Searching for Federal case law regarding child(ren) welfare

I'm looking for HELP! I'm in need of Federal cases and rulings regarding a
child's or children's welfare and the "child(ren)'s best interest.

Specific cases involving;

Child(ren) being used by custodial parent for financial gain to the
parent;

Child(ren)'s emotional welfare jeapordized by actions of custodial
parent;

State child support agency acting as "governing entity" without regard to
state and or federal laws, including "undue process" and or "negligence"
and or "child endangerment".

Current evidence has clearly shown that the mother of the child (defendant
in this case) purposely concieved a child by the father of the child
(plaintiff in this case)by using fraudulant means. The plaintiff and
defendant had a "dating" relationship for a short period of months. After
the conseption, the plaintiff had confronted the defendant and asked if
the child could be the plaintiff's. The defendant stated clearly that the
child was not of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested that the
defendant submit to a paternity test after the child was born, the
defendant refused and disappeared shortly after this request.

The plaintiff had lived at the same residence, known to the defendant, for
almost 11 years, and could be contacted openly during this time. The
defendant had hidden from "public" view for the next approximately 8
years, even going to the length of "home schooling" the child, as to avoid
public record of the whereabouts of the defendant and the child.

The defendant then takes a child support claim to the Oklahoma Child
Support Collection Agency, claiming child support from the plaintiff. The
plaintiff receives a notice from the Oklahoma Child Support Agency
advising the plaintiff of this action taken. The plaintiff submits to
confront this action in the agencies "administrative court" (a true
kangaroo court).

Facts were established, such as the defendant admitted stating to the
plaintiff that thie child was not his at the time of conception, that the
plaintiff knew all the contact information for the plaintiff since the
time of conception, such as home address and telehone number, etc., and
that the defendant has refused a "paternity test" after the child was
born. And that the defendant had purposely moved residence often to avoid
anyone being able to locate/contact her. The defendant also produced such
things as old marketing material of a project that the plaintiff had been
involved in some 10 years prior to the3 filing of this administrative
action, in which the defendant produced this material in the
administrative court and asked "what about the money from this",
attempting to establish fincial status of the plaintiff in order to
extract more money from the plaintiff for the defendant. Note, this was
marterials even the plaintiff no longer poccessed and had not for many
years. It was clear that the defendant, by gaining, retaining this
information to produce it approximately 10 year later was a clear
indication this was a "planned" extortion attempt to use the child in this
case for the defendant's financial gain. (Basically like Monica Lewinski
sealing her spermed stained dress for some two years from Bill Clinton to
produce it in the future as evidence).

Also, if the defendant knew or even thought the plaintiff was the father
of the child, why did the defendant wait some 8-9 years before making any
claim of child support against the plaintiff, when the plaintiff could
have been contacted at anytime with a known and verified perminent
resident address and telephone number. It is personally believed that
this was purposely done by the defendant, because what judge would grant
custody to a parent to whom the child not not even know nor have any
established relationship. It was reasonably clearly planned this way by
the defendant.

The "administrative court" disregarded the specific circumstances in this
case and the defendant was granted 5 years of arrearage child support
allowed by state law (the law is broad and has no regard for
circumstance)and current child support from the plaintiff to the
defendant.

The plaintiff, finding no resolve, or even caring for the child's well
being in this case, had this matter moved to the state District Court.
Due to "time" technicalities, the District Court upheld the "arrearage"
decision of the administrative court solely on the grounds that the
District Court filing "time" filing statutes had expired.

However, the District Court had established that a court appointed child
therepist was to oversee visitation between the plaintiff and the child
and to make reports to the court of the child therepists findings in this
matter. The court appointed child therapist determined and stating in
written report that the plaintiff was a "fit and proper parent" and that
regular visitation between the plaintiff and the child would greatly
benefit the child emotionally. However, the court appointed child
therapist also made specific mention that the defendant was clearly
attempting to "sabatage" any relationship being formed between the
plaintiff and the child, and that if the Court continued to allow such
action, the defendant would make every attempt to "sabatage" any type of
relationship trying to be formed between the plaintiff and th child in
this case and that the child would suffer emotional harm from the
defendant's actions. Again, this was the findings and WRITTEN findings by
the COURT APPOINTED child therapist!

The state agency has taken many actions to, in what my opinion is
"extortion", by using only "administrative authority" (kangaroo court
procedings) to pressure the plaintiff into simply submitting to thier
decision, not made by the District Court (which over-rides any and all
"adminstrative" decisions. Such as the the administrative actions
suspended my driver's license WITHOUT ever even informing me of the
action! I did not find out until 7 months later when I was pulled over for
a traffic violation. Plaintiff was NEVER allowed "due process", never
informed of any such actions claimed against him nor allowed to defend any
such claims made against him.

The Plaintiff in this case resides in California and has now for over 2
years. Yet the Oklahoma administrative actions are still being brought
against the plaintiff, but from within the state of Oklahoma and never
informing the plaintiff of any actions taken against him from a state
that, in my opinion, no longer has any jurisdiction in this matter. Am I
wrong? Since the plaintiff has established residence in a new state and
has proven residency of over 2 years, would an agency from Oklahoma have
jurisdiction on NEW actions over the plaintiff that lives in California.
Or would Oklahoma have to proceed in an "interstate" fashion, by
contacting my state of established residency?

Or in this case, plaintiff would like to take this matter into Federal
Court to establish a proper ruling for such complicated issues that are
involved in such a case. The plaintiff has no issue with paying "child
support". The main issue will be considering the facts and the well being
and welfare, mainly emotionally, for the child(ren) caught up in cases
such as these.

Anyone who intensionally uses a child for the purpose of financial gain is
WRONG and should be PUNISHABLE BY LAW! If there is not currently a law
regarding such an issue, it's time to establish one and I am willing to go
through the fight to get it established. Not only in my case, but for
every child in this country.

Any suggestions, case law referal, etc, will be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

SW