1. In light of the Supreme Court's efforts to clarify the use of 'jurisdictional'
versus 'claims-processing' terms (Hamer v. Neighborhood Hous. Servs., 2017)
and recognizing equitable tolling as a 'traditional feature of American
jurisprudence' that applies absent explicit legislative contravention
(Boechler, P.C. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 2022), are state courts
required to demonstrate clear legislative intent for jurisdictional limits and
exercise appropriate discretion before denying the availability of equitable
tolling, to ensure procedural fairness consistent with federal principles?

2. In light of limited Supreme Court guidance affirming constitutional
guarantees in parental custody decisions —specifically between parents, as
outlined in standards set by Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57(2000), and
Palmore v. Sidoti, 466 U.S. 429(1984) —is it constitutional for state courts to
allow subjective judicial assessments of the 'best interest of the child' to
supersede the fundamental rights of parents and children to a fair and
meaningful hearing grounded in constitutionally permissible factors, or
otherwise circumvent established standards of fairness and due process in
domestic relations proceedings? This question is exemplified by Knutsen v.
Cegalis VT 2017 62, which allowed five years of suspended visitation by
prioritizing judicial preferences and constitutionally intolerable
considerations over due process rights.

Equitable-tolling-of-jurisdictional-limits