Is a State's child abuse substantiation process sufficiently akin to a criminal proceeding such that it is subject to Younger abstention when a parent accused of child abuse is not given any information about the accusations, not allowed to compel witness testimony, or not allowed to cross-examine witnesses at a pre-deprivation hearing?

ESTIONS PRESENT 1. Is a State’s child abuse substantiation process sufficiently akin to a criminal proceeding such that it is subject to Younger abstention when a parent accused of child abuse is not given any information about the accusations, not allowed to compel witness testimony, or not allowed to cross-examine witnesses at a pre-deprivation hearing? 2. Does a State’s child abuse substantiation process comply with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution if a parent accused of child abuse is not given any information about the accusations, not allowed to compel witness testimony, or not allowed to cross-examine witnesses at a pre-deprivation hearing? 3. Does a State’s child abuse substantiation process comply with the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution if a parent accused of child abuse does not have an opportunity to raise constitutional issues until after the parent is placed on the State’s Child Protection Registry? 4. Does a complaint sufficiently allege that a State’s investigation into child abuse or neglect, or substantiation of a finding of child abuse or neglect, implicates the bad faith exception to Younger abstention where the original allegation does not meet the State’s statutory definition for child abuse or neglect? i