Document: 442 U.S. 415 99 S.Ct. 2371 60 L.Ed.2d 994 Hilmar G. MOORE et al., Appellants,v.John Pleasant SIMS al. No. 78-6. Argued Feb. 26, 1979. Decided June 11, Syllabus When school authorities reported suspected abuse of one adult appellees' children to the Texas Department Human Resources (Department), took temporary custody all three minor and instituted suit in Harris County, Tex., Juvenile Court for their emergency protection under Title 2 Family Code. The entered an ex parte order giving Department. Appellees then filed a motion modify order, but when they were unable obtain immediate hearing, habeas corpus petition County rather than renewing or appealing order. court ultimately transferring venue Montgomery Court, at judge's direction another suit, which was also transferred while continued Rather attempting expedite hearing court, appellees action Federal District broadly challenging constitutionality interrelated parts 2's statutory scheme defining contours parent-child relationship permissible areas modes state intervention. denied restraining later held that court's orders had expired be returned parents. new issued show-cause writ attachment ordering child being abused delivered his grandparents. countered by filing second application addressed this granted. A three-judge thereafter preliminarily enjoined other defendants from prosecuting any challenged statutes until final determination court. Subsequently, made, concluding abstention doctrine Younger v. Harris, 401 37, 91 746, 27 669, unwarranted because litigation "multifaceted," involved children, product procedural confusion courts, addressing merits constitutional challenges. Held: In light pending proceedings, should not have exercised its jurisdiction abstained supra, which, counseling federal-court there is proceeding, reflects strong policy against federal intervention judicial processes absence great irreparable injury plaintiff. Pp. 423-435. (a) basic concern—the threat our system posed displacement courts those National Government—is applicable only criminal proceedings civil important interests are involved. Huffman Pursue, Ltd., 420 592, 95 1200, 43 482. As case Huffman, State here party removal child-abuse context is, like public nuisance statute "in aid closely related statutes." Id., 604, S.Ct., 1208. P.423 (b) While Court's reference as "multifaceted" reason refusing unclear, it appears meant either challenge could been raised that, view breadth such challenge, inappropriate. However, with respect pertinent inquiry whether afford adequate opportunity raise claims, law no barriers. And complex has traditionally militated favor abstention, it. 424-428. (c) There distinct considerations counsel broad-based challenges made statutes. First concern Railroad Comm'n Pullman Co., 312 496, 61 643, 85 L.Ed. 971, will forced interpret without benefit state-court consideration therefore circumstances where predicated on reading binding may discredited time, dangers increasing challenge. Second need concrete controversy, enhanced scope demonstrated instant case. third government "the needless obstruction domestic states forestalling construing applying own Alabama Federation Labor McAdory, 325 450, 471, 65 1384, 1394, 89 1725. Almost every challenge—and particularly far ranging here—offers narrowing constructions might obviate problem intelligently mediate concerns interests. Pp.428-430 (d) With argument delay affording them inappropriate, injunction did fact address proceeding unnecessary release already placed pursuant Gerstein Pugh, 103, 854, 54, distinguished. Furthermore, cannot distinguished conventional claims bad faith sources harm; authorities' conduct evinced and, confusion, faith. 430-432. (e) faith, remain limited grounds Younger. Here, claim properly motivated desire harass " 'flagrantly patently violative express prohibitions clause, sentence paragraph,' U.S., 611, 1211. Nor present "extraordinary necessary can shown even usual prerequisites harassment," Younger, 53, 754. Unless protect creates great, immediate, harm warranting intervention, concluded posture time action, warranted. 432-435. 438 F.Supp. 1179, reversed remanded. David H. Young, Austin, appellants. Windell E. C. Porter, Fort Worth, appellees. Mr. Justice REHNQUIST opinion Court. 1 Code enacted 1973 first went into effect January 1, 1974. It amended substantially following year. defines This presents broad scheme. raises novel questions correlative rights duties parents, suits affecting relationship. litigation, involving instances abuse, initiated 1976. however, below, find various unconstitutional face applied. We noted probable jurisdiction. 439 925, 306, 58 317 (1978). appeal question conclude done so accordingly reverse remand instructions complaint dismissed. 