JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT AND MALTREATMENT

The Fourteenth Amendment, § 1

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

"The Judiciary has the duty of implementing the constitutional safeguards that protect fundamental rights." Trop v. Dulles, 356 U.S. 86, 103 (1958).

When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood, due process entitles him to substantial protection of his liberty interest to parent. This father, not fitting the mold of any archaic gender stereotype, has demonstrated that commitment tenaciously. However, despite a distinct showing of the statute being satisfied and his having an established bond with his child, his parental rights were wrongfully terminated on March 8, 2019.

The last time that this father saw his daughter, she cried out for him as he had to reluctantly walk away. She should have been in his custody only a few days later.

CHRONOLOGY:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yarvm3wlsXFP81Ax-bywuFL0M51OwFe1/view?usp=sharing

VIOLATIONS:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LsRz9nPcB6-upVQMbUs1IvKXxveHCPHy/view?usp=sharing

CLEAR EVIDENCE OF COLLUSION:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FQekAA9bDK9EpsVnZv1eEAyA2WyF06nF/view?usp=drive_link

“Adoption statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of maintaining a natural parent’s rights.” In re Adoption of B.M.W., 268 Kan. 871, 874 (Kan. 2000); et al.

“The fundamental principle in the termination of parental rights, whether through child in need of care or adoption proceedings, is the natural parent's right to be a parent . . . Both the United States Supreme Court and the Kansas Supreme Court have recognized the relationship between parent and child to be constitutionally protected . . . The right to be the legal parent of a child is a right that cannot be abrogated except under compelling circumstances . . . Indeed, other than the right to personal freedom, there may be no private right valued more highly or protected more zealously by the courts than the right of a parent to the custody and control of their children.” In re C.L.A., 31 Kan. App. 2d 536, 539 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).

INAPPROPRIATE GAIN IS NEITHER A COMPELLING INTEREST NOR CIRCUMSTANCE.

“A parent’s right to the companionship of their children is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and protection.” Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981).

ADOPTION DOES NOT CREATE AN EXCEPTION.

The trial court, “It was during the same time that he was helping his mother and grandmother. And, candidly, that's a moral responsibility and society appreciates it, but unlike 59-2136 that requires and has a legal responsibility, there is no legal responsibility to help the mother and grandmother.”

The court made this offensively condemnatory statement knowing that the mother had no financial obligations for most of the pregnancy and refused most of the support that this father provided.

“Every time we turn our heads the other way when we see the law flouted, when we tolerate what we know to be wrong, when we close our eyes and ears to the corrupt because we are too busy or too frightened, when we fail to speak up and speak out, we strike a blow against freedom and decency and justice.” ― Robert F. Kennedy, June 6, 1966

"Under our form of Government, all authority is vested in the people and by them delegated to those who represent them in official capacity. There can be no offense heavier than that of him in whom such a sacred trust has been reposed, who sells it for his own gain and enrichment; and no less heavy is the offense of the bribe giver. He is worse than the thief, for the thief robs the individual, while the corrupt official plunders an entire city or State. He is as wicked as the murderer, for the murderer may only take one life against the law, while the corrupt official and the man who corrupts the official alike aim at the assassination of the commonwealth itself. Government of the people, by the people, for the people . . .The exposure and punishment of public corruption is an honor to a nation, not a disgrace. The shame lies in toleration, not in correction." ― Theodore Roosevelt, December 7, 1903

The judiciary in effect is wielding a judge-made rule of law to limit a constitutional right, turning the idea of constitutional supremacy on its head. When a local judge chooses to act corruptly, the logical result of any sweeping immunity doctrine is the destruction of due process rights. Instead of fearless impartiality, the doctrine thus protects only malice and arbitrary administration of the laws . . . Important personal rights, such as the right to have a family, can be destroyed by the mere nod of a judge’s head. Judges should not be privileged to violate the rights of citizens unfortunate enough to find themselves in a biased, corrupt, or irresponsible court. When unjust injuries are inflicted by improper judicial acts, the state or its insurers should be forced to bear the cost of the wrongful act, not the individual. Waters, “Judicial Immunity vs. Due Process: When Should a Judge Be Subject to Suit?,” Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 7(2), pages 461-474, Fall, 471 (1987).

