moore
sims
argued
february
decided
june
school
authorities
reported
suspected
abuse
one
adult
appellees
children
texas
department
human
resources
department
department
took
temporary
custody
three
appellees
minor
children
instituted
suit
harris
county
juvenile
emergency
protection
title
texas
family
code
juvenile
entered
emergency
ex
parte
order
giving
temporary
custody
department
appellees
filed
motion
modify
ex
parte
order
unable
obtain
immediate
hearing
filed
habeas
corpus
petition
harris
county
rather
renewing
motion
appealing
ex
parte
order
harris
county
ultimately
entered
order
transferring
venue
montgomery
county
juvenile
harris
county
judge
direction
department
filed
another
suit
also
transferred
montgomery
county
temporary
custody
children
continued
department
rather
attempting
expedite
hearing
montgomery
county
appellees
filed
action
federal
district
broadly
challenging
constitutionality
interrelated
parts
title
statutory
scheme
defining
contours
relationship
permissible
areas
modes
state
intervention
district
denied
appellees
temporary
restraining
order
later
held
state
temporary
orders
expired
children
returned
parents
department
filed
new
suit
montgomery
county
issued
order
writ
attachment
ordering
child
suspected
abused
delivered
temporary
custody
grandparents
appellees
countered
filing
federal
district
second
application
temporary
restraining
order
addressed
montgomery
county
juvenile
granted
district
thereafter
preliminarily
enjoined
department
defendants
filing
prosecuting
state
suit
challenged
state
statutes
final
determination
subsequently
determination
made
concluding
abstention
doctrine
younger
harris
unwarranted
litigation
multifaceted
involved
custody
children
product
procedural
confusion
state
courts
thereafter
addressing
merits
constitutional
challenges
held
light
pending
state
proceedings
federal
district
exercised
jurisdiction
abstained
doctrine
younger
harris
supra
counseling
abstention
pending
state
proceeding
reflects
strong
policy
federal
intervention
state
judicial
processes
absence
great
immediate
irreparable
injury
federal
plaintiff
pp
basic
concern
threat
federal
system
posed
displacement
state
courts
national
government
applicable
state
criminal
proceedings
also
civil
proceedings
important
state
interests
involved
huffman
pursue
case
huffman
state
party
state
proceedings
temporary
removal
child
context
like
public
nuisance
statute
involved
huffman
aid
closely
related
criminal
statutes
district
reference
litigation
multifaceted
reason
refusing
abstention
unclear
appears
reference
meant
either
appellees
constitutional
challenge
raised
pending
state
proceedings
view
breadth
challenge
abstention
inappropriate
however
respect
pertinent
inquiry
whether
state
proceedings
afford
adequate
opportunity
raise
constitutional
claims
texas
law
appears
raise
procedural
barriers
breadth
challenge
complex
state
statutory
scheme
traditionally
militated
favor
abstention
pp
three
distinct
considerations
counsel
abstention
challenges
made
state
statutes
first
concern
railroad
pullman
federal
forced
interpret
state
law
without
benefit
consideration
therefore
circumstances
constitutional
determination
predicated
reading
statute
binding
state
courts
may
discredited
time
dangers
increasing
breadth
challenge
second
need
concrete
case
controversy
concern
also
enhanced
scope
challenge
one
demonstrated
instant
case
third
concern
threat
federal
system
government
posed
needless
obstruction
domestic
policy
forestalling
state
action
construing
applying
statutes
alabama
state
federation
labor
mcadory
almost
every
constitutional
challenge
particularly
one
far
ranging
involved
offers
opportunity
narrowing
constructions
might
obviate
constitutional
problem
intelligently
mediate
federal
constitutional
concerns
state
interests
pp
respect
appellees
argument
delay
affording
hearing
state
made
younger
abstention
inappropriate
federal
injunction
fact
address
state
proceeding
unnecessary
obtain
release
children
already
placed
appellees
custody
pursuant
order
gerstein
pugh
distinguished
furthermore
argument
distinguished
conventional
claims
bad
faith
sources
irreparable
harm
case
state
authorities
conduct
evinced
bad
faith
confusion
confusion
bad
faith
pp
absence
bad
faith
remain
limited
grounds
applying
younger
claim
properly
made
state
proceedings
motivated
desire
harass
challenged
statute
flagrantly
patently
violative
express
constitutional
prohibitions
every
clause
sentence
paragraph
huffman
supra
present
case
extraordinary
circumstances
necessary
irreparable
injury