3 * case, husband wife seek declaration unconstitutionally infringe family integrity.1 precipitated who (formerly Public Welfare) March 25, 1976, child, Paul Sims, suffered physical injuries apparently inflicted aggravated father visit Osborne Elementary School Houston, Tex. To Sims investigate extent injuries, (hereinafter Department) same day school, examined physician. doctor found battered, hospitalized 11 days. 4 On decided institute § 17.02 Code.2 after removed school. Pursuant 17.04 Code, Judge gave Department.3 5 Five days later, appeared moved proper procedure terminating Department's custody.4 required law, temporarily unavailable clerk attorney. renew court.5 April 5, date neighboring residents, he county. See Tex.Fam.Code Ann., Tit. 2, 11.04(a) (1975). At direction, see, 17.05(b)(2) (Supp.1978-1979), "Suit Affecting Parent-Child Relationship" authorized 11.02, County. addition, judge continuing children.6 6 actual knowledge County.7 indication effort county; request early trial appellate courts. re Stuart, 544 S.W.2d 821 (Tex.Civ.App.1976). Instead, 19, United States Southern Texas, thereby two months maneuvers both 7 20, preliminary set May 5. received notice 22, suspended. 8 4, before scheduled Simses system, moving file original Civil Appeals. want 9 next day, although pursuing requesting consider 2. 14, 11.02 21, purposes service reset 21. granted enjoining That October 12, 1977, subject appeal. 10 After 669 (1971), due process surveyed virtually aspect Texas. Dept. Welfare, 1189-1195. Since we never embarked survey, do recount here. II Appellants argue principles supra. doctrine, counsels Samuels Mackell, 66, 69, 764, 766, 688 (1971). articulated recognized 482 (1975), concern—that fully existence these conditions, presence vital enforcement contempt Juidice Vail, 430 327, 97 1211, 51 376 (1977), vindication "important policies safeguarding fiscal integrity [public assistance] programs," Trainor Hernandez, 431 434, 444, 1911, 1918, 52 486 determines applicability Younger-Huffman bar institution action.8 12 well-established stay hand proceedings. 13 "Younger, counterpart apply today, course allow cases finds conducted ' "flagrantly paragraph, whatever manner whomever it." 1212. 14 rely expressly established exceptions finding inappropriate Rather, warranted taken "multifaceted"; "there single plaintiffs look relief grounds." F.Supp., 1187. 15 "Many actions involve proceeding. Certainly these, about abstention." Ibid. (footnote omitted). 16 specifically alluded allegations regarding Child Abuse Neglect Report Inquiry System (CANRIS), id., 1187 n. State's computerized collection dissemination information, information neglect. 17 meaning possible interpretations suggest themselves. Under equity, exercise equitable powers if remedy law. Douglas City Jeannette, 319 157, 164, 63 877, 881, 87 1324 (1943). Restated context, exert "had proceedings." 337, 1218 (emphasis original); see Gibson Berryhill, 411 564, 577, 93 1689, 1697, 36 488 (1973). issue reporting misunderstanding nature inquiry. does necessarily implicate CANRIS determinative. limits justiciability. point, accommodating forum.9 Certainly, appropriate unless clearly bars interposition claims. 18 intimations decision influenced broader consideration—the 19 "The entire attempts deal viewed integrated whole. part abstain part. would seriously jeopardize hope effective name comity federalism, violence functions protect." 1187.10 20 Thus, suggests more sweeping inverts traditional reasoning. evident number lines different ways, reflect sensitivity primacy interpretation laws cost inherent subsequent invalidation framework. 21 earliest rooted notions equity. 498, 644, 971 (1941), observed dispute implicated "a sensitive area social upon ought enter alternative adjudication open." "resources equity" sufficient accommodate adjustment avoid friction premature adjudication" authoritative 500, 645. Thus evolved abstention: stayed state-law issues central dispute. Frankfurter observed: 22 history equity regard consequences employing extraordinary injunction. many variegated applications supple principle situations brought play. . Few higher discretion chancellor avoidance policies, relates Fenner Boykin, 271 240, 46 492, 70 927; Spielman Motor Co. Dodge, 295 89, 55 678, 79 1322; administration specialized liquidating embarrassed business enterprises, Pennsylvania Williams, 294 176, 380, 841, 96 A.L.R. 1166; authority doubtful regulatory state, Gilchrist Interborough 279 159, 49 282, 73 652 ." 23 statutes, common each figure decision; becomes. concern: time—thus essentially rendering advisory underlying meaningless. Watson Buck, 313 387, 401-402, 962, 966-967, 1416 (1941); 459-461, 1388-1389, 1725 (1945). These increase 24 controversy—a obviously For example, 11.15 provides standard proof shall "preponderance evidence." parental rights, must bear matter burden "clear convincing" evidence. Yet pursued point applied, consequently fact. illustration statutorily preseizure investigative procedures: investigation case.11 461, 1389; Service Wycoff 344 237, 245-246, 236, 241-242, 291 (1952). 25 prompted facial attacks 1394. 