THE RULE OF LAW:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/14CY1VKP-pKyv06f-UHOTrYV1zLY-rTO5/view?usp=sharing

DUE PROCESS:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1phVwgERbvHKs-Yh9stzijPsPgQrqijWO/view?usp=sharing

JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11bRWYDJOEqM1dSokwz2rpYQ9EX-vEJFC/view?usp=drive_link

SEVEN CORE ISSUES IN ADOPTION AND PERMANENCY:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FhHDzeXZpp_yKxxDPt9PW_-lvatNYx91/view?usp=sharing

RELEVANT CASE LAW:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yZphZ2dhBT9R6oPwpcllZE4Kk478UOK4/view?usp=sharing

CORRUPTION-COLLUSION-HYPROCRISY

A prime example of why contested adoptions should never be decided via bench trial, an infant’s constitutional rights were willfully violated where, in the trial ruling, the mother’s blatant perjury, deceit, and unfitness were overlooked (e.g., “He did not specifically ask me how I was feeling, no.” R. IV, 152); direct falsehoods were stated (e.g., “there were times that she was without a residence” R. VIII, 8); testimony and evidence were “misconstrued” (e.g., “his texts . . . were abusive, sarcastic, mean, and self-centered” R. VIII, 7); the language of an unconstitutionally vague statute was “misinterpreted” (e.g., “the statute does not let you make that decision” R. VIII, 10); fraudulence was corroborated (e.g., “it has affected his everyday life and work” R. VIII, 13); procedural law and precedent were disregarded (e.g., the mother’s refusal of support); parental fitness was iniquitously wielded; where, pretrial, illogical statements were made (e.g., “he did not have custody of the child prebirth” R. XIV, 9); scores of unethical actions occurred (e.g., the initial petition for adoption held no factual basis); numerous “professionals” devised fabrications (e.g., “he too was sleeping in the chair.” R. XIII, 338); where the appellate courts echoed the effete incivility (e.g., “But Mother did accept other offers of support”); where a pertinent motion free of time restraint was denied by the trial court “due to time limitations,” followed by a felonious dismissal of the subsequent appeal, and where a valid revision was submitted to the court but contemptuously ignored. In re Adoption of A.A.T., 287 Kan. 590, 598-99 (Kan. 2008) (“A judgment is void . . . if a court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process . . . a reviewing appellate court must apply a de novo standard”).

De novo is a Latin term that means 'anew,' 'from the beginning,' or 'afresh.' When a court hears a case de novo, it is deciding the issues without reference to any legal conclusion or assumption made by the previous court to hear the case.

UNABATINGLY, THIS FATHER HAS SOUGHT LEGAL REDRESS THENCEFORTH, BECOMING THE FIRST PARENT IN KANSAS HISTORY TO CONTEST A WRONGFUL ADOPTION TO THIS HARROWING EXTENT.

A judge’s deception during a trial hearing is fraud on the court, which denies the court of subject matter jurisdiction. Since the judgment has no legal force or effect, it can be repeatedly challenged, as no judge has the lawful authority to make a void judgment valid. A decision produced by fraud is no decision at all. Turner v. Godinez, Case No. 2015-CV-0343, 4-5 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 11, 2017).

When findings are attacked for insufficiency of evidence, appellate courts are to determine whether substantial competent evidence exists and ensure that the law had been correctly applied. 259 days after filing a notice of appeal, the Kansas Court of Appeals emulated the trial court’s incivility instead. Then, 231 days later, the Kansas Supreme Court failed to follow horizontal stare decisis, mirroring the lower courts. The evidence and testimony firmly favor the natural relation.

The Due Process Clause entitles a person to an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases. This requirement of neutrality in adjudicative proceedings safeguards the two central concerns of procedural due process, the prevention of unjustified or mistaken deprivations and the promotion of participation and dialogue by affected individuals in the decision-making process. The neutrality requirement helps to guarantee that life, liberty, or property will not be taken on the basis of an erroneous or distorted conception of the facts or the law. At the same time, it preserves both the appearance and reality of fairness, "generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done," by ensuring that no person will be deprived of their interests in the absence of a proceeding in which they may present their case with assurance that the arbiter is not predisposed to find against them.

