Is it a violation of 14th Amendment right of equal protection when a single self-serving accusation is used as the basis to permanently award sole parental rights while the other parent claims 5th Amendment right to remain silent pending trial, yet the court ignores the other parent's sworn statements admitting to domestic violence?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Ms. Dasler was awarded temporary custody in an exparte order (5/23/17 App.91a) based upon her self-serving accusation of assault. Meeting only ‘probable cause’, her accusations were adjudicated in a restrain-ing order (8/1/17) and divorce hearings (concluding 7/2/18) prior to the criminal trial forcing Mr. Dasler to choose . between 5th amendment protection and 14th amendment due process. Ms. Dasler used parental contact to stalk and abuse Mr. Dasler. She admitted to more than 70 instances of domestic violence (2/16/18 ; transcript Pg. 75 and 29-38, 12/12/17 motion Pg. 4-5, 8, 12, 2/28/18 Pg. 5, 17, 22-23, 30) as defined under 15 V.S.A. § 6659). By obstructing the “normalization of , contact” for 9 months after separation, Ms. Dasler a was awarded “primary caregiver” status for a period in which Mr. Dasler was denied equal parenting time without an opportunity to defend his parental rights, and a period in which she frequently denied Mr. Dasler court ordered The court ignored Ms. Dasler’s violations by ; misrepresenting the record in the 8/17/18 Order { 101 (App.29a). It stated that she made “reasonable makeup time” citing Tr. Ex. 8 (App.98a), which refutes the ‘ courts own finding, and erroneously claims it was . “voluntary” for Ms. Dasler to “normalize contact” as : called for in the parent child contact stipulation (App.94a), which was the framework for subsequent ~ court orders through 2/23/18 when the court enforced the ‘normalization’. . Is it a violation of 14th Amendment right of equal protection when a single self serving accusation by : Ms. Dasler is used as the basis to permanently award her sole parental rights while Mr. Dasler claims his 5th amendment right to remain silent pending his trial, yet the court ignores Ms. Dasler’s sworn statements admitting to more than 70 incidents of domestic violence, both of which fall under the same statutory factor 15 V.S.A. § 665(9) in ‘best interest of the child’, and neither parent is found to be unfit? : Does a significant divergence of a summary order and the record lead to reversal and a new hearing, particularly when a 14th Amendment protected right is permanently restricted without meeting a state requirement of either ‘preponderance of evidence’ or ‘clear and credible evidence’ standards in the proceedings? Does the citation of mutually exclusive standards (Cabot App.2a and MacCormack App.3a) indicate , unequal opportunity to appeal when fact finding of the lower court may or may not need to be reasonable in light of the evidence depending on which of these standards the VT Supreme Court chooses to apply in : that case? Does it lead to reversal when the court applies . different standards to each party, applying Ms. Dasler’s net income against Mr. Dasler’s gross income (App. : 74a, App.47a J 180, and App.49 { 190), applying Ms. : Dasler’s debt against assets, but not Mr. Dasler’s : debt against his assets, and wholly ignoring the stat. utory factors of ‘equity 15 V.S.A. § 751) when awarding assets? ili LIST OF PROCEEDINGS Vermont Supreme Court 2018-301 / Dasler v. Dasler 7/8/19 : 7 Vermont Supreme Court 2018-301 , Dasler v. Dasler . 6/3/19 : Orange County Family Court : 74-6-17 Oedm : Dasler v. Dasler 8/17/18 Orange County Family Court , 74-6-17 Oedm Dasler v. Dasler 2/23/18 : Orange County Family Court . 37-5-17 Oefa Oo Dasler v. Dasler : 8/1/17 Orange County Family Court : 87-5-17 Oefa , Dastler v. Dasler 5/23/17 iv .