Can a state court prohibit a family's statutory right to communicate, visit, and reunify solely based on hearsay accusations?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED Belore the Coure is ow mater involuirnc vrabused Qhildaen tral icked into Coster care by mere hearsay , Creating \rrepairable karen. The Modher SufCered Emotional distress aS result. The delendants wea pon\ced that AistesS \o rekre ack vely yest the removal of the children, relusal +6 reanity ) refusal 40 jnbermen On behal of she children np ervenciny. Coster abuse | neglect, and © Conve 46 elaborate imaginary and extra wdicial accusattonS Yo terminate a Comdy in absense ot all jurisdiction Goer ch. abstention Sanctions Suck a Creel deprivalion ok human righss and deportard of setthd State, Cederal, ardinterratiorel law Suck shat Ans petition is o Mosher's desperate. plea. Coe oghkys Court to) eweretSe ik Supery! sory power. Start to Gassh | yes Case— THESE CHILDREN dleseroe your Yee. Thank you, Srarte residents bosed solely on Nearsay accusation S$ pro ht bited . by Slate stalukes 7 DY) Con the Same State dag involved in the ohilel Custody Case, AMR, While Siting in a Onminal Cade where children are nonparties, prohibit a State's Sdatutory respons: b:litieS to allow " @ Gmily +o Communica te, vaste, and reunily % 3) Con 4 protective Custody Amal court order thee pemoua| oft Childen of a montesident Ca mily on an emetgeney basis in Secrch, and based Solely on Stak ubority Prohibited. hearsay 2 o. 1/3 4) Can a Arial Gourt VAR aw Prote cdi ve Custody Case threaten a disgresse Mother With Further olecreased Contact Lolth her children to Coerse an “agreement,” then wea Poni zing that agree = Ment into ah admusion of guill of child abuse / reg lect wrthour (ects or evidence of child abuse | neglect in thee aareement of e(se here ? SY Can ge DelendaniS Operate Systemic barriers to efCective ass — \Stance af Counse| » deny a Family mandated. Callogeay, PeuieudS, ard. appeal Jinkrvention on abuse of process, jurisdiction » Maud, abuse of discretion, ard judicial MiScordace to force a tkrm in~ ation of perentel mahts Ona Family deprived of Cirsk opportunity Xo litigate, /earrect He Court neand ? G\) Can ake State Cours o& last resore refuse to intervene while declaring a pew wtardard of review) of evidence a.parnst aclass of people; that refusing to allow ‘the Stet] into homes and Ravin a Araqrosis of PTSD / de presston. by “Proporderance of evidence "” is “Jeopardy "te Ohildren When the Supreme Court hes demanded a State refrain Crom Sach Pre Sumptrens thet a Class ot peophe are, onGie Parents (Stanley v clilineis, os oS. C4 oS6 -£& (1972) ) and requires “Clear and Convincing euiderce. of abute / reghect (Santesky Kramer, 465 US. 94S, 96e -9I aver)) 2 TN When we dolerdants turned a blind eye ro foster abuse | neglect Con fe State Criminal Court falsely Charge a Mother | hold het with ynreasoradle Sail] bond Conditions including, no Contack wikk her pon Party Children 2 | ) a. @) Can a state Cours of last reset deny appeels /atempss at a Meter to Cotret te tral Court aduses, ten echo | these abuses to limit and inhibit a Family's right ho eRKeetive, Counsel on Cina eppesl; onde ray Mothers ator ney +o only bret ubat she deems impartont and predibsig Morler'S Counsel hem Aline Consti tutiona| [Fed @ra\ questions an Modler's behalf > Q) Cana State Court of lost resert terminate a Mother ss Nahts decause She ig bei Un constitutionally Ald ine youl veder UnreaSonadle Bi [ bord Aond itions inclediing. . ‘No Contect!! — wigk her gwar Ran Petty Childen, and . Cal) her unlit becauge of extra yudicrel Pindinas of Mental health acdusatrons, hin a Mother has never / Would never abuse oF Realect her ahildren and has” Never been accused of such eciminally oc oterwise? i) Can a Unieeh States Asveick Court and OUnikd (rated Cours of P gpeaks pokes, SO TAsetvenre on behalf of a Camnsly ; denying Counsel or audrence ontess/ vat lQrison Liwraedion Qlecar Net Standards are Ba b3 bred singly because dhe pedi Borer is held in yer! -OhR G Mother Pek. Mong ?