Under Due Process, natural parents have a liberty interest in the care and management of their children. Under Equal Protection, the Constitution’s guarantee to privacy rights embodies the right in child rearing. It is a constitutional requirement that when a state works to deny citizens of life, liberty, or property interest, citizens must be given notice, the opportunity to be heard, and a decision by a neutral decisionmaker.

The trial transcript and ruling:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VUg_YgqyHZ0ibPo6y3m4FZj424k9AQjb/view?usp=sharing

The record's Table of Contents:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KXkGul4PRNAwUYkj_e8t5E0ONvkVYJ31/view?usp=sharing

Vol. 2 of the record:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YN11H7ZwQ1Hvb8jyw-NO5r3Btbdgue5F/view?usp=sharing

Vol. 4 of the record:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1orOKXoR_eAfe55zRE8j-TA4iWxB1gKLE/view?usp=sharing

Vol. 10 of the record—the text messages:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cez_uLq9xBlE5yj4JJrZYYUH9ojcYuQ2/view?usp=sharing

Vol. 11 of the record—photo album:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/10rnePZ5wOsecMdafBaHnIdQ58yGIO8ms/view?usp=sharing

The Kansas Court of Appeals-litigation and corrupt decision:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m5dd-Du7kG4M56CUsO_BRXUeWzzaxzYd/view?usp=sharing

The Kansas Supreme Court-litigation and corrupt decision:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/17tlsA7HfHcJ5mISJ9iwSOpeYr-1QZRoe/view?usp=sharing

THIS FATHER PROVIDED SUFFICIENT SUPPORT. THE RECURRENT CONDEMNATION HAS BEEN DERIVED FROM AN EGREGIOUS OMISSION OF THE RELEVANT SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND BINDING CASE LAW. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE TRIAL COURT'S “FINDINGS.” THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE APPELLATE COURTS' AFFIRMATION.

A responsible parent has the right to raise their child free from unwarranted intrusion. Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 94 (2000). However, a father’s rights can be lost in absurd fashion, while a mother acquires rights automatically—even if she fails to affirmatively step up in any way. Parness, “Participation of Unwed Biological Fathers in Newborn Adoptions: Achieving Substantive and Procedural Fairness,” 5 J.L. & Fam. Stud. 223, 227 (2003). Mothers cannot relinquish parental rights prior to giving birth, yet fathers can lose a child to adoption based solely on prebirth conduct. Seymore, “Grasping Fatherhood in Abortion and Adoption,” 68 Hastings L.J. 817, 853 (2017). But once a mother relinquishes her rights, the nonconsensual father is the remaining parent. Any test applied to him should not be more stringent than that applied to her. Shanley, “Unwed Fathers’ Rights, Adoption, and Sex Equality: Gender-Neutrality and the Perpetuation of Patriarchy,” Columbia Law Review, 95(1), 60–103, 62 (1995). A child is ill-served if their mother deceivingly precludes them from having a relationship with their father. Adoption of Kelsey S., 1 Cal.4th 816, 848 (Cal. 1992). Where, as here, a father has made every effort to establish both a relationship with and rights to his child, for the mother to be able to circumvent his efforts is unconstitutional. Smith v. Malouf, 722 So. 2d 490, 501 (Miss. 1998).

The law is to be solicitous toward maintaining the integrity of the natural relation where its absolute severance is sought against the protest of a parent. In re Adoption of Baby Girl P., 291 Kan. 424, 433 (Kan. 2010). If a father accepts “some measure” of responsibility for his child, “he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship.” Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 262 (1983). This father immediately accepted responsibility for his daughter, long before confirmation that she was even his biological offspring. Caban demonstrated that a father can have a relationship with his children fully comparable to that of the mother. Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380, 389 (1979). This case demonstrates that a father can have a much greater relationship with—and a much stronger commitment to—his child than that of the mother. Legal paternity should not be lost by a devoted father because the mother suddenly “wishes” for strangers to parent. Parness, “Systematically Screwing Dads: Out of Control Paternity Schemes,” 54 Wayne L. Rev. 641, 670 (2008).

