the plaintiff filed her complaint in that state court on january for twenty sixteen fallen superior court they threw it out of court three days later no reason was given only a direction that she filed something if she wants to be heard in family court on the sixth two days later the plaintiff in this case  what was then a uncontested complaint alleging that somehow this the plaintiff here alyssa cooke wanted her rights terminated which was incorrect the plaintiff raised and the court below wasn't the entire case is only about the constitutionality of seventy nine and sixty two and related statutes it's about at this point nothing else always was those claims were were pled and dismissed in a state court then what melissa cook was left to do was she filed a complaint in a federal court on february to pay for choice of simultaneous and the day before five year one it was essentially simultaneous she filed the counterclaim in state court what if what the state court judge did was we understood the construction of the statute but she affirmed our construction of it one she said that the best interest of children is totally and completely irrelevant to she said that the definition of what constitutes an intended parent california law that that makes him a sole parent is just what was in the contract and even his expressions later saying i can't raise the children i don't want to raise the children isn't that a matter of georgia state law at this point for them for georgia to say i agree with your honor that if this district court did what it was supposed to do ruled substantively on the constitutional issues declared the statute unconstitutional of course strictly yes one of the points that are not in the statute is constitutional at this point based on this record i can only assume that  decided twenty three years earlier in which the california court only talked about the public policy of the state of california we know what the public policy state of california is and it was embodied in that statute that was passed in and twelve that's not the issue we know what the policy is we know that the statute accurately reflects that policy but the but the one case they pointed to never addressed the constitution the constitutional issues were not raised in that case there isn't a single word about the children's constitutional rights raised in johnson versus calver nor where the rights of the mother in this case raising johnson versus colored the only the only issue that even purported to be constitutional claim that was made in that case was that unique to the facts of that case there were two legal matters and the court decided what was alleged to be a constitutional issue on the basis of state law the court having said we're going to pick between these two the both legal mothers we're going to pick between them blonde versus levy  it's not the legal lines it's the actual facts that control that's not the facts here so there was they didn't they didn't take a moment there's not one line there that addressed ordinance they just simply said look at johnson versus calvert and then footnote fourteen the court of appeal said johnson our supreme court says this is consistent with our policy and we assume therefore th constitutional the case then have the issue before it and they didn't address a single thing here where is there any any date by the way they did affirm the family courts construction of the statute that it doesn't matter what happens to these children he may want to give them away he may not want them he may not be able to care for them that it's irrelevant under the statute they firm that we don't have a pullman issue here we know what the state law is both that both the family part and the court of appeal said no pohlmann issues because it doesn't even matter we're going to call an intended parent w we're going to confer sole parentage on this man even though he said may say he doesn't want them wherever the death of discussion raised the constitutional issues you don't like what they said about the constitutional issues you don't think they analyzed them properly but the constitutional issues  ready link saying that there's no precludes of effect of what the court of appeal did because there was no actual proceedings there was no actual litigation we say we have all these facts they said no hearings we ha link is not an actual litigation of the issue and to have some court of appeal pretend that we litigated it this court has to really scrutinize whether in fact these children and their mother was given an actual ability to litigate those issues clearly it wasn't in lower court clearly or on or is asking the question well is the band aid or attempted band aid that was offered by the court of appeal sufficient to satisfy ready like we as it isn't let me ask a different question do you agree or disagree that cook had the opportunity to present a federal claims in the state proceeding them and they didn't decide them you decision you can't preclusion unless there was actual determination of the issues there was no hearing there was no trial it was that there was a trial court who said we won't even listen to you and i don't know i won't even read your counter claim because i'm not allowed to under the statute and the court of appeal affirmed that court and said that that's a proper interpretation of that statute and did this band aid thing and said which came out seven days after the oral argument and said look at johnson versus calvert that resolves it all johnson versus calvert simply resolve the state court that was never a mystery it was never a doubt as to what the state court wall was the question from beginning to end was is it constitutional did it violate the children substantive due process rights their equal protection rights that this is all public policy even though the supreme court never addressed the constitutional issues how is that being heard this is this means having an opportunity to be heard doesn't mean you get to file a complaint and then they throw it in the waste paper basket and that's what happened in this case that's not an opportunity to be heard this is actually a very important issue not just for this case before all that against in a federal court if a state court refuses absolute look at what happened here the state court refused to do its job we're in a federal court simultaneously at the same time and federal jord judge says i know that the state court did not entertain the issues and refused to but i'm going to assume that someday someone in the state court will address these issues and it never happened judge if you have any questions i'll answer them otherwise i'll reserve my time of division of time i on that at that point yes your honor i'm going to be using five minutes and each of my colleagues or the advocates can be operator or using five minutes  the court of appeal addressed at page one seventy five in the transcript each and every one of the constitutional arguments that were raised by the appellant that is now raised in this court as well