shown
even
absence
usual
prerequisites
bad
faith
harassment
younger
supra
unless
held
every
attachment
issued
protect
child
creates
great
immediate
irreparable
harm
warranting
intervention
properly
concluded
state
proceedings
posture
time
federal
action
federal
intervention
warranted
pp
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
burger
white
blackmun
powell
joined
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
brennan
stewart
marshall
joined
post
david
young
assistant
attorney
general
texas
argued
cause
appellants
brief
john
hill
attorney
general
david
kendall
first
assistant
attorney
general
steve
bickerstaff
kathryn
reed
ann
clarke
snell
assistant
attorneys
general
windell
cooper
porter
argued
cause
appellees
brief
robert
byrd
martin
grimm
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
catherine
mitchell
martin
schwartz
community
action
legal
services
et
al
gary
thomas
robert
steven
ross
east
texas
legal
services
stefan
rosenzweig
jeanette
ganousis
wanda
dixie
et
al
justice
rehnquist
delivered
opinion
title
texas
family
code
enacted
first
went
effect
january
amended
substantially
following
year
title
defines
contours
relationship
permissible
areas
modes
state
intervention
suit
presents
first
broad
constitutional
challenge
interrelated
parts
statutory
scheme
raises
novel
constitutional
questions
correlative
rights
duties
parents
children
state
suits
affecting
relationship
litigation
involving
suspected
instances
child
abuse
initiated
state
authorities
texas
state
courts
state
proceedings
however
enjoined
district
went
find
various
parts
title
unconstitutional
face
applied
noted
probable
jurisdiction
appeal
first
raises
question
whether
light
pending
state
proceedings
federal
district
exercised
jurisdiction
conclude
done
accordingly
reverse
remand
instructions
complaint
dismissed
appellees
case
husband
wife
three
minor
children
seek
declaration
parts
title
texas
family
code
unconstitutionally
infringe
family
integrity
litigation
precipitated
school
authorities
reported
texas
department
human
resources
formerly
state
department
public
welfare
march
child
paul
sims
suffered
physical
injuries
apparently
inflicted
aggravated
father
visit
osborne
elementary
school
houston
tex
protect
sims
children
investigate
extent
injuries
texas
department
human
resources
hereinafter
department
day
took
temporary
custody
three
sims
children
school
examined
physician
doctor
found
children
battered
paul
hospitalized
days
day
took
custody
children
department
decided
institute
suit
emergency
protection
children
texas
family
code
suit
filed
harris
county
juvenile
march
day
children
removed
school
pursuant
texas
code
juvenile
judge
entered
emergency
ex
parte
order
gave
temporary
custody
children
department
five
days
later
appellees
appeared
moved
modify
ex
parte
order
proper
procedure
terminating
department
temporary
custody
hearing
motion
required
texas
law
juvenile
judge
temporarily
unavailable
clerk
returned
motion
appellees
attorney
rather
renew
motion
appeal
emergency
order
appellees
filed
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
harris
county
hearing
petition
held
april
date
juvenile
judge
concluded
venue
properly
neighboring
montgomery
county
children
residents
transferred
proceedings
county
see
tex
fam
code
tit
judge
direction
see
supp
department
filed
suit
affecting
relationship
authorized
also
transferred
montgomery
county
addition
judge
issued
temporary
restraining
order
continuing
department
temporary
custody
children
appellees
actual
knowledge
action
moved
montgomery
county
indication
effort
made
expedite
hearing
county
appellees
request
early
hearing
state
trial
appellate
courts
appeal
temporary
order
see
stuart
tex
civ
app
instead
april
filed
action
district
southern
district
texas
thereby
initiated
two
months
procedural
maneuvers
state
federal
courts
april
temporary
restraining
order
denied
appellees
district
hearing
application
preliminary
injunction
ultimately
set
may
department
received
notice
federal
proceeding
april
pending
state
proceedings
suspended
may
however
one
day
scheduled
federal
hearing
simses
returned
system
moving
file
original
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
texas
civil
appeals
motion
denied
want
jurisdiction
next
day
federal
district
held
temporary
orders
issued
state
expired
children
returned
parents
although
department
enjoined
pursuing
new
action
state
noted
requesting
consider
appellees
constitutional
challenge
title
may
department
file
new
suit
montgomery
county
state
issued
order
writ