“[A] parent who is not found to be unfit, has a fundamental right, protected by the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, to the care, custody and control of their child, and ... the right of such a parent to custody of the child cannot be taken away in favor of a third person[.]”

In re T.M.M.H., 307 Kan. 902, 913-14 (Kan. 2018).

“The trial court should presume that a fit parent is acting in the best interests of the child and not substitute its judgment for the parent’s, absent a finding of unreasonableness.” In re T.A., 38 P.3d 140, 141 (Kan. Ct. App. 2001).

“ A father who contributed to the support of the mother . . . would not . . . deserve the same sanction—having his parental rights terminated—as those who raped and abandoned and were unfit.” In re Adoption of Baby Boy B., 254 Kan. 454, 463 (Kan. 1994).

“[D]ue process requires that a putative father who appears and asserts his desire to care for his child has rights paramount to those of non-parents[.]” In re Lathrop, 575 P.2d 894, 898 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978).

“It is a firmly-established rule in this State that a parent who is able to care for his children and desires to do so . . . is entitled to the custody of his children.” Christlieb v. Christlieb, 179 Kan. 408, 409 (Kan. 1956).

UNCONSTITUTIONALLY VAGUE

K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(1)(D) “... the father, after having knowledge of the pregnancy, failed without reasonable cause to provide support for the mother during the six months prior to the child’s birth ...”

The statute’s language conflicts with the void-for-vagueness doctrine, which dictates that unduly and uncertain laws violate due process.

Vague laws in any area suffer a constitutional infirmity. Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U.S. 195, 200 (1966).

Statutes that leave judiciaries free to decide, without legally fixed standards, what is satisfactory and what is not in each case is immensely unconstitutional. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-3 (1966).

A vague law is no law at all. United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323 (2019).

The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a statute be sufficiently definite so as not to encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. S.B. v. S.S., 243 A.3d 90, 123 (Pa. 2020).

Statutes affording the termination of parental rights must meet constitutional due process requirements. A vague and conclusory statute fails to do so. Davis v. Smith, 266 Ark. 112, 113 (Ark. 1979).

The vice of unconstitutional vagueness is aggravated where a statute operates to inhibit freedoms affirmatively protected by the Constitution. Cramp v. Bd. of Public Instruction, 368 U.S. 278, 287 (1961).

The Kansas Court of Appeals has stated, “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters . . . with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application.” Luna v. City of Ulysses, 17 P.3d 940, 942 (Kan. Ct. App. 2000).

The same court, contradictorily, “[Father] argues that since his case involves a fundamental constitutional right of a natural parent to the custody of his child, the appellate court should apply strict scrutiny in its review of the statute and should reverse the trial court's decision which is based upon it. However, this court has examined the constitutionality of 59-2136(h) in a number of cases and, in each one, has found the statute does not violate the constitutional rights of a biological father.” In re Adoption of D.M.M., 955 P.2d 618, 618-20 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).

PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION:

https://chng.it/W6g9qnRvJt

THE KANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

“Father also points out the steps he took to prepare for fatherhood. For example, he notes he was paying down his debt, and he acquired baby items for his home. But Father did these things for his own benefit, not Mother’s, and they conferred no benefit on her.”

Conversely, the referenced steps were for his daughter’s benefit. Focusing on the child—as the circumstances had surely endorsed—is likewise supportive to the mother. The legislative intent is to provide “a measure by which to gauge a father’s commitment to his child during pregnancy,” after all. In re Adoption of D.M.M., 955 P.2d 618, 622 (Kan. Ct. App. 1997).

“Granted, Father sent texts expressing concern for Mother and the child. For example, Father points out an instance when he texted Mother, ‘With this heat if you need to go somewhere and it’s too hot, I will come get you and take you because we need you to not be too hot.’ Another time, Father asked Mother if she would be safe if a tornado hit near where she was. While these texts show concern, it is questionable whether they amount to significant nonmonetary assistance, as required by statute. On top of that, Father also sent many text messages that Mother found upsetting and hurtful. Mother’s testimony, as well as her texts to Father, showed she found his texting to be very stressful overall.”

