Peterson v. Babbitt
| Decision Date | 14 June 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 82-5814,82-5814 |
| Citation | 708 F.2d 465 |
| Parties | Douglas Joseph PETERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce BABBITT, et al., Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Jay R. Adkins, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants-appellees.
Douglas Joseph Peterson, Goodyear, Ariz., for plaintiff-appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court, District of Arizona.
Before KILKENNY, SKOPIL and FERGUSON, Circuit Judges.
On behalf of himself and his minor children, Peterson filed a pro per 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983 complaint in the district court alleging that by denying him visitation rights with his children, the Department of Economic Security and other parties he also named as defendants, were depriving them of a fundamental liberty interest without due process of law, in violation of the First, Fifth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. Peterson's rights to visitation will be determined in an ongoing action currently pending before the Arizona court. Needless to say, Peterson can raise his constitutional claims in that proceeding. The children have been wards of that court since well before Peterson was charged with the crime of which he was convicted. He would have this court issue an ex parte order requiring a personal visit in prison by his children at least once a month. The district court sua sponte dismissed the complaint on the ground that state decisions regarding the welfare of children have been traditionally left to the state and to the state courts. Cf. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928 (1982).
Did the district court properly dismiss Peterson's Sec. 1983 complaint?
Considering the district court's dismissal as an abstention, we review the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discretion. Pue v. Sillas, 632 F.2d 74, 78 (CA9 1980).
The district court based its refusal to exercise jurisdiction on the well established principle that federal courts should decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations when the primary issue concerns the status of parent and child or husband and wife. Buechold v. Ortiz, 401 F.2d 371, 372 (CA9 1986). Cf. State of Ohio ex rel. Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 50 S.Ct. 154, 74 L.Ed. 489 (1930). Ever since In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94, 10 S.Ct. 850, 852-53, 34 L.Ed. 1500 (1890), the federal courts have uniformly held that they should not adjudicate cases involving domestic relations, including "the custody of minors and a fortiori, rights of visitation." Hernstadt v. Hernstadt, 373 F.2d 316, 317 (CA2 1967); see Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136-137 (CA9 1982); Donnelly v. Donnelly, 515 F.2d 129, 130 (CA1 1975). For that matter, the whole subject of domestic relations and particularly child custody problems is generally considered a state law matter. Csibi v. Fustos, supra, 670 F.2d at 136-137; Tree Top v. Smith, 577 F.2d 519, 521 (CA9 1978).
The strong state interest in domestic relations matters, the superior competence of state courts in settling family disputes because regulation and supervision of domestic relations within their borders is entrusted to the states, and the possibility of incompatible federal and state court decrees in cases of continuing judicial supervision by the state makes federal abstention in these cases appropriate. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979). True enough, the domestic relations exception has been narrowly confined. Csibi v. Fustos, supra, 670 F.2d at 137. It is only in those cases most closely resembling historical ecclesiastic actions that have been considered absolutely outside the federal court jurisdiction. Id. These cases consist of those where a federal court is asked to grant a divorce or annulment, determine support payments, or award custody of children. There is no subject matter jurisdiction over these types of domestic disputes. Id.
Here, Peterson would have the federal courts consider an issue of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Swayne v. LDS Social Services, Civ. No. 87-C-0591G.
...incompatible state and federal orders. See Fay v. South Colonie Central School Dist., 802 F.2d 21, 31 (2nd Cir.1986); Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983); Magaziner v. Montemuro, 468 F.2d 782, 787 (3rd Cir.1972). Based upon the above policies, courts have been reluctant t......
-
Santos v. County of Los Angeles Dept. of Children
...decrees." Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 2215, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992); see also Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir.1983) (per curiam) ("[F]ederal courts have uniformly held that they should not adjudicate cases involving domestic relations, includin......
-
Williams v. Messa
... ... federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony and child ... custody decrees.”); see also Peterson v ... Babbitt , 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir.1983) (stating that ... “federal courts have uniformly held that they should ... not ... ...
-
DeMillard v. Arizona
...explained:The domestic relations exception to the jurisdictional grant has been given a narrow construction. Peterson v. Babbitt, 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (per curiam); 13B C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3609 (1984). If the status of parent and c......
-
Removing a Case to Federal Court When Diversity Jurisdiction Exists
...are not class representatives do not destroy diversity) (citation omitted).38. Ankenbrandt. v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693-701 (1992).39. 708 F.2d 465, 466 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted).40. See Markham v. Allen, 326 U.S. 490, 494 (1946).41. In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig, 591 F.3d 6......