Court Opinion

ID: 9466911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:32:21.887746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:40:02.411222
License: Public Domain

MERRITT, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I agree with the result reached by the Court and with the conclusion that the abstention doctrine of Younger v. Harris is applicable. I disagree, however, that the doctrine of Younger v. Harris should be applied where the plaintiff does not seek to enjoin a pending state case. The existence of a pending state case is a crucial part of the Younger abstention doctrine. Here it seems to me that the relief sought would affect pending state cases. It would affect all those cases now pending before the defendant judges involving contempt proceedings against fathers who have allegedly failed to pay required alimony or child support.