Easily detectable, her testimony was almost entirely perjurious. K.S.A. 44-1039.

“As for Mother’s interference, Father claims Mother refused much of the support he offered. Granted, Mother did decline to take Father up on some of his offers. On at least one or two occasions, Mother also told Father that she did not want or need anything from him. But Mother did accept other offers of support, such as his offer to pay her phone bill or give her gas money. The record shows Mother had significant financial difficulties over the course of her pregnancy, particularly regarding housing and transportation. Father never offered to help her cover rent to keep from being evicted or to help her pay for car repairs. The offers he made that Mother rejected were often for incidental support, such as an Uber ride or some ramen.”

She lived with her boyfriend from May through birth. Her boyfriend’s testimony, “Did you charge her rent when she moved in with you?” “No.” “She had free housing anytime she was living with you?” “Basically.” “Did she pay any bills, anything like that?” “No, not really.” She clearly did not have “significant financial difficulties over the course of her pregnancy.”

A mother’s needs are a relevant circumstance in determining whether a father acted reasonably to provide support. In re of the Adoption of M.D.K., 58 P.3d 745, 749 (Kan. Ct. App. 2002).

Giving a mother money for her own discretionary use—completely unrelated to a pregnancy—does not equate to a father providing support for that pregnancy. Sensibly, accepting some support does not somehow annul support that was refused.

“The evidence does show Father planned to parent Baby Girl G. and did things to prepare for fatherhood. But under Kansas law, an unwed father has a specific duty to affirmatively provide support, particularly financial support, to the mother during the last six months of the pregnancy to ensure his parental rights.”

“For the purposes of this subsection, ‘support’ means monetary or non-monetary assistance that is reflected in specific and significant acts and sustained over the applicable period.”

K.S.A. 59-2136(h)(4) does not state nor imply “particularly financial support.”

It is an elementary principle of statutory construction that all the words of a statute must be given effect. In re Adoption of B.M.W., 268 Kan. 871, 883 (Kan. 2000).

“Father provided her a ride home from her appointment to enroll, but he did not give her a ride there.”

He did not fail to provide her with support because she chose to arrive at an appointment with someone else.

“As for Father’s offer to allow Mother to store her belongings at his home, she never took him up on this offer.”

A mother’s refusal of support is to factor in determining if the father provided adequate support. In re Adoption of Baby Boy B., 254 Kan. 454, 465 (Kan. 1994).

She had refused or ignored most of the support that he offered. For example, on July 1, “I have told you one hundred times I do not need nor want anything from you.” On July 9, he stated, “Let me know if you need money,” to no response. And on July 25, she said, “I don’t want your help!”

“He spent hundreds of dollars on credit card payments and withdrew hundreds of dollars in cash. He also had some money left over at the end of each month, though perhaps not much.”

Consumers are contractually liable to repay all debts arising on a credit account by reason of an agreement to that effect, and testimony shows that most withdrawn funds were for financial obligations. The adoption accounting shows that the mother had received compensation for “reasonable living expenses.” She had no living expenses from May through September; therefore, this payment was illegal. K.S.A. 59-2121(c).

From the Court of Appeals' "decision" on this case, “An ‘unwed father must act affirmatively during the mother’s pregnancy to protect his rights to the child.’ In re Adoption of Baby Girl S., 29 Kan. App. 2d 664, 666, 29 P.3d 466 (2001). The father need not provide total support for the mother during the last six months of pregnancy, but the father’s support must be consequential and reasonable given the circumstances. General offers of support are not enough to satisfy the father’s duty of support. And a court may consider a mother’s refusal of assistance when determining whether the father provided support. But if the mother fails to make a specific request in response to a father’s general offer of support, the mother has not refused his support. In re Adoption of M.D.K., 30 Kan. App. 2d 1176, 1179-80, 58 P.3d 745 (2002). Being unsure of the child’s paternity does not absolve a father of his responsibility to support the mother during pregnancy. Instead, men are presumed to know they may become a father as a result of having sexual intercourse with a woman, regardless of how many other sexual partners she has. ‘If any of those partners wishes to preserve his parental rights in the event of a later adoption, each one will be required to initiate reasonable efforts toward supporting the mother prior to the child’s birth.’ In re Adoption of D.M.M.,24 Kan. App. 2d 783, 790, 955 P.2d 618 (1997).”

