Opinion ID: 3013445
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pending Proceeding

Text: Ensuring the provision of child support is a function particular to the states. New Jersey law provides New 8 Jersey courts with the authority to order and direct the payment of child support. In part, the statute reads: Pending any matrimonial action brought in this State or elsewhere, or after judgment of divorce or maintenance, whether obtained in this State or elsewhere, the court may make such order . . . as to the care, custody, education and maintenance of the children, or any of them, as the circumstances of the parties and the nature of the case shall render fit, reasonable and just . . . . N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2A:34-23. Each plaintiff here is under a child support order. Each order requires continual involvement by the New Jersey courts. Under New Jersey law, parents are obligated to provide support until a child is emancipated. Newburgh v. Arrigo, 443 A.2d 1031, 1037 (N.J. 1982).7 As such, plaintiffs have been, and will remain, under their child support orders for many years. Throughout the duration of the order, the New Jersey courts are charged with monitoring, enforcing and modifying the child support obligations. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2A:17-56.9a (providing for review and modification of child support orders); N.J.R. 5:7- 5 (providing for monitoring and enforcement of child support orders, including the institution of contempt hearings if obligors fail to make payments); N.J.R. 5:25-3 (explaining the jurisdiction, duties, powers and responsibilities of Child Support Hearing Officers). As is apparent, the New Jersey courts have performed their delegated functions with respect to plaintiffs’ child support orders. Plaintiffs contend that, because they are not currently appearing or scheduled to appear in any particular child _________________________________________________________________ 7. Emancipation can occur upon a variety of events taking place. The [a]ttainment of age [eighteen] establishes prima facie, but not conclusive, proof of emancipation. Newburgh , 443 A.2d at 1037. As such, parents may be required to provide for a child who is older than eighteen, including contributing toward the costs of higher education. Id. at 1038-39; see also Gac v. Gac, 796 A.2d 951, 955-58 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2002) (explaining that a father may have to contribute toward the costs of his daughter’s college education). 9 support hearing, including a contempt hearing, there is no ongoing or pending proceeding.8 This argument may carry weight in other types of suits. But given plaintiffs’ specific claims here and the particular nature of child support orders, the argument is unavailing.9 In seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, plaintiffs focus retrospectively and prospectively. To the extent plaintiffs address past contempt proceedings, review is barred by Younger. Once a party has appeared in state court and has had an opportunity to present [its] federal claims in the state proceedings, a federal court normally should refrain from hearing the claims. Juidice v. Vail, 430 U.S. 327, 337 (1977) (emphasis in original). Theparty . . . must exhaust his state appellate remedies before seeking relief in the District Court, unless he can bring himself within one of the exceptions specified in Younger. Huffman, 420 U.S. at 608.10 Plaintiffs here had ample opportunity to raise any constitutional claims at their state contempt hearings. They also could have appealed any adverse decision to higher courts. See infra Section III.C. Instead, they impermissibly attempted to bypass the state system and to seek relief in federal court. Addressing prospective injunctive relief, plaintiffs’ requested remedies will undeniably interfere with pending _________________________________________________________________ 8. The adjectives ongoing and pending are used interchangeably in the caselaw. References to ongoing or pending proceedings are meant to distinguish state proceedings which have already commenced from those which are merely incipient or threatened. Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 607 (1975). 9. In contrast to child support orders, which endure for many years and require continual state court involvement, most criminal and civil actions are single, discrete matters, which have easily identifiable starting and endpoints. That state courts continually monitor, enforce and modify child support orders makes these particular procedures unique. 10. Similarly, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine restricts lower federal court review of state-court judgments and evaluation of constitutional claims that are inextricably intertwined with the state court’s [decision] in a judicial proceeding. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 483 n.16 (1983); see also Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923). Because here we affirm abstention under Younger, we do not address whether the Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies. 10 state proceedings. In New Jersey, child support orders and the mechanisms for monitoring, enforcing and modifying them comprise a unique system in continual operation. Each plaintiff here is party to an open case that will not terminate until the child support order is finally discharged. The New Jersey courts retain continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over these matters, whether the claims are intrastate or interstate, see N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2A:4-30.65 et seq., and the state courts constantly monitor plaintiffs’ compliance with their orders. The New Jersey Probation Division, an arm of the state judiciary, is charged with oversight and reporting failures in meeting support obligations. N.J.R. 5:7-5. The Probation Division and the New Jersey courts are conferred with authority to ensure that payments are made and to remedy any failures to pay. Id.11 A New Jersey Superior Court judge may _________________________________________________________________ 11. The extent of the state courts’ involvement in child support matters is exemplified in New Jersey Court Rule 5:7-5. The Rule is entitled: Failure to Pay; Enforcement by the Court or a Party; Income Withholding for Child Support; Suspension and Revocation of Licenses for Failure to Support Dependents; Execution of Assets for Child Support; Child Support Judgments and Post-Judgment Interest. N.J.R. 5:7-5. As the title suggests, the Rule provides for various means by which the New Jersey courts, and the Probation Division in specific, can secure the payment of child support obligations. Of particular note is the continual monitoring by the Probation Division, which may lead to the institution of contempt hearings if a failure to pay is not quickly remedied. In part, the Rule reads: (a) Contempt and Relief in Aid of Litigant’s Rights. If a person fails to make payments or provide health insurance coverage as directed by an order or judgment, the Probation Division responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance shall notify such person by mail that such failure may result in the institution of contempt proceedings. Upon the accumulation of a support arrearage equal to or in excess of the amount of support payable for 14 days or failure to provide health insurance coverage as ordered, the Probation Division shall file a verified statement setting forth the facts establishing disobedience of the order or judgment. The court . . . may then, in its discretion, institute contempt proceedings . . . and an aggrieved party, or the Probation Division on that party’s behalf, may apply to the court for relief . . . . N.J.R. 5:7-5. 11 revise[ ] and alter orders from time to time as circumstances may require. N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2A:34-23. Any party, including plaintiffs here, at any time, may request modification of a support order. See N.J. Stat. Ann. S 2A:17-56.9a. For purposes of Younger, such a comprehensive and fluid system designed to address the ever-present and everchanging realities of child support orders must be viewed as a whole, rather than as individual, discrete hearings. Plaintiffs have acknowledged as much. Their request for prospective injunctive relief acknowledges that because of their indigency and continued arrearages, they will be subject to future ongoing contempt proceedings. Thus their request for federal court intervention to prevent alleged future constitutional violations constitutes impermissible interference with pending state proceedings. This holding is in accord with Younger. As the Supreme Court has explained, part of the purpose of Younger abstention is to avoid duplicative legal proceedings and the disruption of the state . . . justice system. Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 462 (1974); see also Juidice, 430 U.S. at 336. Federal court ruling and relief here would address issues that plaintiffs can raise in their own cases currently pending in the New Jersey courts. Federal ruling and relief also would interfere with and disrupt the New Jersey court system, especially if the federal court must monitor and enforce the state courts’ compliance with a federal order. See Parker, 626 F.2d at 8 (stating that a federal order requiring state courts to provide appointed counsel and other asserted due process rights would necessitate continual federal court monitoring of the state courts). Moreover, a federal court ruling could be interpreted as reflecting negatively upon the state court’s ability to enforce constitutional principles, a suggestion the Younger doctrine seeks to avoid. Steffel, 415 U.S. at 462.