1. The State of Hawai 'i abandoned its jurisdiction and state sovereignty in
Domestic Relations and family court law when it willingly accepted federal
grant funding that forces it to follow federal law. How then can the state of
Hawai 'i enact "best interest " laws in family courts when they have given up
their jurisdiction and state sovereignty to the federal government by
accepting federal grant funding that determines family law when those
federal laws force them to follow U.S. Supreme Court Precedent and Federal
Law that have already defined when a state may act in the "best interest " of
a child and then refuse to allow a citizen to file a Notice of
Unconstitutionality to challenge those laws?

2. How can a state use a simple "preponderance of evidence " to act in the "best
interest " of children when U.S. Supreme Court precedent, the constitution,
and federal law clearly call for a burden of proof of "beyond a reasonable
doubt " for a state to act in the "best interest " of a child?

3. How can a state allow a child below the age of 18 to act in their own "best
interest " when U.S. Supreme Court precedent, federal and state law states
that a child is a child and cannot act in their own "best interest " until they
reach the "age of majority " of 18?

How can a state enact 'best interest' laws in family courts when it has abandoned jurisdiction and sovereignty by accepting federal grant funding?