Whether state residents can be prohibited from intervening in child custody cases based solely on hearsay accusations, while the same state is involved in the child custody case

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Before te Coure is a mater involving —vnabused Childnen tm ickel into foske care by mere harsay , Creatinge \reepairable harm «The Modker SubCered Emodioral distress aS result. The delendants weapon\eed Ahat distresS Ao rebroackively yosity the removal pf the children, relusal +6 reunity } refusal 40 inkervenc. On behkal? of abe Children cep : ervenciey Coster abuse | neglect, and A Convinve 40 elaborate. Vena \ nay ; and extra wdicial ActuSertornS do terminate a Camily in absense ot all serisdicdian Coe cl. abstention Sanctions Suck a erwe| deprivadt on ot human rights and deporturd of Setkhd State, Ced. erol , Ard nierretiorel law Suck aha Ales petrion iS oF Meodherts desperate. plea Coe xhkas Court to ewerciSe it's Supery! Sor] power. Start 40 Gesh , vhs Gose— THESE CHILDREWM deserve your Ryere®, Thank you. Slate vesidents based sdely_on Nearsay accusation s Pro ht bitted by State staluks ic 2 Con the Same State pbc ynvolvedd in the chill Custody Case, then, While Siting in &@ Cremiral Cade where ahildren Qre. Nonparties, Prohibss a Srare's Statutory respons: bilities to allow Q emily to Communica te, VASiA | and reanrly 3) Can a protective Custody ymal Courk onder the pemoval of Childen of a monwsvdeat family On AN Emergency basis ,in Secrek, ard besed Solely on Stat urorily Prohibited. hearsay ? tla 4) Can a amal Qours 1h & Protective Custedy Case threaten a disqressed Mother With Further olecreased Contact Lolth her children to Coerse. an “agreement ,’ thea weaponizing that aqree= Teak iio ah admission of guilt of ahd abuse | reg tect Without Cocks or evidence of child abuse | neglect in thet agreement ot else Where ? SY) Can he Defendants Areal Systemic barnerS to effective ass ~ stance BF Counsel , dery Family marndatd Calloguay, Meuiews, and appeal Jintkerverntion on abuse of process jurisdiction , aud, Gbhuse of discretion, and wdicial miScernduch to force a tern jn~ ation of porentel rights Ona Family deprived of first opportunity to litigate, /eorrect the Court reord > GC) Can ale State Cours of last reson’ refute to interne while declarinee a rw startord of review of evidence\e apains a class of peoples that re busing to allow th Sete, into homes, and Raviren araqnosis of PTSD/ cle pression. . by “Proporderence. ot evrdence ” 18 “Jeopardy "te Children When othe Supreme. Court has demanded a State reftarn Crom Sach PreSumpttens thar a Class of pcopre art, onGir Parents (Stenky v. Llinois, 40s USC4 6S6 -& (1972) ) and requires “Clear and Convincing evidence of abute | reg hect “ (Seniosky w Kremer 4S OS. US, 26 I (ive) ? TV when we dekerdantS Aucned a dlind eye Ao Coster abuse | neglect Corn th Stale Criminal Court falsely Charoe a Mother hold her with ynreasorable Sail/ bond Conditions includ na, no Canteck wisk her pon (arty Children 2 @) Cana state Cours of last resom deny appeals [attempts at a Meter to Cotret te dre! Court aduses, ten echo those abuses to Timi and inhibit a Family's right to eKeetive. Counsel on Final <ppee!; onde rin. Mothers aot my ko only beh bat she deems impartont and . fretting Morber'S Counsel Lhom Aine Constitutiona| [Fed @ra\ Qweshers — an Motler's behalf > M Cana State Court of lost resert tetminate a Modberss Mahss decause She ys bei Un constitutionally . held WO Jor) order area sora dle, Bit | bord tonditions including. | “No Contect!! wish her gwr ans Petty Childen, and Oat} her unbir because of Uxte a yudicrel Pindings oft Mental healek acéusatrons, When o Mother has never / would never abuse of Realect her @hildren and has Never been accused of such eriminally oc otrwise ? 1) Can a Unitech States Osrcick Court and Onikd (eater Cours o€ — Agoeats pele SO tTarctvernrs on behalf of a Camily 3 denying Counseh oc audience ontess/ oath Prison Livvaadron Qleocmr et Standards are gatistred singly because he pebiterer is held in yer! udhen GQ Mote Rebs trong ?