26 seriousness interference long consistently confronted requests relief, abide standards restraint go well beyond private jurisprudence." 603, principal expositors case—offers disrupt mediation interjecting themselves disputes, prevent informed evolution tribunals. 445, 1919. price exacted terms outweighed competent adjudicate claims—a postulate repeatedly emphatically rejected. 610-611, 1211-1212. 28 sum, barriers.12 contrary. contend thought entitled one, practical claims.13 judiciary heard theirs theory. theory why 29 framed "second independent basis inapplicability principles" follows: 30 "[W]e note plaintiffs' directed primarily legality children's seizure detention 42-day period hearing. clear defense normal 108 [95 860 9, 54] denial regardless result itself Younger." 31 reliance misplaced. pretrial prosecutor's alone, cause officer. barred interfere prosecutions hold hearings prejudice merits." 54 Here parents occasions since Gerstein. 336-337, 1217-1218, teaching plaintiff press above, presentation claims—in seems 32 distinguish others intervene—traditional hand. simply agree evinces faith; read finding. undeniable. uncertainty 11.11 propriety entering But predictable byproduct much closer diligently sought remedies. 33 Once determined find, nor found, "harassment." credibly claimed 402, 967, quoted 53-54, 754-755. 34 some observation harassment." 755. Perez Ledesma, 82, 85, 674, 676, 701 (1971); Mitchum Foster, 407 225, 230-231, 92 2151, 2155-2156, 705 (1972). most extensive explanation circumstances" constitute Kugler Helfant, 421 117, 1524, 44 Although discussion well. 35 "Only 'extraordinary circumstances' render incapable fairly adjudicating it, relaxation deference accorded process. very circumstances,' course, makes impossible anticipate define situation create warrant else required, 'extraordinary' sense creating extraordinarily pressing merely presenting highly unusual factual situation." 124-125, 1531. 7, 1917 7. 37 gauge exist enjoined. appellants finally issue, successfully obtained possession means enjoin instituting 14. Relationship," documented prayed Sims. directing grandparents, appointing guardian ad litem, setting show record indicates absented home, work, impeding indicate ever surrendered writ. 38 barring further within specific attachment, objections. hard pressed 39 Perhaps anticipating logic, "[t]he Younger," Presumably, conclusion reach greatest importance society, family." again logic important, relations concern. "compelling interest quickly effectively removing victims parents." 1189. unwilling unequal task deciding arise child-welfare litigation.14 40 judgment 41 ordered. 42 STEVENS, whom BRENNAN, STEWART, MARSHALL join, dissenting. Before asking make pass statute, decide legitimate invoking all. suggested between justifies applies; charge guilty traffic violation justify dismissal attack legislation. expressed "is founded premise ordinarily prosecution accused fair rights." 124, 1531, 15. "no citizen member community immune prosecution, good alleged acts," 46, 751, justification rule meritorious, forum. Moreover, carries additional costs "can readily interpreted 'as reflecting negatively ability enforce principles.' 1208, 45 based squarely "that 'opportunity pursue ongoing proceeding.' "1 opportunity, inapplicable. Its comity, recognized, little force vitality "as defense" secured.2 "When filed, duplicative legal disruption justice system; circumstance, principles." Steffel Thompson, 452, 462, 94 1209, 1217, 505. sure, argued whenever rules making interferes operation mechanisms, performing equally performed ante, 427. sort lesser affront federalism over Congress entrusted held, alleged, free bring requirement exhaust remedies.3 requiring my judgment, departing extending logical bounds. "diligent efforts" secure regain children.4 Despite efforts, failed custody, Their "directed hearing" allowed serious deprivation liberty occur.5 47 Welfare Unit ch. Code.6 plaintiff-parents yet receive let alone judge. Had intervened, eventually provided, assuming compliance adversary place. mean appropriate. 48 afforded better served arrangements care. exceptions,7 Simses' nothing question. fitness permanent children. thrust procedures employed gather seize retain formal violated Constitution.8 irrelevant violation. majority otherwise, losing arguing acted initial earlier. proceedings," 330, 1214-1215, 376;9 determinations 50 be, suggests, State, defense, permissive counterclaims. findings contrary.10 party—no how unrelated—in certainly mandate so. Broadening encompass difficult complicate efforts promptly possible. meantime, parents' unit continue. require litigant unwise impractical litigation. "an prosecution." 860, 54.11 unrelated similar If initiate instance—and not12—then coincidence imposing requirement. factor inapplicable, objection deprive right forum choice. Far seriously, deprives vindicate predicate dismissal, entitlement Constitution. 