Whether the State violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the State violated the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the previous trial court proceedings, by ignoring the 2016 findings including that the State withhold an access to a free translator or interpreter at the previous trial for the indigent mother pro-se who has limited English oe proficiency when terminated her parental-rights under RCW, : 26.09.191 and re-punished her though financial harassment by improperly damaging her immigration status and imputed income based on her debt (school loan). The lack of a free trial : language interpreter for the indigent parents —elevates the risk of erroneous deprivation too high for the Due Process Clause to bear. This raises the subsidiary issue of what role rules may play—consistent with the Due Process Clause—in denying Petitioner pro-se review of the sufficiency of the evidence underlying the constitutionality of procedures leading up to it. In the end, the result in this case cannot be squared with the due process analysis underlying the Court’s decisions in United States ex rel. Negron, and this Court’s logic in Pate “holding that the lack of adequate translation in trial which were conducted in English rendered , the trial constitutionally infirm”. 2. Whether the Washington State statute extending a substantial procedural safeguard (the right to a free language interpreter in the trial court actions) but then arbitrarily withholding it from some indigent parents violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Washington State’s decisions upholding : this scheme conflict with decisions of many other state supreme courts holding that this type of statutory distinction violates the constitutional principle of equal protection. en