QUESTION ONE
Is a case involving a state habeas proceeding by a parent, on behalf of their child, who attacks the validity of the custody of his or her child as a result of an adoption that occurred after termination of parental rights were imposed upon him or her by a state court pursuant to an adjudicatory hearing that took place wherein the trial court unlawfully terminated his or her parental rights based on insufficient evidence and the improper judicial administration of the law, with which expressly violated Federal and State Constitutions, and who seeks to specifically gain custody of his or her child and relinquish temporary custody of said child to the paternal grandparents until his or her release from incarceration, to legislative intent?

QUESTION TWO
If so, why is it then that an adoption of a child woots state habeas corpus review, especially when the child's parent had his or her rights unlawfully terminated and the predicate of the child's adoption is against legislative intent constitutional provisions, and the child was never lawfully released for adoption to begin with and creates a right-without-a-remedy dilemma when the parent never received relief, when legally entitled to redress, on direct review, and there is a lack of post-trial motions that would other?

QUESTION THREE
Is it fundamentally unfair for parent who represents themselves and their child as a pro se litigant after their parental rights have been unlawfully and involuntarily terminated and in the course of judicial proceedings, be kept, especially when such information is paramount for the parent in the procedural course of post-termination judicial proceedings demanded by due process such as habeas corpus?

QUESTION FOUR
If the parent who had their parental rights unlawfully terminated and their child was unlawfully adopted as a result and explicitly proved reversible error in the judgment that terminated his or her parental rights on direct review and all approved that the State presented insufficient evidence at trial in order to support termination yet no relief was ever administered by the court and whom in addition collaterally attacked the judgment and adoption via state habeas corpus against one available, what is then the proper mechanism in order to institute certain litigation to a court wherein the parent could be heard and relief properly administered?

QUESTION FIVE
Is it appropriate for a parent to, on behalf of their child, seek state habeas relief since federal habeas proceedings are not allocated for termination proceedings in accordance with this court's precedent in Lehman v. Lycoming, 458 U.S. 502 (1982) or is a 42 USC 1983 suit the proper?

QUESTION SIX
Are the provisions under 28 USC 2254(d)(1)(A) applicable to state habeas proceedings since termination cases are not applicable under federal habeas corpus review under 28 USC 2254 in accordance with this court's decision in Lehman v. Lycoming, 458 U.S. 502 (1982)?

Whether the state courts erred in denying the petitioner's claims of due process and equal protection violations in the adoption proceedings