No. 21-525

Hemant Bhimnathwala v. New Jersey State Judiciary, et al.

Lower Court: Third Circuit
Docketed: 2021-10-08
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2)
Tags: child-custody disparate-impact due-process equal-custody equal-protection family-law fourteenth-amendment obergefell-v-hodges statute-of-limitations
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2022-02-18 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a presumption of equal, joint custody of children in child custody proceedings?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED , 1. Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a presumption of equal, joint custody of children in child custody proceedings? Is this presumption a logical induction from Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015), which held that fundamental right to marry may not be denied the under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to same-sex couples? 2. (a) Do disparate-impact claims apply to State Judiciaries, and specifically Family Courts, that receive federal assistance for collecting child support payments as enacted in 8.1002 — Child Support Recovery Act of 1992 and implemented in 45 CFR § 305.31? 2. (b) Ifsuch disparate-impact claims are cognizable, what are the standards and burdens of proof that should apply? 3. What would the Statute of Limitations if either answer to either 1 or 2 above is affirmative? Would the arguments in National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002) apply? | | i | ; ii

Docket Entries

2022-02-22
Rehearing DENIED.
2022-01-19
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-05
Petition for Rehearing filed.
2021-12-13
Petition DENIED.
2021-11-23
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/10/2021.
2021-10-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 8, 2021)

Attorneys

Hemant Bhimnathwala
Hemant Bhimnathwala — Petitioner