Michael Anthony Deem v. John P. Colangelo, et al.

Petitioner is involved in a high conflict divorce and custody proceeding due to his estranged wife filing fabricated allegations against him. They are the parents of two children. The New York State Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Department and New York State Unified Court System (NYSUCS) have a custom and practice of summarily denying all discovery regarding, inter alia, custody to all litigants in contested custody disputes, including fit parents that have provided minimum standards of care and whose children are neither neglected nor abused, such as Petitioner. The Third and Fourth Departments permit custodial discovery. As a result, Petitioner has not had - - contact with his children since June 9, 2018. any - Petitioner originally agreed to a forensic evaluator (FE) in the divorce and custody dispute because his retained attorney, when he could afford one, said no custodial discovery was permitted. Petitioner was forced to go pro se and discovered the decision in Janus v. AFSCME, 585 U.S. ___ (2018). He moved to vacate the order appointing the FE. The matrimonial court refused to even consider Petitioner’s motion. Petitioner filed for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the matrimonial court to decide his motion. The Appellate Division granted the New York State Attorney General’s motion to dismiss, without opinion. The New York State Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal “upon the ground that no substantial constitutional question is directly involved.” The questions presented are: 1. Whether a court appointed FE’s examination of a fit parent’s children over that fit parent’s