Younger Abstention | Exceptions to Abstention

In the this case, the Ninth Circuit addressed a request for injunctive relief to set aside a state-court order that imposed bond for five million dollars as a condition of allowing visitation. The appellate court reviewed the district court’s dismissal pursuant to Younger v. Harris abstention doctrine.

Holding

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal. The case was remanded to enter the dismissal without prejudice.

Facts

The father and mother were involved in custody litigation in California state court. The court entered an order requiring the father to post a five-million-dollar bond as a condition of exercising his visitation rights.

Discussion

As part of state custody proceedings, the father was granted visitation rights with the child, conditioned upon entering a five-million bond. This ruling was based upon mother’s uncontradicted testimony that father had access to at least ten million dollars, and purchased their residence with three million dollars in cash.

The father filed an action in federal court, asserting a due process right to maintain a relationship with his son and rights of access under the Hague Convention and ICARA.^[1]The father sought an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the state-court order.

The district court dismissed the father’s federal claims for injunctive relief under Younger.^[2]

The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court finding that it applied the Younger doctrine correctly: the state proceedings were (1) ongoing, (2) quasi-criminal enforcement actions, (3) implicated an important state interest, and (4) permitted litigants to raise federal challenges.^[3]

The circuit court held that the issues raised by the parties fell “squarely” within the state’s interests to enforce judgments and to issue orders designed to prevent child abductions.^[4]

The father also argued that even if the Younger doctrine applied, he nevertheless faced a danger of “irreparable loss” that was great and immediate.^[5] To sustain this challenge, the father had to present evidence to the district court that the state proceeding “is motivated by a desire to harass or is conducted in bad faith.”^[6] Because the district court did not make a finding to substantiate this allegation, the Ninth Circuit rejected the father’s argument.