Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
M. H. v. J. K.
Paid petition · Court of Appeal of California, Fourth Appellate District, Division One, No. D072075 · judgment December 8, 2017
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
Under the Supremacy Clause does Federal law on ordering child support to be paid "exclusively" by absent parents, preempt state law when Federal funds are involved? Do the State of California laws on ordering child support to be paid by "Fathers" discriminate and violate Petitioner's rights under the Equal Protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and Sections 7(a)(b) and 31, Article I of the Declaration of Rights of the State of California's Constitution? Do the Honorables Michael D. Washington and James A. Mangione violate Federal Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)(b)(4) by receiving two thirds of their salaries from their performance of ordering child support, and does this violate Petitioner's due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution? Do the tribunals of the State of California have jurisdiction to order child support from Parents with joint custody without any California laws that provide due process for Parents with joint custody? When the State of California made an order to not order child support going forward, but then several months later ordered that they did order child support that causes Petitioner to owe $8,000, but the hearing transcripts indicate the Court did not order child support, does this violate Petitioner's rights to due process?
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Michael Hucul
For respondent
—
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Jun 18 2018Petition DENIED.
- May 29 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 6/14/2018.
- Feb 20 2018Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due May 14, 2018)