  He never blindly went into an argument. Sometimes, depending on the time of day he treated me to lunch to discuss the game plan.  Andrey had four paralegals working for him to tackle the research and the mundane tasks so that he was always able to focus on the case.  My case, he was never too busy to talk to me either in person, or on the phone.  He is personally immersed in my court case, and proves again and again that he cares a great deal about what he is doing for me.  Andrey himself was a service member in our U.S. Navy and proud to help any of his kind, male or female.  But, he is just one of the many exceptions to the reputation of his profession as are all of his colleagues at this company of super lawyers. To all of you – the people of this country who always look out for #2 and #1, who stand up and fight so that others can feel and be safe, the Lawyers of Jeffrey M. Leving, are ready willing to do the same favor for you.

We have been protested against.  We have been discriminated against and taken for granted and lately, the prey of choice for our ex-spouses in divorce, and family court, yet we fought, or will fight to preserve the very right that sometimes becomes our social undoing.  These fine people, most of them parents themselves will take very good care of us.

Sincerely yours,

Tim
(BlackSheep /3A)

“As Chairman of the ICRF, I am pleased to have co-authored these bills. I want to thank legislators from both parties who helped pass these new laws,” said Jeffery Leving.

Mr. Leving summarized the highlights of the legislation:

SB 1628, sponsored by Sen. Iris Martinez and in the House by Rep. Deborah Mell, accomplishes two things: It amends the Paternity Act and other Acts, to insure that both parties be informed to their right to DNA testing before an adjudication of paternity can be made either through a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity, court proceedings or by an administrative law judge. It also amends the visitation interference section of the Criminal Code and sets forth that it is now a criminal offense to deny the other parent their right to parenting time or custody time. Previously, only visitation interference was a crime. (Signed into law: August 11, 2009)

SB 1590, sponsored by Sen. Pamela Althoff and in the House by Rep. Sandra Pihos, and which was unanimously passed, allows children and non-custodial parents to use electronic visitation technologies such as email, telephone, internet and video conferencing. Illinois becomes the sixth state to pass Virtual Visitation Legislation and this can open the door to virtual visitation for incarcerated fathers in Illinois. (Signed into law: August 11, 2009)

HB 4008, sponsored by Rep. Jehan Gordon and in the Senate by Sen. Iris Martinez, includes the paternity provisions of SB 1628. It amends the Paternity Act to insure that both parties be clearly informed to their right to DNA testing before a voluntary acknowledgment of paternity is signedor the paternity order is entered by the court or administrative law judge. (Signed into law: August 14, 2009)

HB 2266, sponsored by Rep. Ken Dunkin and in the Senate by Sen. Iris Martinez, amends the visitation interference section of the Criminal Code with the use of terms used in family cases today (i.e. parenting time and custody time). (Signed into law: August 25, 2009)

A virtual visitation movement is gaining steam as several states have passed or are considering laws that provide for computer-assisted custody visits between children and distant parents.

Illinois on Aug. 21 became the sixth state to pass virtual visitation legislation that permits judges to order divorcing couples to make computer visits — often via webcam — part of their child custody agreements. Florida, North Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin have similar laws on the books, all passed in recent years. Virtual visitation bills are pending in Missouri and Ohio. And there’s apparent interest in legislatures in 22 other states.

Family law attorney Jeffrey Leving, who oversees the Illinois Council on Responsible Fatherhood, a state agency, and helped draft the legislation, said mandatory virtual visitation is sorely needed. He said too many noncustodial parents — particularly low-income fathers — don’t get to see their children enough.

“Forty percent of children in father-absent homes haven’t seen them at all in the past year. That will change with this new law,” said Leving of the Law Offices of Jeffrey M. Leving in Chicago.

He noted that the virtual visitation option is especially valuable when children are removed from one jurisdiction to another. “With virtual visitation, you could have a parent in Chicago with daily video conferencing with a child in Hong Kong. And now, judges can order this type of contact,” he said.

Leving helped draft another new custody-related law that amended Illinois’ Paternity Act to require that both parties be informed of their right to DNA testing before any adjudication of paternity is made. The measure, which took effect Aug. 21, also made it a criminal offense for one parent to deny the other parent the custody or parenting time previously agreed to or granted by the court.

Lynne Gold-Bikin, the past chairwoman of the American Bar Association’s Section of Family Law, offered both praise and criticism of the new Illinois laws.

