Whether the order to vacate trial ex-parte in chambers, revoking granted oral arguments and cross examination, was constitutional

Question presented: Was the order to vacate trial ex-parte in chambers, revoking granted oral arguments and cross examination, Constitutional. See Gitter v. Gitter, 396 F. 3d 124, 131 (2d Cir. 2005), Monasky v. Taglieri, 140 8. Ct. 719, 723 (2020). Troxel v. Granville, U.S. 570 (2000). Second Question presented: When the ameliorative measures imposed are ignored, and habitual residence since was found by the State Department to be the United States, what other remedies exists _ to restore fundamental rights and end emotional abuse, but to invoke the Convention’s Article 18, return remedy. See Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 (1997), held that the Constitution, and specifically the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children, See also Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. 165, 179 (2018), and Mozes v. Mozes, 239 F.3d 1067, 1078 (9th Cir. 2001)). See State Departments views. (App. D). | i | :