How can a state enact 'best interest' laws in family courts when it has abandoned jurisdiction and sovereignty by accepting federal grant funding?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. The State of Hawai'i abandoned its jurisdiction and state sovereignty in Domestic Relations and family court law when it willingly accepted federal grant funding that forces it to follow federal law. How then can the state of Hawaii enact “best interest” laws in family courts when they have given up their jurisdiction and state sovereignty to the federal government by accepting federal grant funding that determines family law when those federal laws force them to follow U.S. Supreme Court Precedent and Federal Law that have already defined when a state may act in the “best interest” of a child and then refuse to allow a citizen to file a Notice of Unconstitutionality to challenge those laws? 2. How can a state use a simple “preponderance of evidence” to act in the “best interest” of children when U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the constitution, and federal law clearly call for a burden of proof of “beyond a reasonable doubt” for a state to act in the “best interest” of a child? 3. How can a state allow a child below the age of 18 to act in their own “best interest” when U.S. Supreme Court precedent, federal and state law states that a child is a child and cannot act in their own “best interest” until they reach the “age of majority” of 18? i | N