Whether a court appointed FE's examination of a fit parent's children over that fit parent's objection violates that fit parent's right to control the upbringing of his children

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner is involved in a high conflict divorce and custody proceeding due to his estranged wife filing fabricated allegations against him. They are the parents of two children. The New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department and New York State Unified Court System (NYSUCS) have a custom and practice of summarily denying all discovery regarding, inter alia, custody to all litigants in contested custody disputes, including fit parents that have provided minimum standards of care and whose children are neither neglected nor abused, such as Petitioner. The Third and Fourth Departments permit custodial discovery. As a result, Petitioner has not had any contact with his children since June 9, 2018. Petitioner originally agreed to a forensic evaluator (FE) in the divorce and custody dispute because his retained attorney, when he could afford one, said no custodial discovery was permitted. Petitioner was forced to go pro se and discovered the decision in Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). He moved to vacate the order appointing the FE. The matrimonial court refused to even consider Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner filed for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the matrimonial court to decide his motion. The Appellate Division granted the New York State Attorney General’s motion to dismiss, without opinion. The New York State Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal “upon the ground that no _ substantial constitutional question is directly involved.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether a court appointed FE’s examination of a fit parent’s children over that fit parent’s u objection violates that fit parent’s right to control the upbringing of his children. 2. Whether compelling a fit parent to cooperate with a court appointed FE, sanctioning a fit parent for not cooperating with a FE, or granting a FE sole discretion regarding what recommendations are made to the matrimonial court regarding custody and how those recommendations are derived, violates that fit parent’s right to free speech. 3. Whether compelling a fit parent to pay the fees and expenses of a court appointed FE violates that fit parent’s right to free speech. 4. Whether denying a fit parent all custodial discovery in a contested custody dispute in the Second Department, but not fit parents in the Third or Fourth Departments, violates that fit parent’s rights to due process and equal protection.