Is there any way possible that a permanent 'No Contact Order' sanctioned against BOTH my son and I since Sept. 2015 coupled with the maternal half sister of my son being granted as Permanent Legal Guardian of my son—until my son's 16th birthday on December 23/2027 (3 years and 1 months after my latest possible release date from Prison) would not be an action that is just as restrictive if not more restrictive, than a straight up Termination of an Parental Rights?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED ee _Consiecing the tact that the. Flocide Supreme Court ce eee st deciston_in SZM.~-vs~-Florida ment pf Childven «ss sd land. Families (DCE) 202. 503d 769 (FLS.CH, 2016) | Stakes trate ee _—» In_lookting at the best iutecest of the child the _.| | legislature _ha s “left open the possibility of allowing oc cece between a biological pacentand___ a the child AFTER the pacentis eights habe been, _|tecminanted_!! and_also that i “ "The termination ae of parental cights does not necessarily mean that all. _. _— bonds ace beoken between a_parent and child if ° a __ QUESTION es ee Is +hece_any way possible that a pecmanent ce oe No Contact Order” sanctioned against BOTH my son. _ _..__.and_I_sinte Sept. 2015 cobpled with the _ -matecnal halt sister of my son being granted as — _ Permanent Legal Guardian of my son—uintil my. son's oe 16 th_birthday on December 23/2027 (3 years | ___Land_]_months after my latest possible celease date 4 from Pason ) would not be an_action that ts fustas _esteictiye if aot more cestrictive, than a steaght | _| up Teemination_of an Pavental Rights? ce | _Considecing the % ct that DCF dis, uised the straight up “Teomination of my Pacental Rahs under the.” _—_evphamism ¢"No Cowtact Order Vand considering 7) the fact that a Tecminghon of m | Parental] Rig hts | oY | MUST be proven with cleae andl convincing evidence | of abuse, neglect) abandonment or ceckless oe -ehdangepment simultaneously pcoven with clear and a -convineing evidence. that any hind of comback an ed a substantial cisk of | | significant harm to my son simubaneously proven _ _ | with clear and_convincing evidence, that T have an _ alleged behavioral defect thet heased directly onthe _lalle pa _behayior that allegedly endangeced_my sey — dest thy Lak DCE pte chal gi, VN ee og rams tor the intended purpose of * curing my a hitjed behavioral defect tee Pe __ eo | _@Q)_ QUESTION ps _| Shoulda! +a permanent No Contact Order sanctoned | against BOTH my son and I since, Sept $ 2015— _ coupled with the metecnal half sister of'my son. ——beitg qunted as Peemenent Legal Gupedian, efenf a Son Unhl my son's [Sth bieth, tay_on December 23, | 2027 "(3 sieucs_and.1_months atiec my latest vo ee possible celease date from Prison )) shouldn't such an equal, iE not ——| 4eeatery clear_and, convincing: bucdea_of proc | necessacy to Terminate my “Parental Rights 2 beg Gnsteecing the fact that DCF disguised the _|shaight up Termination of ny Pacental Rights undec: _|the Yeuphamism ¢ "No Contact Order Vawd | ‘considering the Wack that DCE requested and was ae eaated_octeysons ere rnanent No Contact i ee -Ocder sanchoned_against BOTH my son and Po. | during EX PARTE*DCE Postdeprivetion hearings # BI QUESTION oo atthe permanent No Contact Dede sanctioned agains —BeTHt amj-son_ and. since. pepty 8, 20ls ducing ~—__.. _| EX PARTE DCF Pestdepeivation heavings be just _—___—as_eqeegious , if nok more. ceglous, of. d_wlolavion | BATH ny, So end-my_ [Ah Amend nerf ights to _._|Family Assoligtion as would. gearctin “Deb Ryvests | fig steaight yp Tecmiodhon ob ny Pleegal i ht ae ducing PX PARTE, DCE, Tecminshoh of Pace Rigi . _|peocetdlings would be fo OO WEST ON ee ty son's and_mypcocedurdl “Due Process cights to be _ a hme and_in_qg_meaningfl a _—--.mannec to vehemently object to the evishan, of and ee to the extension of the wermanent No Corte Onder? _ © QUESTION | Would +his_also not bea DCF conspiracy to take _ Jighly uh Constrtvtional| iH} shorten ts I +0" Terminate ‘ma Bjcebfal_ Righs_in_ocde for DCF tg aud the troble ot actually “filing a Petition to Terminahe ny Fanenital: (7) Light Sn aod tr bee 4 Ddold the fosble ob _—_|moiing fo_schedule, a_Teemination of farental Rights” _|peoceeding that guarantees the procedural Due | Process rights e alto that of a criminal proceeding? Tin-weder S-Ni 40 “avatd the trouble of ‘being 1 | pcesented_with, and_confronted with overwhelming _ — Skquipatony _tudense. andl in-pedlec for DCF to” _ aveld_the eo