A record they tried to erase; episode 4

A Record They Tried to Erase: Protecting Her Through Truth

Episode Title: When the Door to Court Is Closed — Due Process and Access to Justice

Opening Disclaimer

A Record They Tried to Erase

This series is a personal narrative and archival record created for expressive and informational purposes only.

All statements reflect my personal experiences, perceptions, recollections, opinions, and beliefs at the time they are expressed. They are not presented as verified facts, findings, or conclusions about any individual, organization, institution, or event, nor should they be interpreted as such.

Nothing in this series is intended to allege wrongdoing, assert criminal or civil liability, defame, threaten, harass, or target any person or entity. References to individuals, agencies, systems, or institutions are made solely within the context of my personal experience and without assertion of intent, motive, or legal responsibility.

This content does not constitute legal, medical, psychological, or professional advice. Viewers and listeners are encouraged to seek qualified professionals for guidance relevant to their own circumstances.

Certain details may be intentionally omitted, generalized, or altered to protect privacy, comply with legal considerations, and ensure personal safety. The inclusion or exclusion of any detail should not be interpreted as proof, admission, or implication of any kind.

This record is shared for the purposes of personal expression, preservation of lived experience, and public discourse, and should be understood within that limited scope.

Listener and viewer discretion is advised. Some content may be emotionally difficult.

Opening Statement

This episode is shared with care and responsibility.

What I am sharing reflects my personal experience navigating court procedures and access to justice. It is not a legal conclusion or an accusation. It is documentation and advocacy, shared in good faith, and all matters discussed are subject to legal review.

What Due Process Means to Me

Due process, to me, means having a real and meaningful opportunity to be heard.

Not just on paper.

Not just in theory.

But in practice.

It means being able to:

• Respond to orders that affect your life and your child

• Ask for review when circumstances change

• Participate in court without unnecessary barriers

Due process should be about access, fairness, and review, not about geography or resources.

The Barrier I Am Experiencing

I am currently located out of state.

I have not left to avoid the court.

I relocated for safety, stability, and de-escalation.

Yet I have learned that my physical distance creates serious barriers to accessing the court — barriers that make it difficult to request modification, review, or relief in a meaningful way.

I understand that some court processes:

• Require physical presence

• Do not allow remote participation

• Limit e-filing or digital access for certain matters

As a result, even when I am trying to comply, participate, and follow the law, I am facing obstacles that feel procedural rather than protective.

I Am Trying to Participate — Not Avoid

I want to be clear about my intent.

I am not refusing to participate in court.

I am not ignoring orders.

I am not seeking to bypass the law.

I am trying to access the court responsibly, from a distance, while respecting the seriousness of the matter and the authority of the court.

Distance should not be mistaken for disinterest.

Relocation should not be mistaken for noncompliance.

Why Distance Should Not Eliminate Due Process

In my situation, distance actually reduces risk.

I am physically far away.

There is no immediate proximity.

There is no ongoing contact.

And yet, this distance has the effect of closing the door to the very process that is meant to ensure fairness and review.

I believe due process should remain available even when a parent is:

• Out of state

• Limited by resources

• Seeking to comply rather than escalate

Access to justice should not disappear when circumstances change.

The Reality of Pro Se Limitations

I am willing to advocate for myself if necessary.

However, based on my understanding of procedure, there are limits to what a person can realistically do pro se, especially when:

• E-filing is restricted

• Digital appearances are limited

• Physical presence is required

This creates a situation where someone may technically have rights, but no practical way to exercise them.

Rights without access are not meaningful.

Why This Matters for Parents and Children

Protection orders and family-related decisions have profound effects.

They shape:

• A child’s emotional world

• A parent’s ability to remain connected

• The long-term health of family relationships

When orders are not reviewable in practice, they can become static, even as lives change.

I believe protection should be:

• Proportionate

• Reassessable

• Grounded in current circumstances

Children deserve systems that are responsive — not frozen in time.

What I Am Asking For

I am not asking for special treatment.

I am asking for:

• Meaningful access to court

• A lawful way to request review or modification

• The ability to be heard without being physically present when appropriate

• Legal representation or guidance to navigate this correctly

This is about process — not punishment.

Why I Am Documenting This Publicly

I am documenting this publicly because:

• Transparency is sometimes the only way to find help

• Advocacy brings attention to access barriers

• Silence has not created resolution

This is not about attacking the court system.

It is about asking the system to function as it is intended — fairly, accessibly, and with room for review.

Closing

I believe in the rule of law.

I believe in courts.

And I believe that due process should not depend on geography, money, or silence.

I am asking for a real opportunity to be heard — for myself, and for my child.

Thank you for listening.

A Call-to-Action

I am seeking South Dakota legal representation or guidance regarding due process and access to court for a parent located out of state. This content reflects lived experience and advocacy — not legal conclusions.