that was raised in the federal district court so the contention that the court of appeal second just the court of appeal for california did not address those issues this is flat out wrong and it's a matter of the record very simple secondarily the contention that the lower co the trial court in california didn't contain didn't address any of the issues that were raised is not accurate and the court of appeal observed that to mean the second district court of appeal what happened is the court rejected considered and we've checked it the claims of the appellant in the trial court that's that's what the records reflect but before we even get to that issue where we get to that issue is the principal issue of standing that issues right as to the state statute and the action in the state court she was a party in the trial court and she had she had an opportunity to be heard in relation to that but that's a different all right so to get there see has to leapfrog to the position that i am a parent therefore my rights have been invaded she can't do that she can't do that for a multitude of reasons so she doesn't even get to the very first element of standing in terms of invasion of her right she has no constitutional rights the court might make an observation that sees not cited a single federal statute that confers a right on her in terms of being the mother she is not cited a single constitutional provision that confers a right on her she is not cited a single case that the says that she is the mother in this case she resorts to what she resorts to is mean the standard of them another words you don't become a mother because of history the rights protected as a mother are historically protected but since the point is and i know the earlier case the point about leap frogging leap frog and that's what she's doing she's leapfrogging to that point this carries right on into the other issue is going in a move on real quick in tombs of preventable standing the main fact here is that the supreme court has repeatedly said issues of domestic relations issues of domestic relations belong in the state courts and why not belong in the state court because the state courts are those courts that are more appropriately quick to deal with these issues domestic relations they also belong in state courts because as the court may observe in the federalist papers madison james madison recognized matters of domestic relations are a product of state courts and need to carve out my time for my my politics thank you good morning your honor is may please the core daniel bearer for the three county of los angeles defendants harding guus and hauser and logan and i'll take up the baton for younger abstention and i want to address a subject that cooke doesn't address in the reply brief hasn't addressed in oral argument and that is the way the district court's conception of the younger  into judy dice and pennzoil this course decision in age see dealing with domestic relations clicks into julie dice this is a statute which links from contract to judgment it's a statute that is uniquely that deals with silver seatings concerning orders uniquely in furtherance of the court's authority and so it does fit within the third category moving to issue  preclusion all the five elements of issue preclusion under california law and reading link are met here they work quite yet when we filed our breeze because it wasn't final now the california stream court rejected pill didn't really address the constitutional issues because it relied on a prior case and calvin that talks about the state policy as opposed to the constitutional  so what's your response to that is a paragraph or is footnote fourteen in the c m versus mc case which mr cassidy cited repeatedly says that we look at johnson versus calvert as saying this is all part of california policy and california policy includes federal constitution no issues but that is not the only element of the cm's analysis of the federal constitutional issues it goes on for some twelve pages analyzing each one of the federal constitutional claims that ms cook raises in this case and saying not just based not just blindly following johnson versus calvert's but independently reviewing those issues and no your honor because in ready link the court disdain turman that the district court had erroneous lee abstained under younger and said that's not the end of it we can also look at issue preclusion and it independently went through the issues of issue preclu good morning may it please the court current crane deputy attorney general for the state defendants and i'd like to talk about something new sovereign immunity although we agree that the federal court the district court did properly apply the younger abstention doctrine here and i'll be happy to address why we believe that was correct at the end of my short five minutes by i'd like to start with sovereign immunity because it is unique to the state defendants as this court knows don't read addressing each of her constitutional claims the fact that the court in those fourteen pages the court of appeal analyzes and applies calvert and that's exactly what the court of appeal is supposed to do it is supposed to apply supreme court precedent and with abstention as a support notice the eleventh amendment bars suits against states in federal court unless the state has unequivocally consented here obviously as i'm disputing we don't have unequivocal consent under the export of young exception to sovereign immunity a state official may be sued in federal court for prospective injunctive relief for alleged violations of federal law however there is an important exception to this party  exception and that is the requirement as that work in the x party young opinion that state official have some sort of a connection some sort of connection to enforcement of the alleged unconstitutional statute judgment and in this case it's helpful to go straight to the request for relief in the federal complaint at the very end there's one paragraph that pertains to the state defendants and that paragraph in the request for relief seeks for things from the state defendants number one an injunction restraining them from enforcing seventy nine sixty two an injunction restraining them from enforcing the family court judgement an injunction restraining them from issuing birth certificates that list the in the now father that neither the governor nor the director of the department of public health has any if any of those claims for the same reason right correct correct the the the harm here is the family court judgement right only way for them and i think the court is obviously understands is the only way for the plaintiff to obtain the relief that she seeks is to obtain a reversal of the family court judgement that is her harm the governor is not in charge of enforcing the judgment the court is so all of the relief s only be obtained from the court and finally in terms of this issue new birth certificates other director of the department of public health although the state registrar