Equitable-tolling-of-jurisdictional-limits

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In light of the Supreme Court's efforts to clarify the use of ‘jurisdictional!’ ; versus 'claims-processing' terms (Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 2017) and recognizing equitable tolling as a ‘traditional feature of American jurisprudence’ that applies absent explicit legislative contravention (Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2022), are state courts required to demonstrate clear legislative intent for jurisdictional limits and exercise appropriate discretion before denying the availability of equitable tolling, to ensure procedural fairness consistent with federal principles? 2. In light of limited Supreme Court guidance affirming constitutional guarantees in parental custody between parents, as outlined in standards set by Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57(2000), and Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429(1984)—is it constitutional for state courts to allow subjective judicial assessments of the 'best interest of the child' to . supersede the fundamental rights of parents and children to a fair and meaningful hearing grounded in constitutionally permissible factors, or otherwise circumvent established standards of fairness and due process in domestic relations proceedings? This question is exemplified by Knutsen v. Cegalis VT 2017 62, which allowed five years of suspended visitation by prioritizing judicial preferences and constitutionally intolerable considerations over due process rights. Opening Brief 12/16 Page 2 Page(s)