1. 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?

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?