Mandating virtual visitation is “a great idea,” said Gold-Bikin, who heads the family law practice at Philadelphia’s Weber Gallagher Simpson Stapleton Fires & Newby. She noted that virtual visitation laws generally come into play with feuding parents. “This is basically saying, ‘Okay, lady, cut the crap and turn the computer on,’ ” she said.

But Gold-Bikin was alarmed to learn that Illinois has made it a criminal offense to interfere with parenting time. She said spats are common when one parent keeps a child longer than the other considers appropriate. In some cases, she said, one parent suspects that the child is being abused while in the other parent’s care and is seeking to keep the child away from that person.

“The manipulation that is going to go on with this is just outrageous,” Gold-Bikin warned. “I have so many cases where the women feel that the kids are being abused [while with the father], and it takes awhile to get this into court. The fathers’ rights people have gone way too far on this one.”

Susan Moss of New York’s Chemtob Moss Forman Talbert, which specializes in family law, raised similar concerns.

On the subject of virtual visitation, she said, “Judges should have that option in their tool chest, especially when one parent wants to move far away or when there are problems with infrequent visitations.” Moss noted that, in New York at least, judges often make virtual visitation part of a custody agreement even though the option is not specifically addressed in state law.

But as for making interference with parenting time a criminal offense, Moss worries that tilts the custody struggle too much in one party’s favor. Parents, she stressed, must learn to get along.

Frank Hatley spent the past year in Cook County jail in South Georgia for falling behind in child support payments. However, as the court was aware, he had no children according to court documents. A DNA test even confirmed that there was no chance he was the father.

Walter Sharpe, from Philadelphia, was forced to pay more than $12,000 in child support for another man’s daughter. He spent two years in jail for falling behind in child support payments. Sharpe’s Petitions filed for DNA testing were denied by the judge. However, the paternity order against him was finally overturned after the girl’s mother failed to show up to a court hearing.

Paternity Fraud victims need justice. Our system is broken.

A report issued by the American Association of Blood Banks found that nearly 30 percent of paternity tests conducted in the U.S. reveal that the man being tested is not the biological father. Partially as a result of the availability of DNA paternity testing, thousands of fathers are discovering that “their” child is someone else’s. But, many of these “duped dads” continue to be responsible for the payment of child support or suffer the consequences of jail.

Too many states adhere to an archaic 500-year-old English common-law doctrine that a married man is always legally presumed the father of a child born of the marriage, even if he is not the biological father. Unmarried men can be court ordered to pay child support for children they did not father through default paternity and child support judgments. Such judgments can be court ordered without the alleged father’s knowledge.

Ignoring paternity fraud is not different than ignoring DNA testing showing a convicted murderer wasn’t guilty. It’s time to correct this injustice. Paternity fraud is just as reprehensible as any other kind of fraud from which the public needs protection.

Tony Jackson is a California father who had to work two jobs to pay back approximately $13,000 in back child support for a child proven by DNA testing not to be his. It’s time to release men like Jackson from this blatant injustice.

Opponents of paternity fraud legislation needed to correct this problem say we must prevent “duped dads” from abandoning children that are not theirs biologically. In many cases I’ve seen, the “duped dad” does not want to abandon the child he has come to love as his own. It was the system that drove him off as well as the biological father. For example, in one outrageous case in Texas, the judge ordered a man to pay child support for another man’s three children and cut off his visitation with all of the children.

Who is really hurting the children in cases such as this?

To those who say children will be left unsupported if men are not forced to pay support, I say that the men who should support the children should be the biological fathers. Making men pay child support for children proven by DNA testing not to be theirs is not in the best interests of children and families. It can also deprive children of ever knowing their true biological fathers.

The real fear underlying the arguments of many of the dwindling number of opponents of this legislation is losing a cash cow for agencies and institutions that benefit financially by preserving the status quo. In reality, it has little to do with protecting the interests of children.

States benefit by collecting financial incentive payments from the federal government for child support collected. It is easier for child support agencies to financially squeeze the “duped dad” than to find the biological dad, who may not even know he has a child and would welcome the opportunity to step up to the plate and be Dad.

I encourage all state legislatures to pass fair paternity fraud bills requiring courts to order DNA testing when requested. I also encourage the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the next Paternity Fraud case that comes before it. A correct ruling by the high court would speed justice along for everyone. This is clearly what is right.