53 telephone report possibly victim abuse. "diligent" unsuccessful where, lost them.13 defective provide portions questioned aspects judgment.14 undisputed rights. "[T]he timely tribunal involved,"15 support dismissal. also—concededly—required Due Process Clause. available accepts, too late meet requirements interim deprivation. By nonetheless, premise, implicitly sanctioning protections agrees, constitutionally required.16 criticism holding invoked easily divisible followed hearing.17 opportunity" able, wished, forward suit. Were today limited, supported prior cases. going prehearing practices, belong. amply concessions State. foreclose I respectfully dissent. nominal parties ease referred Chapter emergencies. Section 17.01 states: "An representative law-enforcement officer, juvenile probation officer take him danger health safety deliver having subtitle, 11.05 code. immediately court." (Supp.1978-1979). seizures provided (1975): "Unless code, delivery care child." "On showing dependent society protection, emotional injury, appoint managing conservator 17.05 (Supp.1978-1979): "(a) An code expires end 10-day restoration parent, guardian, conservator, issuance whichever occurs first. "(b) restored shall: "(1) possession; "(2) direct jurisdiction." 17.06 person persons chapter best Emergency appealable 17.07 (1975); R. W., 545 573 issuing relied (1975 Supp.1978-1979), authorizes "any welfare disagree ambiguous Another effect. Suits vehicles brings change testimony 8, Defendant's Exhibit # 1A, Sworn Statement Rex Downing 65-66. Therefore, contrary suggestion dissent, remotely applies." Post, 435-436. 11.02(b) provides: One matters covered subtitle motion, replead suit." commentator noted, vests range district minors appear Smith, Draftmen's Commentary Tex.Tech.L.Rev. 389, 393 (1974). He notes section adopts liberal approach joinder remedies Tex.Rule Civ.Proc. 51. 11.14, describes relationship, fortifies view. Except otherwise generally." Rule modeled Fed.Rule relevant reply forth counterclaim defendant answer join alternate opposing party." encouraged actions. See, e. g., Gauze Mills Goatley, 119 887, 888 (Tex.Civ.App.1938); Blair Gay, 165 (1870). recent (1976), Appeals indicated full cognizable emergency-removal 575. Hernandez Finley, 471 516 (NDIll.1978), summarily aff'd sub nom. Quern 440 951, 1488, 59 765 (1979), permit dissenters' characterization below violations. perceived comprehensive structure suited resolution Our disagreement choice Likewise, sound commend left 443. Given bifurcation lack framework 1919, identified doctrine. automatically vitiates adequacy line reiteration theme sounded rejected 469-470, 1931-1932 (STEVENS, J., dissenting); 339-340, 1219-1220, (1977) concurring judgment). focused psychiatric examinations, evidence examination administered removal. 1191. proposition put dissenting Brethren, post, 436-437, converts substantive content mere semantical joust. magic term "defense" used connection word intended art. long-past niceties among "defense," "counterclaims," "setoffs," "recoupments," like. stated 1218: "Here abundantly No invoke abstention. failure avail opportunities inadequate." (Footnotes omitted; emphasis original.) brief, "every effort, frustrated denied." Brief 25. During oral argument, responded involvement stating believe below. Tr. Oral Arg. 34. Counsel deficiency misplaced dissent correct bulk analogous violation" relation concerned. separate action. They litigation." 440. consolidating litigating simultaneously prove expeditious, wise, practical. 1189, quoting 338, 1218, 376. comparable 486, led unanimous summary affirmance 765. 462-463, 505; Lake Carriers' Assn. MacMullan, 406 509, 1749, 1756, 257. 751 ("the plaintiff's federally protected eliminated prosecution"). Monroe Pape, 365 167, 183, 81 473, 481, 492; 705; Home Telephone & Telegraph Los Angeles, 227 278, 312, 57 510. through diligent 'fairly pursue' objections." 1188-1189. 1185. suspended, voluntarily, Department, held. Whether serve substantial purport address. Hicks Miranda, 422 332, 2281, 223. addition practices attorney litem appointed conservatorship termination convincing governing hearing; required. inappropriate." "[T]here Fuentes Shevin, 67, 1983, 556. generally Developments Law—Section 1983 Federalism, 90 Harv.L.Rev. 1133, 1318-1319 (1977). 3, separately resolve distinguishing holdings seized detained unconstitutional. Specifically, validity paragraphs 6, Court; "2. use 11.11(a)(4) conjunction longer ten (10) measured deprivation, said provision. "5. 17.03 insofar fails reasonable "6. retained "7. expiration seeks "8. 34.05(c) allowing psychological examinations neglect obtained." App., A-102—A-103. 488. Gibson, conclusion—on challenge—that Board incompetent critical administrative body constituted, hear charges appellees." 1697. us analogous: correct—and accepts least part—that fail comport minimum process, composed Gibson. availability cure de novo undo 577 16, 1697 16. 340-341, 1219-1220 sense, involves implicit remitting defend itself, careful out "[n]o acts." 751. extended one's form

Category: 8