attachment
ordering
paul
sims
delivered
temporary
custody
grandparents
set
hearing
may
simses
found
purposes
service
hearing
reset
june
simses
countered
filing
district
second
application
temporary
restraining
order
addressed
montgomery
county
juvenile
granted
may
june
entered
preliminary
injunction
enjoining
department
defendants
filing
prosecuting
state
suit
challenged
state
statutes
final
determination
determination
made
october
subject
appeal
concluding
abstention
doctrine
younger
harris
unwarranted
litigation
multifaceted
involved
custody
children
product
procedural
confusion
state
courts
district
addressed
merits
due
process
challenges
surveyed
virtually
every
aspect
proceedings
texas
sims
state
dept
public
welfare
supp
since
conclude
never
embarked
survey
recount
ii
appellants
argue
federal
district
abstained
case
principles
younger
harris
supra
younger
doctrine
counsels
abstention
pending
state
proceeding
reflects
strong
policy
federal
intervention
state
judicial
processes
absence
great
immediate
irreparable
injury
federal
plaintiff
samuels
mackell
policy
first
articulated
reference
state
criminal
proceedings
recognized
huffman
pursue
basic
concern
threat
federal
system
posed
displacement
state
courts
national
government
also
fully
applicable
civil
proceedings
important
state
interests
involved
case
huffman
state
party
state
proceedings
temporary
removal
child
context
like
public
nuisance
statute
involved
huffman
aid
closely
related
criminal
statutes
existence
conditions
presence
vital
concerns
enforcement
contempt
proceedings
juidice
vail
vindication
important
state
policies
safeguarding
fiscal
integrity
public
assistance
programs
trainor
hernandez
determines
applicability
principles
bar
institution
later
federal
action
huffman
noted
circumstances
federal
need
stay
hand
face
pending
state
proceedings
younger
civil
counterpart
apply
today
course
allow
intervention
cases
district
properly
finds
state
proceeding
motivated
desire
harass
conducted
bad
faith
challenged
statute
flagrantly
patently
violative
express
constitutional
prohibitions
every
clause
sentence
paragraph
whatever
manner
whomever
effort
might
made
apply
many
challenged
actions
taken
state
involve
judicial
proceeding
certainly
pending
state
civil
litigation
even
consider
abstention
ibid
omitted
meaning
district
reference
litigation
multifaceted
unclear
two
possible
interpretations
suggest
established
principles
equity
exercise
equitable
powers
inappropriate
adequate
remedy
law
see
douglas
city
jeannette
restated
abstention
context
federal
exert
jurisdiction
plaintiffs
opportunity
present
federal
claims
state
proceedings
juidice
vail
supra
emphasis
original
see
gibson
berryhill
pertinent
issue
whether
appellees
constitutional
claims
raised
pending
state
proceedings
district
reference
reporting
system
reflects
misunderstanding
nature
inquiry
department
suit
necessarily
implicate
canris
determinative
question
whether
challenge
raised
pending
state
proceedings
subject
conventional
limits
justiciability
point
texas
law
apparently
accommodating
federal
forum
certainly
abstention
appropriate
unless
state
law
clearly
bars
interposition
constitutional
claims
also
intimations
district
opinion
decision
exert
jurisdiction
influenced
broader
novel
consideration
breadth
appellees
challenge
title
entire
statutory
scheme
texas
attempts
deal
problem
child
abuse
challenged
viewed
integrated
whole
consider
part
scheme
abstain
another
part
seriously
jeopardize
hope
effective
statutory
scheme
name
comity
federalism
violence
state
functions
principles
seek
protect
earliest
abstention
cases
rooted
notions
equity
railroad
pullman
observed
dispute
implicated
sensitive
area
social
policy
upon
federal
courts
enter
unless
alternative
adjudication
open
found
resources
equity
sufficient
accommodate
adjustment
avoid
friction
premature
constitutional
adjudication
obviate
need
federal
interpret
state
law
without
benefit
authoritative
interpretation
state
thus
evolved
doctrine
pullman
abstention
federal
action
stayed
pending
determination
state
issues
central
constitutional
dispute
justice
frankfurter
opinion
observed
history
equity
jurisdiction
history
regard
public
consequences
employing
extraordinary
remedy
injunction
many
variegated
applications
supple
principle
situations
brought
play
public
interests
higher
claim
discretion
federal
chancellor
avoidance
needless
friction
state
policies
whether
policy
relates
enforcement
criminal
law
fenner
boykin
spielman
motor
dodge
administration
specialized
scheme
liquidating
embarrassed
