No. 23-7549

In Re Kinley MacDonald

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2024-05-23
Status: Dismissed
Type: IFP
IFP
Tags: child-custody child-welfare due-process family-rights hearsay hearsay-evidence judicial-jurisdiction jurisdiction parental-rights standard-of-review state-court-procedure
Key Terms:
DueProcess Immigration
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a state court can remove children from a parent's custody based solely on hearsay allegations prohibited by state statute, in the absence of jurisdiction

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

No question identified. : Q westiors Presenseh . Belore We Court iS a mater inveluinge vnabused Children traklicked nto faster care, by hearsoy , Causinn, ime) epaicadble. harm, The mother Sullered expected AistresS a5 cesule, The DekendantS then veeh chat altstress to retToackively justify initial removal refusal +o reunify, and Create an elaborate web of accusatiang +o terminate a family in absence of ail junisd tction Cor which | the Federal Courss’ abstention Sarcktond Sucka Aeperture of human Prams 0 & whe State Courts of Maine , vhot i+ alls for a ches perate plea oa Mother +o Aks Court's exercise of Supervisery power. Start to Qrosek | this GeseTHESE CAILOQEN Aeserve your time. “Thente You, >) Can qa xra\ Qourt epen ank remove, children in a “pre ~ Acckive Cusrody "' Cose based solely on hearsay ate uke Aions grok: bed by State Sratute iN Steere } and in absence of Jurisdiction? : D) Can a teal Court threalen ae distressed Mather with Quraler decreased Contact with ber children oO . Coes. an “ Raceement,. Aken: Wea DON: Zi nc that saree — ment into an admission ef guilt to Child @ buse / Malet Without CuckS of euidence of ehild abuse / , rested in that oaree mente or else where ? | 3) Can DefendentS Qreae. Systema, barrierS te hbo ct Fut aS$istance of counsel, oleny a Family opportunity of Mandated Colloq u oy, reviews, and appeal On iSSWas of abuse of process ) jurisdiction, Qraud ween whe Court, abuse oft Hiscrerion | and ywbicial miScondact +e Conce, &@ ermratkion of Parental Mans ona amily deprived ob al Candamentally Cain opter tunity Lo Vitqate he Locks on Cours tecord 7 4) Can a Stee Cours of last resorts declare a new Stand= ard of reyrew OF evidence against a class of people posh PTSD/ depression so “propendurance of eurdence ” whax we diagnosis is inand of isl) “\eopardy Lo Ohil\dren When she Supreme Coure has demanded ac Srate sebrain ftom a Presumption that a alass of poopie are onkik Parents CStanleyu. Tineis, wos OS, 64S Gse-5F C199a)) and requires “Clear and Convineinge evidence of abuse /nealece CSientesity a ramar, HSS USL IGE Me-9) (\4¢3))? $) Can aState Coure of lage Pesor’ deny ppcals /alempts . Oo a mother's pedresS of tla tral Court 2budeS then echo these ebuseS yo limit and inhibi a Family's Mahe to cfheckive Counsel on Aral appeal orden an aMocrey *o only bevel Wher Ske deams \avportant ~ while also ordorirac Mosmertg Counsel (VOT te Like ConShaAutional / Federal QvestiorS On a Nrotleris he hal& 2 6) Cana United Srokg Distncee Courk abstain hare +o Linde mental I NOECIN rrghes 2 ‘ ‘ 2) Can a United States Diskrct Coure and for Unved DQhates Court of Appeals objectively deny Counsel to a pedvoner see Kins. pedresS on a mater wove. equines BEPC NLINENY ot Counsel errer te €) Con a Oni Srates Disance Court and [or Oniteead Stakes Coure of Appeals -aveken risen Litigation Refer ed Requirements of a Peti tone Simply because Ske iS bene detained iA el? Lo . Con a Onited States Misimes Court and [or United SraeS Court of Appeals PEE UL Mem GN \ndi gen Plaini& ro py City Cees Under the Prison Litigation Referer ack wher Sk iS MET persuir S am Pees Gckion — agains the yal? | list of Parkes Kinley Mac Denald, Pedtistoner ) Mother Clo York County Sail . { bey man Way Alfred ME ©4002 . Alara, Sa Miner child af Kinley Mae Nonralel (Sea \ME Minor atid of Kinley MacDonald | Vi Minor child of Binley Macheonald , Daniel “Seknson, a a | . Gos Prerce Rd ; : Phenix City, AL 36e70 | — Orece Kile, * Cather” of LA a Pepresentedt by: Roger Champegne. . SB Crescent St Biddeford, ME ONCOS *Seddges" ot York Counsy , ME « : Michael Duddy, Louw Ann Sutton | Robers Maul hera, “Dudas Sokn Dee L ; Pa \ddeCord Di gtrret Court _ 28 Adams $+ | Biadelord, ME OYO05 | Mog strate or Sh ‘Sesegh County Pro bate Cours, Sudan “Sehn Ove 2 . . — Jove 5S. Michi san Se oe _ . Sourk Bend IN Yee Of / ° Belated Cates ae State. of Indiana Johnson u. Sehnson, Marridee of Mary "Sehaior: Cotinley MewDonalet } Vi Dante Sokason, Merion Coun yo AEM

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the petition for a writ of mandamus 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.
2024-01-12
Petition for a writ of mandamus and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due June 24, 2024)

Attorneys

Kinley MacDonald
Kinley MacDonald — Petitioner
Kinley MacDonald — Petitioner