No. 23-7548

In Re Kinley MacDonald

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2024-05-23
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: child-custody child-welfare civil-rights due-process family-law hearsay hearsay-evidence judicial-misconduct jurisdiction jurisdictional-challenge parental-rights state-statute
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Can a trial court open and remove children in a 'protective custody' case based solely on hearsay accusations prohibited by state statute and in absence of jurisdiction?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

estions Presenied | . Belore we Court iS Q& pater involuirae Onabusedh Children kraCicked into faster Care, by hearsay , Causing irmr=eeairable. harm, The Motter Sublered expected AistresS as cesult, The DehendantS shen used that altstress to ret~ To ack vely justey inidral removal , refusal to reanily , and Creat an elaborate web of accusationgS to terminate. a family in absence oft all jurisdiction Cor which the Federal Courss’ abstention SarcttonS Sucka departure of harman Prams 6 f cake State Qourtrs of Maing | that it Qails Sor a “chesperate. plea abel Mother to Aws Court's exercise of Supervisory powers Stert fo Qarsh) this ceseTHESE CAILOQEN deserve your time. Thenle: You! BD) Can a xmal Courk open ank remove. children in a. “pre secbive. Cusredy "' Case based solely on hear soy aceugabions prohibited by Skate Statute nN) steered ) and inh absence of sunsdiction? nos ; 2) Can a tral Court threaten an distressed Mother with Rursler flecreased Contact with ber children to Coes an * Raceement,! Ahenr wea Peni ne thet agree ~ . mene into an adimissien of auilk to Child @ buse / Male itkowt CuckS of tuidence of ehild aduse/ reslec in that aoreement or else udhene ? -_ . 3) Can DetendenkS Greate systemic, barriers +e effect tue assistance ef counsel, oleny a Family opportunity af Mandered colleguey, reviews, and appeal On iSSweas o& abuse of process) jurisdiction, Graudd ween aha Court, abvse of atscresion, and wbicial miscondact +e Conce & ermnation of parental Mans on ae Gamily deprived o& adhe Cundamentally Cain opportunity to Ittqate, he LockS on Cour record 7 4) Cana state Courr of last resort declare o Mw Standard of review OF evidence agoinst a class of people dosh PTSO/ depression +o “pre pendsr ance af eordence ”” thee Ake diagnosis is wand of jasedll, “\eopardy +o Okildren when she Supeme Coure has demanded Srate refrain ftom on Presumption that a alass of prope are onli Parents CStanley v. Lilingis 40s OS. 64S &su-58 €19492)) and requires “Clear and Convince nge eur dance of abuse /nealect CStankestly a rami, WSS US. NGE Vek-9) (\4823)? ot $) Can aState Cours of laste resort deny appeals /atempts | oO a mother's pedresS of tla ariel Gourt abuses ) thea echo xhose e@buseS Yo limit and inhibit a Family's Mabe to effective doursd on Grol appeal) orden ain aHorrey Xo only bevel let Se deams Lavpor tant while also ordoricag Moakerts Counsel (VOT to Cike, Con| S¥Autional /Federal “questions on a Noelenis heal OF? %) Con a Onixed Sree Distece Court abstain When the State. Courk’ 1s Casings jtrepaira dhe hatm Ae Linde mental BNCeIN Peqhes 2 ° ») Can a. Onied Srakes Dyskeies Coure and | om On = Ved. Skates Court of Appeals objecdively deny Course) to a geriomm See Kira pedresS on @ mater Which requires ERO Nmen® ot ~ @auwnsel prior te a) Con a Onited States Disancte Court and [or Onitecal StekS Coure of Appeals \avo ka, Prisan Litigation Relsrm Act requirements of a petitioner Simply because Ske WS berry detaind in ei? vente ; Con a Onikd States QDisirice Court ard for United SrakS Coure of Appeals Pequiree GA indi gene Plann 40 poy loge Cees Under the Prison Eiti gation Reform ach wher Sk iS MOT Pefsuiny GchOn — against the (ail? _ ~ Lise af Parties ; ; Kinley MacDonald, Pedision er ) Mother : . Clo York County Sai) , Alfred ME 64002 . ; AMM SWMMEMG incr child of Kinley MacDenaldl (A a Minor etild of Kinley MacDonald JOA NMI, Minor child of Binley MacDonald Daniel “Seohason, Lather of =! Sn Gos Prerce Rd Pheniy City, AL 36670 Bruce Kile, “Carer” of (OST MERE Cepresenteat by: Roger Champegne. . S Crescent St . Ridtelerd, ME ooos *Sediges" ot York Counry, ME ‘ ‘ Mrekael Duddy , Low Ann Sutton , Robert Mut bern, Dudes “Sohn Doe , Pr ddelord (Di sterek Coart _ 26 Adams Se | Biadelord, ME 04005 Mas strate of St Sosegh County Pro bate Cours, Suda Sekn OQoe 2 _ |600 5. Michs aan Se ; . . South Bend, TV yuo} | _ 7 Helated Cares 7 Diet. oC Entiana Jobason yu. Sehnsony Marridege of Mary Sehator Crhinley MacDonald) Wi Dante Sohra

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of prohibition is dismissed. See Rule 39.8. As the petitioner has repeatedly abused this Court's process, the Clerk is directed not to accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) is paid and the petition is submitted in compliance with Rule 33.1. See Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam).
2024-07-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-03-28
Petition for a writ of prohibition and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 24, 2024)

Attorneys

Kinley MacDonald
Kinley MacDonald — Petitioner
Kinley MacDonald — Petitioner