business
enterprises
pennsylvania
williams
final
authority
state
interpret
doubtful
regulatory
laws
state
gilchrist
interborough
ibid
second
consideration
need
concrete
case
controversy
concern
also
obviously
enhanced
scope
challenge
demonstrated
instant
case
example
appellees
challenge
texas
family
code
provides
standard
proof
suit
affecting
relationship
shall
preponderance
evidence
district
held
proceeding
involving
parental
rights
state
must
bear
matter
federal
constitutional
law
burden
clear
convincing
evidence
yet
proceeding
pursued
case
point
standard
applied
consequently
appellees
point
injury
fact
second
illustration
challenge
statutorily
authorized
preseizure
investigative
procedures
apparently
preseizure
investigation
case
alabama
state
federation
labor
mcadory
supra
public
service
wycoff
final
concern
prompted
broad
facial
attacks
state
statutes
threat
federal
system
government
posed
needless
obstruction
domestic
policy
forestalling
state
action
construing
applying
statutes
alabama
state
federation
labor
mcadory
supra
seriousness
federal
judicial
interference
state
civil
functions
long
recognized
consistently
required
federal
courts
confronted
requests
relief
abide
standards
restraint
go
well
beyond
private
equity
jurisprudence
huffman
pursue
sum
pertinent
inquiry
whether
state
proceedings
afford
adequate
opportunity
raise
constitutional
claims
texas
law
appears
raise
procedural
barriers
appellees
seriously
argue
contrary
rather
contend
granted
hearing
time
thought
entitled
one
practical
opportunity
present
federal
claims
thus
issue
posed
appellees
whether
conduct
state
judiciary
fact
denied
appellees
opportunity
heard
theory
claim
related
district
second
theory
younger
abstention
warranted
case
district
framed
second
independent
basis
inapplicability
younger
principles
follows
note
plaintiffs
constitutional
challenge
directed
primarily
legality
children
seizure
detention
period
without
hearing
clear
issue
raised
defense
normal
course
pending
judicial
proceeding
abstention
inappropriate
see
gerstein
pugh
denial
custody
children
pending
hearing
regardless
result
hearing
sufficient
prevent
application
younger
argument
delay
affording
parents
hearing
state
made
younger
abstention
inappropriate
distinguish
argument
conventional
claims
bad
faith
sources
great
immediate
irreparable
harm
federal
intervene
traditional
circumstances
federal
need
stay
hand
simply
agree
conduct
state
authorities
case
evinces
bad
faith
read
district
expressly
finding
confusion
undeniable
evident
uncertainty
regarding
effective
period
temporary
order
regarding
propriety
entering
order
venue
montgomery
county
confusion
bad
faith
case
confusion
predictable
byproduct
new
statutory
scheme
question
much
closer
one
appellees
diligently
sought
hearing
montgomery
county
harris
county
action
transferred
pursued
appellate
remedies
determined
bad
faith
remain
limited
grounds
applying
younger
district
find
found
harassment
credibly
claimed
title
flagrantly
patently
violative
express
constitutional
prohibitions
every
clause
sentence
paragraph
whatever
manner
whomever
effort
might
made
apply
watson
buck
quoted
younger
harris
district
placed
reliance
observation
younger
may
extraordinary
circumstances
necessary
irreparable
injury
shown
even
absence
usual
prerequisites
bad
faith
harassment
see
perez
ledesma
mitchum
foster
extensive
explanation
extraordinary
circumstances
might
constitute
great
immediate
irreparable
harm
kugler
helfant
although
discussion
reference
state
criminal
proceedings
fully
applicable
context
well
extraordinary
circumstances
render
state
incapable
fairly
fully
adjudicating
federal
issues
relaxation
deference
accorded
state
criminal
process
nature
extraordinary
circumstances
course
makes
impossible
anticipate
define
every
situation
might
create
sufficient
threat
great
immediate
irreparable
injury
warrant
intervention
state
criminal
proceedings
whatever
else
required
circumstances
must
extraordinary
sense
creating
extraordinarily
pressing
need
immediate
federal
equitable
relief
merely
sense
presenting
highly
unusual
factual
situation
gauge
whether
extraordinary
circumstances
exist
case
must
view
situation
time
state
proceedings
enjoined
may
district
granted
temporary
restraining
order
june
entered
preliminary
injunction
enjoining
appellants
filing
prosecuting
state
suit
challenged
state
statutes
district
finally
determined
questions
issue
two
adult
appellees
already
successfully
obtained
possession
minor
children
means
order
may
district
order
date
enjoin
department
