Troy Pasulka v. Saraa Doris Lee

When a state’s legislature — to stop its courts from facilitating child abuse, litigation abuse, and other forms of domestic violence — enacts mandatory procedures governing the issuance of custody orders, does that state’s appellate court, after having consistently reversed non-complying custody orders, violate the U.S. Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause by ignoring — entirely and without explanation — those same procedures, within an appeal about a trial court’s repeated, undisputed, and ongoing violations of those procedures?

When a vicitim of domestic violence, in order to recover prevailing party attorneys’ fees, is retroactively required to prove their abuser’s fraudulence, does that same appeallate court violate the U.S. Constitution’s Due Process Clause by ignoring — entirely and without explanation — all relevant evidence of fraud, despite that (lareglyundisputed) evidence conclusively establishing the abuser’s extensive fraudulence and criminal perjury?

May that court also ignore — entirely and without explanation — the ethics violations of, and sanctions requests against, the abuser’s attorneys?

When a trial court grants sole custody to a perpetrator of filmed domestic violence — in a flagrant violation of the above-referenced state statute — does it also violate the Due Process Clause and the First Amendement by explicitly disallowing the non-abusive parent from presenting custodyrelated evidence, by refusing to hold the evidentiary custody hearings it repeatedly promised to hold, and by prohibitting all communication between a young child and her only non-abusive parent? (i)