Did the court exceed their authority by affirming the concerning practice of agencies and courts acting outside their own statutory laws, when determining the fate of families and in direct conflict with this Court's precedent the Accardi doctrine?

This Court has numerous precedents establishing binding national jurisdiction relating to matters of federal law and the Constitution. In Accardi v. Shaughnessy, this Court’s ruling requires administrative agencies to follow their own binding rules and procedures. This doctrine is not valid, if the violation failed to cause prejudicial or dueprocess harm to the affected person. Additionally, in Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s ruling established Judicial Review. Which determined, courts are required to interpret and expound on the law. The above precedents of this Court, were set in place to protect societies fundamental constitutional rights. The questions presented are: 1. Did the court exceed their authority by affirming the concerning practice of agencies and courts acting outside their own statutory laws, when determining the fate of families and in direct conflict with this Court’s precedent the Accardi doctrine? 2. Did the state courts conflict with this Court's precedent when violating Marbury v Madison by failing to interpret and expound on the law? 3. Did the courts fail to apply Strict Scrutiny and the Matthews Standard to substantiate the determinations alleged by the state; when they moved to remove the child on an unsubstantiated finding of imminent harm, in an unusual situation violating the family’s fundamental due process rights? 4. Did the Superior Court err when it failed to address the Plain Error caused by the prejudicial erroneous misclassification of the mother and father’s expert witnesses, which fundamentally harmed their case, affecting the outcome?