...

NONE OF THESE GENERIC CONDEMNATORY REFERENCES APPLIED TO THIS CASE.

THE MOTHER IS UNFIT

The mother suffers from an especially chaotic bipolar disorder, where she is “prone to making inappropriate parenting decisions” and “could become consumed by the illness.” Van Brunt, et al., “The Unfit Parent: Six Myths Concerning Dangerousness and Mental Illness,” Family Court Review, 54: 18-28, 19 (2016).

Evidence undeniably supports that she was not mentally fit to make this devastating decision.

Her testimony, “Well before the pregnancy you were not on meds for your bipolar disorder?” “I do not remember when I stopped taking them, but, yes, it was before my pregnancy.” (R. V, 163).

She also experiences paranoid delusions. Evidence shows that she only sought adoption due to an irrational envy of Father's devotion to his child. (R. X, 175; 216; 313; 375; 379).

On April 11, 2018, she said, “I know we want a shared parenting time agreement, but it is going be a while before I am comfortable with her being somewhere without me.” On April 29, “For the good first year of her life, she will not be anywhere without me or without me knowing explicitly where she is ... And I am not particularly fond of you speaking to a lawyer by yourself.” On June 13, he asked, “When do you feel would be a suitable time to get our parenting plan in place?” She responded, “I do not want to worry about that until her being anywhere without me is even an option . . . I am not getting anything in order that says you can have her without me before she is ready because I do not want you taking her without me before she is ready.”

Her testimony, “It was always about him?” “Yes, always . . . He was extremely selfish throughout the entire pregnancy. He only ever cared about himself . . . Frequently he was very selfish. I felt like he was doing all of this to make himself look good.”

He had been “doing all of this” because he loves his daughter.

On April 11, he said, “Providing a safe environment for the baby is my number one priority.”

April 18, “I love our daughter too much to make anything more important than her.”

June 19, “When it comes to our daughter, her best interests are number one and she needs both of us.”

No response.

July 29, “I am not sure why you act as if I have done something wrong to you, or why my willingness to take care of her somehow offends you, but I am just trying to be there for my daughter. I hope something good has happened since we last talked. I am worried about you.”

No response.

Significantly, she said, “I do not want some bullshit joint custody arrangement. I do not want him to be able to make decisions. I want it to be on my terms when he sees her.”

Further evidence of her mental illness was deliberately removed from the record.

Unpacking Bipolar Disorder, https://www.healthline.com/health/bipolar-disorder/bipolar-psychosis#symptoms;

Morbid Jealousy, https://continentalhospitals.com/diseases/morbid-jealousy/

MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT

On October 29, 2022, father filed a motion for relief from judgment in the trial court, “Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-260(b)(4), P.F. hereby respectfully moves this court for relief from judgment terminating parental rights and authorizing adoption. A judgment is void if a rendering court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Impartiality is crucial in assuring equal justice under the law, but this essential due process element has been absent from the outset.”

10/29/22:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/11-t5g9ZMws2vuKYVGxGUIy8ifMeDTIAk/view?usp=share_link

How did the court respond? Culpably:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1n-4L3GYPSuW3gASOR-yO-ZdCZ7XW6-BS/view?usp=sharing

Denying a motion specifically free of a time restraint “due to time limitations” distinctly affirms the adoption’s invalidity. In re Marriage of Hampshire, 261 Kan. 854, 862 (Kan. 1997) (“A judgment is void if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. A void judgment is a nullity and may be vacated at any time.”). Relief from a void judgment is not a discretionary matter; it is mandatory. Thomas v. Miller, 906 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tex. App. 1995). And a void judgment can have no conclusive effect because the proceeding from which it culminated is itself without integrity. Wright v. Mullen, 659 S.W.2d 261, 263 (Mo. Ct. App. 1983).

