Does a trial court violate the Equal Protection clause when it bases a child custody order on a racially discriminatory theory?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1) Does a trial court violate the requirements of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it bases a permanent child custody order on a racially discriminatory theory, holding that treatment that would be abusive if perpetrated against white children is not abusive, and even beneficial, when applied to black children? (See M.L.B. v. S.L.F,, 519 US. 102, 117 S. Ct. 555, La 136 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1996); Santosky v. Kramer, 455 an US. 745, 753, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 1394-95, 71 a : coo L. Ed. 2d 599 (1982); Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. oe 1, 112, 8. Ct. 2326, 120 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1992).) , 2) Does a state appellate court violate the requirements of the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by wrongly denying a petition for a writ of error coram vobis, where newly available evidence demonstrates that a custody ruling was based on a racially discriminatory theory and was, in addition, procured through fraud and/or mistake? (See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 43 | S. Ct. 625, 67 L. Ed. 1042 (1923).) ii ; PARTIES Petitioner, SUSAN SPELL (hereafter “Petitioner” or “Mother”), was the defendant in child custody and child neglect proceedings commenced in the Superior _ Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Juvenile Division, Case No: DK 02119, by Respondent, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES. Child custody issues concerned the parties’ minor children: N.E., L.E., S.E. and Z.E. Respondent, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES (hereafter “Respondent” or “DCFS”), was the plaintiff in the state court proceeding described above concerning the minor children. LIST OF PROCEEDINGS Child Dependency Proceeding: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (Juvenile Division), Matter of N.E., Case No. DK02119. Judgment entered: May 11, 2016 Disposition Proceeding: Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (Juvenile Division), Matter of N.E., Case No. DK02119. Judgment entered: July 7, 2016 , Appeal of the above: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District (Division 2), In re N.E., Docket No. B267084. Judgment entered: September 5, 2017 (remittitur, November 15, 2017) —— i — I —_—___——_._ _ —._ __ _ ___ ___~_~~—_ | iii | LIST OF PROCEEDINGS -— Continued Original Proceeding seeking a writ or error coram vo| bis: Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District (Division 2), In re N.E., Docket No. B315936. Judgment entered: November 5, 2021 Petition for Review (of above decision), Supreme Court of California, In re N.E., Docket No. 5271813. Judgment entered: January 19, 2022 | | | 7 iv