Did the state court err in ignoring/condoning illegal retention of a foreign-citizen-child by the respondent, violating the Hague Convention?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED. RULE 14 1 (A) . | have listed 3 questions hereunder that fall under 3 criteria listed as (i) through (iii). The criteria are some of the clauses listed in Rule 10 of your court that you consider when making decisions whether to grant or deny Certiorari applications. Questions 1 falls under criteria (i) and (iii); question 2 falls under criteria (i) and (ii); and question 3 falls under criteria (ii) and (iii). Criteria i). Rule 10 (c) a state court [having] decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court; ii), Rule 10 (b) a state court of last resort having decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with the decision of [several] United ; States courts of appeal, actually its own prior rulings as well; iii). Rule 10 (a) state court of last resort has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, [and has] sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court's supervisory power; Questions Presented 1. Did the state court of last resort err in ignoring/condoning illegal retention of a by the Respondent in the US, putting the iii US in violation of the international treaty of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention), Oct. 24, 1980, T.LA.S. No. 11670, S. Treaty Doc. No. 99-11 to which the US is a signatory? The treaty has been duly codified in 42 U.S.C. 11601 to 11610 transferred to 22 U.S.C. 9001 to 9010. 2. Do the state courts of the US have jurisdiction to decide over divorce cases of foreign nationals who, at the time of filing of divorce petition, were residing in their own country with no legal or bona fide status to be in the US? OR, do the state courts have the authority to give legitimacy to use marriage or divorce as a ruse to hide flagrant attempt of illegal immigration? Please note that during the period of filing of the divorce the parties were denied entry by the US embassy in that foreign nation to enter the US several times. 3. Did the state court of last resort err and is in violation of the established principles of law that courts of civilized countries act within the jurisdictional limits set up by the legislature and are required to address duly posed jurisdictional defenses before proceeding? In this question, it is not so much as the action of the Supreme Court of Georgia that is in question, but rather its inaction. iv