Opinion ID: 686479
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State Proceedings Involved Important State Interests

Text: 26 Next, Kelm does not specifically argue that the state proceedings do not involve important state interests. He instead argues first, that Younger does not apply to civil rights actions and second, that because the challenged pre-judgment statutes do not affect the merits of the underlying divorce case they do not per se involve important state interests. First, Younger was a civil rights action and we have consistently extended its principles to actions filed pursuant to Sec. 1983. See, e.g. Mann, at 104-05. Further, although the challenged procedures are pre-judgment, Rule 75(H) allocates property and child custody during the pendency of divorce actions, and Sec. 3113.31 offers protection from domestic violence. Ohio has great state interests in regulating domestic violence 6 and in protecting property from both parties to a pending divorce. These traditional domestic relations issues qualify as important state issues under the second element of Younger. In fact, we recently affirmed a decision to abstain where the underlying issues involved domestic relations because domestic relations proceedings involve paramount state interests. Id. 27 Further, the Supreme Court recently outlined policy considerations supporting exclusive state jurisdiction over divorce matters. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468 (1992). In Ankenbrandt, although the Court narrowed the scope of the traditional domestic relations exception, the Court did not overrule its prior decisions holding that domestic relations is a traditional area of state concern. See, e.g. Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415, 435, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 2383, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979). In fact, the Ankenbrandt Court noted the special proficiency developed by state tribunals over the past century and a half in handling the issues that arise in the granting of such decrees. --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2215 (emphasis added). Here, the challenged statutes affect the underlying divorce and involve important state interests thus satisfying the second Younger criteria. 28