Parents' visitation rights
Kevin Adebayo Ajenifuja v. Anita Ursel Koepcke
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Kevin Adebayo Ajenifuja asked the Supreme Court to review his claims that a custody court violated his rights through a private interview of a child, limits on his visits, and its treatment of his neglect allegation.
- Who it affects
- The denial leaves Ajenifuja without a Supreme Court decision on his due-process and equal-protection claims.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.

What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) without deciding those questions.
Ajenifuja’s filing raised constitutional challenges to how a District of Columbia custody dispute was handled.
Question presented
1. Whether a trial court’s unconsented, private (in camera) interview of a minor child in a custody case violates a parent's Fourteenth Amendment Due Process rights. 2. Whether limiting a fit parent to four one-hour, virtually supervised visits per year constitutes a mere restriction or a deprivation of the parent-child relationship, amounting to a de facto termination of parental rights without due process of law. 3. Does disregarding a noncustodial parent's allegation of child neglect, while accepting the custodial parent's claim that the minor children do not desire frequent visits with their father, inescapably contradict the Equal Protection Clause as interpreted in F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.