Question I. Whether the state's removal of an intellectually disabled adult from his home and family by application of a standard of proof lower than the preponderance of the evidence violated rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that are enforceable under Section 1983. Whether those rights were violated when the adult child and the parent (1) were not served with the charges prior to the hearing, (2) were not represented by legal counsel or a guardian ad litem, (3) where the parent was prohibited from testifying, and (4) where the state violated due process protections established by state and federal statutes.

Question II. Whether Respondents violated rights protected under the Americans with Disabilities Act and 42 U.S.C. 1396n(c)(2) by denying repeated requests to provide services in the least restrictive setting and the courts below applied the wrong standards for an award of injunctive relief and compensatory damages. Whether the lower courts erred by disregarding the resources of the state, and dismissing Petitioners' claim alleging intentional violation of the ADA, 42 U.S.C, 1396n(c)(2) and state law by acting together in furtherance of an illegal purpose to prevent the individual's return to his home and family.

Question III. Whether a state law providing that a complaint must be dismissed unless it is accompanied by an expert affidavit may be applied in federal court when the defendant elects to remove the case to federal court.

Whether the state's removal of an intellectually disabled adult from his home and family by application of a standard of proof lower than the preponderance of the evidence violated rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment that are enforceable under Section 1983