Christopher Gary Baylor v. Ayano Eto, fka Ayano Eto Baylor

The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects against the deprivation by state action, of a constitutionally protected interest in “life, liberty, or property” without the due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires the United States government to practice equal protection, crucial to the protection of civil rights. A violation of either these protections includes that a state may not interfere with a parent’s marital or custodial status absent due process protections. The marital and parent-child relationship is a liberty interest that is said must be protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. In Simon v. Southern Railway Company, 236 U.S. 115, 35 S. Ct. 255, 59 L. Ed. 492, this Court held that “a judgment against a person on whom no process has been served is not erroneous and voidable, but, upon principles of natural justice, and also under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, is absolutely void.” The question that follows is: May a state court terminate the rights of a parent without notice or due process of service? This Court answered the next question in M.L.B. v. S.L.J., 519 U.S. 102 (1996). May a state court deny an indigent person relief based on inability to pay? The federal questions presented here conflict with decisions made by the state court of last resort, and are based on important issues of federal law.