Should the Government have the sole and final say on the Frankensteining of the American Family?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. Should the Government, with assistance of family courts, have the sole and final say on the Frankensteining of the American Family? Does this deny basic human rights set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. 2. At what stage of termination of parental rights, do parents actually lose their parental rights? Removal of children, trial to terminate parental rights, during search for appropriate adoptive families or a year(or set time) after adoption has commenced? 3. Did Florida fail in its difference in treatment, between the petitioner (and her family) and its similarly situated comparators and does it conflict with the Court’s well-established standards which are applicable to equal protection claims? The state is required to demonstrate a rational basis when it’s treating similarly situated persons differently. 4. When a parent retains legal rights, even if children are not in their care is their consent for adoption still valid. Can a judge revoke for other reasons than duress or fraud? 5. Should a government employee be granted leave to ignore criminality of another to perpetuate their end game? 6. Should AFSA be legal and allowable to sell children by putting a ransom on every American and foreign child’s head. Rewards are given to adopt but not keep intact. Should ASFA be found unconstitutional against basic human rights? . 7. Should our states be allowed to monetize our most vulnerable citizens, children, and elderly, by judges and their crony lawyers and legal guardians? 8. Did Florida violate and discriminate in equal rights in interstate commerce. i a od , 9. Should grandparents have rights? Considering they begat their children who 7 begat their grandchildren. Should these be inalienable rights? Isn’t being a 7 grandparent the quintessential “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”. Especially when a parent encourages a relationship? 10._Per curium affirmed in lieu of a legitimate opinion. Is this showing bias for the state and violating rights of due process and is a PCA denying a person’s equally protected rights, especially when they raise the question that they are? Is it not the state court’s responsibility to interpret the laws and be a true separation of powers? Most importantly it is not a check and balances for states and their actors to do the right thing. It is not self-serving and a conflict of interest. Are they unconstitutional? MW