Whether a state appellate court violates constitutional due process and equal protection by disregarding mandatory custody procedures and evidence of domestic violence in a child custody dispute

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. When a state’s legislature — to stop its courts from facilitating child abuse, litigation abuse, and . other forms of domestic violence — enacts mandatory procedures governing the issuance of custody orders, does that state’s appellate court, after having consistently reversed non-complying custody orders, ; violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by ignoring — entirely and without explanation — those same procedures, within an appeal about a trial court’s repeated, undisputed, and ongoing violations of those procedures? 2. When a vicitim of domestic violence, in order to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees, is . retroactively required to prove their abuser’s : fraudulence, does that same appeallate court violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause by ignoring — entirely and without explanation — all relevant evidence of fraud, despite that (lareglyundisputed) evidence conclusively establishing the , abuser’s extensive fraudulence and criminal perjury? : ; 3. May that court also ignore — entirely and without explanation — the ethics violations of, and sanctions requests against, the abuser’s attorneys? 4. When a trial court grants sole custody toa perpetrator of filmed domestic violence — in a flagrant violation of the above-referenced state : statute — does it also violate the Due Process Clause ; and the First Amendement by explicitly disallowing the non-abusive parent from presenting custody: related evidence, by refusing to hold the evidentiary custody hearings it repeatedly promised to hold, and by prohibitting all communication between a young child and her only non-abusive parent? : (i) t PARTIES Petitioner: Troy Pasulka (“Troy”) — prior appellant, husband, father of R.P. (born to him and his wife in 2022), and father of T.P. (born to him and Respondent in July 2017). Respondent: Saraa Doris Lee (“Saraa”) — prior appellee and mother of T.P.