After the court denied a motion for rehearing, he filed an appeal on January 10, 2023. On February 27, the Kansas Court of Appeals ordered the brief to be amended, “Because Appellant’s brief reargues settled matters of fact and law, we order it stricken and destroyed. We order Appellant to file an amended brief . . . That brief must only address the district court’s denial of the motion for relief from judgment.” Contumeliously, the court then granted dismissal of the appeal on April 4, “Although Appellant timely filed an amended brief, the substance of the brief contests the validity of the adoption.”

The adoption is the very nullity that was attacked by the motion for relief from judgment.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Yn6sR-Eo9RK2jgf0HfIhplPqpSSrkFXk/view?usp=sharing

Due process violations are subject to de novo review. In re D.S., 124,563, 9 (Kan. Ct. App. Oct. 21, 2022). When a court hears a case de novo, it reviews the issues without reference to any previous legal conclusion. A judgment is unenforceable if the court acted in a manner inconsistent with due process and may be vacated at any time. In re Marriage of Hampshire, 261 Kan. 854, 862 (Kan. 1997).

THE APPEAL:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16UPqTBFFWRhCFhU3SlJOMaWApefFvssb/view?usp=sharing

02/02/24:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SKBfEpQgwC9i62UnySe7CKdZ4K8z-EVD/view?usp=drive_link

03/04/24:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JFve_2x9w1WXt0iWD6QOppiM7CQlzoBd/view?usp=sharing

04/12/24:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K3YS7KpZVLNJwTRKhJIzHegOK3Yu7lAC/view?usp=drive_link

Alarmingly narcissistic, irrationally cruel, and undeniably corrupt,

the District Court's journal entry in response to the 04/12 motion for relief:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18rIe45hDHdBIp5DsunDqmtihhDgVTWfm/view?usp=drive_link

THE ADOPTIVE "PARENTS" ARE JUST AS IMMORAL

Rebarbatively, the abductors of this father's child have been aware of all immoral means from the very beginning. There has been no trepidation regarding the pain that they have caused this father, his family, or his daughter. They have watched as he has been continuously thwarted, and their only reaction has been to add to the criminality. An integrous adoptive couple would have continued searching for an infant legitimately free for adoption. Though their parental fitness is clearly suspect, ultimately, this couple would still be able to. This father cannot replace his firstborn child.

Undoubtedly, they will deceive her throughout her adolescence, causing her unfathomable anguish and heartache once she learns the explicit details of the truth.

It is the practice of common law to respect the entitlement of those who bring a child into the world to raise that child. Within the specific circumstances, he proceeded exactly as he should have to raise his own daughter, and the statute is meant to amply protect his right to do so. There is no reason in law or policy to dilute that protection. Couple v. Girl, 570 U.S. 637, 668 (2013).

He remains equipped, informed, and fully prepared to parent his daughter. It is in a child’s best interest to be with their father when he has candidly and sustainably proven his parental commitment. Refusing to concede further exemplifies his fitness and that he should have full custody. He has fought extensively for his child; more so than any similarly situated father in Kansas history. To the same effect, the adoptive couple’s subterfuge jeopardizes her health, welfare, and future, while the natural mother is undeniably unfit to parent.

Their copy of the latest motion, filed on March 4, 2024, was returned with 'RETURN TO SENDER' written on the envelope--further displaying an unseemly lack of integrity.

CIVIL COMPLAINT PROCEEDINGS

Continuing as a pro se litigant, this father filed a civil complaint against the adoptive resource for violations of rights; wrongful adoption; civil conspiracy; factual cause; conversion; loss of consortium; interference with possessory, parental, and custodial rights; intentional infliction of emotional distress; constructive and intrinsic fraud; unjust enrichment; abuse of process; false light; calumny; specific intent; wrongful family separation; and economic and non-economic loss. Despite what should have been a decisively favorable effort, the U.S. District Court judge dismissed the complaint.

Civil Complaint briefs and orders:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RpWxKGwnNf1bMFVv7W-cFGw1vIifh5M2/view?usp=sharing