which is connected to the department does have the authority to issue corrected birth certificates this is something that's not her brief under health and safety code section one hundred two seventy five the state registrar can only do that once it has a certified copy of a court order establishing a new parent so again we don't have that with it all goes back to the family court judgement the younger abstention doctrine five requirements must be met in order for it to apply but fundamentally subject matter jurisdiction must first exist which doesn't exist in this case as of the state defendants do sovereignity but assuming it did exist i'll jump to the second requirement which i think is what's at issue is does this case fall within one of the the nerves three categories of cases number one is this was a state court action a criminal in foresman action no i mean a criminal action no was it a civil and force an action yes it was the state court action filed by moore was specifically filed pursuant to seventy nine sixty two to enforce the terms of a circus agreement it was a summary judicial proceeding it was an enforcement proceeding also the the third category of cases according to the ninth circuit that a state court action must fall within in order for the federal court to abstain is and i'm just going to quote because it's a bit complicated the state court proceeding must be of the type that involves certain orders that are uniquely in furtherance of the state courts ability to perform its judicial function and that's relying on the sprint case here or the state court action falls within that category because a finding that seventy nine sixty two was unconstitutional by the federal court were completely up and the family court judgment that relied on seventy nine sixty two so were a federal court to find that seventy nine sixty two is unconstitutional that would up and the current damage or judgment in this case which would therefore make it impossible for the stake or to enforce its own order so therefore for that reason in this case does this case the fact the state court action does fall within one of the three categories cases that sprint requires in order for younger to apply the other categories of younger i think if you go without saying that this is that us that state court did fall within number one where the state judicial proceedings ongoing at the time the federal case was filed we all know they were number number two i've already addressed number two and number three the state court proceeding proceedings implicate an important state interest as my colleagues have argued they do it's a determination of parent action family relations domestic relations are uniquely within the jurisdiction of the state courts in our country number four do the state judicial proceedings do they allow did they allow the litigant to raise her federal challenges yes they did in this case cook raised a time claim i think it was a sixty five five page counterclaim and response to more seventy nine sixty two petition she raised every single federal constitutional cause of action that she raised in the federal case in her state court cannot claim i read the transcript last night of the hearing before the family court judge on february eighth in feb ninth twenty sixteen job so we did consider constitutional challenges she denied them she didn't she didn't provide a written analysis of why she's denying them but she denied them and the court of appeal than as we know spent fourteen pages specifically addressing each federal constitutional cause of action raised and cooks counterclaim the fifth requirement of younger you a lot to cover number one the district the family court did not in any way shape or form consider any constitutional issue ever mentioned it and in fact the record shows that she said she never even it was filed the counterclaim she said she didn't see it she said she didn't look at it and then when she said that she would deny it she said if it exists i denied ok so so look look just put that in context for one minute is what was agreed and c m goes into court and tries to enforce it under the statute it's not forcible because it was in the right under california law she is the mother under the various statutes she is it just have to be genetically related because she gave birth she is the mother so you have to understand this case in the context of him coming to court and using this agreement to terminate the children's rights all of them including a right not to be commodified sold given to somebody who is going to give them away and her rights and let him play you know anything the severity of allegations what's going on that the just record in it that the family court in this case refused to look at your honor look at what happened here while a federal court or wherever the talking are at this point she's giving can she in theory go into the court in georgia and litigate this i'm having trouble with a federal court right now that's telling me that they talk judge what we learned was that when the nurses from the hospital brought the children to georgia because they didn't trust him to do or see an understanding as or make a pro that one of the nurses from the hospital kaiser hospital called the state and told the state that he's not competent he says state basically state stepped in the state loop came and visited but then took no action that to rest captain versus drysdale there is no question even even the district court in this case held that melissa cook had standing to litigate the rights of the children not just based on the fact that she was the this is not a case that involves a state trying to enforce its judgments like the kind of case we're judgment is entered pennzoil and the state is saying you execute on this judgment if you want to appeal you have to post a bond it's not like that at all this we came into this case the case wasn't over we came in the cases were filed simultaneously and as far as in as far is it the the defendant state defends are concerned they are the people who have the administrative obligation where are we entitled to get a declaratory judgment and we don't even have to have an injunction for this court to have the proper jurisdiction but we do ask for injunction to tell them that they have to change the birth certificate at that point your honor i think that she can go into georgia and she can go to georgia and say we have to ask the court to exercise its parens pottery jurisdiction and she doesn't have to the mother of these children does not have to wait for the state of georgia to take action she can go into a court herself and ask them to look at what's in their best interest and she would have standing to say i'll take the children like she offered to do if he can't do it or he's having them if they're there this situation is harmful to them i can give them a better home but as long as we have this order i don't see how we have a federal court that says we're not going to decide the constitution issues we're just going to accept the public