This is a diversity of citizenship family law case. Petitioner is a resident of New Hampshire and Respondent is a resident of California. The care, custody and control of two minor children is in dispute.

"The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children " (Troxel v. Granville, 530 US 57,65,66 (2000)) and this "is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests recognized by this Court. " (Id.) Both parties are fit parents. (Id.) However, and contrary to the trial court 's "Final Parenting Plan, " still in effect, Petitioner has been refused all contact, including by telephone, with his two minor daughters for nearly 15 months.

There is evidence that orders on post-decision relief in the trial court might have been issued without proper review by any trial court judge. The UCCJEA (NH Rev Stat § 458-A:35 (2017)) provides that an appeal may be taken. However, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire declined to hear a subsequent appeal. Consequently, both parties are now subject to a trial court order that has not been adequately reviewed by any court, including both the trial court that issued it and New Hampshire 's highest court.

1. Whether, or under what circumstances, is the State of New Hampshire 's discretionary appellate process unlawful or unconstitutional?

2. Has the State of New Hampshire unlawfully infringed upon Petitioner 's constitutionally protected parenting or other "due process " rights?

Whether the State of New Hampshire's discretionary appellate process is unlawful or unconstitutional, and whether the State has unlawfully infringed upon Petitioner's constitutionally protected parenting or other due process rights