Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Sean Kuhlmeyer v. Isabelle Latour
Paid petition · Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, No. 85544-1-I · judgment November 25, 2024
Certiorari denied · December 8, 2025
Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability
Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.
Question presented
- When states have ruled differently,1 and given this Court’s reasoning in Santosky v. Kramer,2 and Mathews v. Eldridge,3 the issue here is: What due process is owed a parent when the state terminates, or significantly interferes with, the parent/child relationship by issuing a lifetime no contact protection order, in a family court proceeding? Dependent upon which, are the following inquiries: a. What standard of proof is required for a state to materially or terminally interfere with the fundamental parent/child relationship? b. May a court apply an ex post facto law to redefine past conduct under new statutory language to impose a life-time family court no contact order between a parent and child? c. Does the state meet the constitutional standard required to regulate a fundamental right, when the state has not demonstrated a compelling interest and that its interference is narrowly tailored, when the state issues life-long broad no contact orders impacting a wide range of fundamental rights, including to a parental relationship with one’s child? 1 Washington state and Texas differ on the same issue. 2 Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 769 (1982). 3 Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Sean Kuhlmeyer
For respondent
—
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference
Proceedings
- Dec 08 2025Petition DENIED.
- Nov 18 2025DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/5/2025.
- Jul 25 2025Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 31, 2025)