No. 24-79

James W. A. Jackson v. Kelly K. Fitzgerald

Lower Court: Rhode Island
Docketed: 2024-07-25
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Tags: child-custody due-process evidentiary-hearing hcch-1996 international-treaty personal-jurisdiction simultaneous-proceedings subject-matter-jurisdiction uccjea
Key Terms:
DueProcess
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Does a defense of UCCJEA 'Simultaneous Proceedings' become moot when one and not all proceedings is dismissed?

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE: 1. Does a defence of UCCJEA ‘Simultaneous Proceedings’ become moot when one and not all proSo ceedings is dismissed, and where the original jurisdiction dismissal cites the cause as the second and simultaneous proceedings in the Rhode Island Family Court, and thereafter an obligation to desist under the HCCH 1996 treaty terms (App.35a). And where the Rhode Island case is yet afoot, and where the HCCH ; 1996 Article 7 would allow for the matter of child custody to be returned by Rhode Island to Australia and where the Rhode Island Family Court had 62 days from the docketed notice of the case and orders in Australia to then adjudge ‘Simultaneous Proceedings’? (i.e. well prior to the ultimate original case’s dismissal in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia) 2. Should the Rhode Island Family Court have scheduled without delay a Show Cause hearing after February 13, 2020 to adjudge ‘Simultaneous Proceedings’, when presented with proper Australian Court orders made March 22, 2018 (App.205a), within the case afoot in the original jurisdiction? 3. Should the Rhode Island Family Court have promptly scheduled an evidentiary hearing after February 13, 2020, to adjudge ‘Jurisdiction Declined by Reason of Conduct’? , ii QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO JURISDICTION 4. Are evidentiary hearings required where jurisdiction is contested? 5. Did the Rhode Island Supreme Court err in finding Subject Matter jurisdiction alone is sufficient to make a defence around Personal Jurisdiction unavailing (App.14a)? (.e. when they asserted “[A/ state’s power to decide a custody matter does not depend on its having personal jurisdiction over the parties, but rather depends on its ability to adjudicate matters concerning the status of its citizens through quasi in rem jurisdiction.” Henderson v. Henderson, 818 A.2d 669, 675 (R.I. 2003) and when the Henderson case greatly differs from the instant case as it involves no foreign citizens, Divorce from Bed and Board and no intentional evasion of due process for 2 years by one party) 6. Is a Defendant’s participation in Rhode Island Family Court for mandated temporary Child Support and Mediation, and when he was of the wrong belief that a finding of fact on Jurisdiction was decreed without him in chambers with then counsel, sufficient to confer upon the Defendant an acceptance or acquiescence of jurisdiction without an evidentiary hearing to allow for review and due process? ; Questions Pertaining to Access to Courts 7. Has the press and public’s First Amendment right to witness the proceedings been met? See Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980) 8. When access to Court proceedings is denied by the Court justice is that a violation of due process rights that would invalidate the court’s findings? iii 9. Are courts obligated to provide foreign national Defendants and their witnesses, who enjoy no lawful . residency to the United States, remote video access for hearings to prevent a larger financial and time burden on them that might then unduly benefit the Plaintiff party? 10. Further, should U.S. Defendants who challenge jurisdiction, who reside permanently out of the state of the subject matter jurisdiction and who put forward a case around a substantial time and financial burden for appearance, be thereafter allowed to appear via the Court’s video conferencing technology? 11. Do the Due Process Clauses require judges . who deny video streaming of a hearing but have an open court room, to declare why, what interest they . protect by not streaming, how substantial that interest is and to offer reasonable alternatives for the public or press who may not be in Rhode Island? QUESTIONS PERTAINING TO PARENTAL RIGHTS 12. Does the Family Court err in not advancing the Defendant’s request to identify the biological father and potential support payer and also the discovery of the Plaintiffs reasons for not enjoining the biologi

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-07-18

Attorneys

James Jackson
James W.A. Jackson — Petitioner
James W.A. Jackson — Petitioner