1See Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923)

and D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 482 (1983), which,

together, preclude federal courts from reviewing state court

final judgements, and from considering claims that are

inextricably intertwined with those raised in the state court

proceeding.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Barbara Ann Haines

v. Civil No. 08-cv-505-SM

New Hampshire Department of

Health and Human Services,

Division for Children, Youth,

and Families, et al.

O R D E R

Barbara Haines filed a complaint in this Court challenging

the New Hampshire state courts’ termination of her parental

rights and visitation with her children (document no. 1). I

issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the

complaint be dismissed, pursuant to the Rooker-Feldman1 doctrine,

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (document no. 3). Haines

then filed two motions to amend her complaint (document nos. 4 &

Case 1:08-cv-00505-SM Document 6 Filed 04/28/09 Page 1 of 4
2These two motions are largely, but not entirely,

duplicative. I have considered all of the allegations set forth

in both motions in rendering this decision.

3I note that Haines also challenged the constitutionality of

22 U.S.C. § 287(a), the statute that authorizes the President of

the United States to appear before the United Nations on behalf

of the country. Haines’ challenge, relying only on bald

assertions and supposition, appears to be a taxpayer lawsuit

challenging the United States’ involvement with the United

Nations on the basis that the United Nations has a mission to

bring Communism to the Western world, and, along with it,

violations of Haines’ rights. Because I find that this claim

amounts to no more than unsupported conclusions, I will not

consider it further.

2

5)2 which sought to add claims to this action alleging that

defendants violated her First Amendment right to the free

exercise of her religion, and violated the First Amendment’s

Establishment Clause, by terminating her parental rights in

response to her religious objection to undergoing a mental health

evaluation that was based on principles of secular psychology or

psychiatry. Haines also challenged, on First Amendment grounds,

other decisions made by defendants concerning Haines’ visitation

and communication with her children and the medical treatment of

her children while in the defendant’s custody, and the closing of

child custody proceedings on the basis that the denial of a

public trial by jury violated her Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh

Amendment rights.3

Case 1:08-cv-00505-SM Document 6 Filed 04/28/09 Page 2 of 4
3

The Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as I stated in my Report and

Recommendation, deprives this Court of jurisdiction over claims

that have been raised and finally decided in the state courts,

and also over claims that are inextricably intertwined with those

raised in the state court proceedings. See Rooker v. Fid. Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16 (1923); D.C. Ct. App. v. Feldman, 460

U.S. 462, 482 (1983); Picard v. Members of Employee Ret. Bd., 275

F.3d 139, 145 (1st Cir. 2001). Claims are inextricably

intertwined if the federal claim succeeds only to the extent that

the state court wrongly decided the issues before it. See

Picard, 275 F.3d at 145. Where the relief plaintiff seeks would,

if granted, effectively void the state court’s judgment,

plaintiff’s claims are barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. 

See Hill v. Town of Conway, 193 F.3d 33, 39 (1st Cir. 1999).

To find in Haines’ favor in this matter, the Court here

would have to find that the state court’s determinations of

Haines’ parental rights and visitation were made in violation of

Haines’ First Amendment rights, and are therefore based on an

unconstitutional application of state statutes to Haines in the

state court proceedings. This is precisely the result that the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine requires this Court to avoid. 

Case 1:08-cv-00505-SM Document 6 Filed 04/28/09 Page 3 of 4
4

Accordingly, I find that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine

deprives this Court of jurisdiction over the additional claims

presented in the motions to amend. The motions to amend

(document nos. 4 & 5) are therefore DENIED, and my previously

issued Report and Recommendation (document no. 3) remains

unchanged.

SO ORDERED.

____________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: April 28, 2009

cc: Barbara Ann Haines, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00505-SM Document 6 Filed 04/28/09 Page 4 of 4