instituting
new
suit
state
suit
instituted
montgomery
county
may
montgomery
county
action
entitled
suit
affecting
relationship
department
petition
related
documented
child
abuse
prayed
writ
attachment
issue
protect
minor
child
paul
sims
state
issued
writ
pursuant
directing
paul
sims
placed
temporary
custody
grandparents
appointing
guardian
ad
litem
setting
hearing
show
cause
may
record
indicates
appellees
absented
home
work
school
thereby
impeding
attachment
service
order
indicate
actual
physical
custody
paul
sims
ever
surrendered
appellees
pursuant
montgomery
county
writ
posture
one
must
consider
propriety
district
injunction
barring
state
proceedings
paul
sims
within
custody
parents
specific
date
set
hearing
regarding
writ
attachment
time
parents
press
objections
unless
hold
every
attachment
issued
protect
child
creates
great
immediate
irreparable
harm
warranting
intervention
hard
pressed
conclude
state
proceedings
posture
federal
intervention
warranted
perhaps
anticipating
logic
district
case
concluded
denial
custody
children
pending
hearing
regardless
result
hearing
sufficient
prevent
application
younger
presumably
conclusion
prompted
district
observation
constitutional
issues
raised
plaintiffs
reach
application
due
process
area
greatest
importance
society
family
ibid
district
inverts
traditional
abstention
logic
interests
involved
important
abstention
inappropriate
family
relations
traditional
area
state
concern
recognized
district
noted
compelling
state
interest
quickly
effectively
removing
victims
child
abuse
parents
unwilling
conclude
state
processes
unequal
task
accommodating
various
interests
deciding
constitutional
questions
may
arise
litigation
reverse
judgment
district
remand
instructions
complaint
dismissed
ordered
footnotes
chapter
title
texas
family
code
provides
suits
protection
children
emergencies
section
authorized
representative
state
department
public
welfare
officer
juvenile
probation
officer
may
take
possession
child
protect
immediate
danger
health
physical
safety
deliver
jurisdiction
suits
subtitle
whether
continuing
jurisdiction
section
code
child
shall
delivered
immediately
tex
fam
code
tit
supp
unless
child
taken
possession
pursuant
temporary
order
entered
section
code
officer
representative
shall
file
petition
immediately
delivery
child
hearing
shall
held
provide
temporary
care
protection
child
tex
fam
code
tit
showing
child
apparently
without
support
dependent
society
protection
child
immediate
danger
physical
emotional
injury
may
make
appropriate
order
care
protection
child
may
appoint
temporary
managing
conservator
child
order
issued
section
code
expires
end
period
following
date
order
restoration
child
possession
parent
guardian
conservator
issuance
ex
parte
temporary
orders
suit
affecting
relationship
subtitle
whichever
occurs
first
child
restored
possession
parent
guardian
conservator
shall
order
restoration
possession
direct
filing
suit
affecting
relationship
appropriate
regard
continuing
jurisdiction
motion
parent
managing
conservator
guardian
person
child
notice
persons
involved
original
emergency
hearing
shall
conduct
hearing
may
modify
emergency
order
made
chapter
found
best
interest
child
emergency
orders
apparently
appealable
texas
law
see
tex
civ
app
issuing
temporary
order
harris
county
juvenile
relied
tex
fam
code
tit
supp
authorizes
suit
affecting
relationship
make
temporary
order
safety
welfare
child
parties
litigation
disagree
whether
juvenile
judge
jurisdiction
enter
order
one
number
ambiguous
questions
case
another
period
temporary
order
may
remain
effect
suits
affecting
relationship
authorized
suits
vehicles
state
brings
change
relationship
testimony
record
hearing
set
montgomery
county
may
defendant
exhibit
sworn
statement
rex
downing
therefore
contrary
suggestion
dissent
remotely
suggest
every
pending
proceeding
state
federal
plaintiff
justifies
abstention
unless
one
exceptions
younger
applies
post
section
title
provides
one
matters
covered
subtitle
may
determined
suit
motion
may
require
parties
replead
order
issue
affecting
relationship
may
determined
suit
tex
fam
code
tit
texas
rule
civ
proc
modeled
fed
rule
civ
proc
provides
relevant
part
plaintiff
petition
reply
setting
forth
counterclaim
defendant
answer
setting
forth
counterclaim
may
join
either
independent
alternate
claims
many
claims
either
legal
equitable
may
opposing
party
thus
texas
procedural
law
long
encouraged
joinder
claims
civil
actions
see
texas
gauze
mills
goatley
tex
civ
app
blair
gay
tex
recent
case
texas
civil
appeals
indicated
title
full
range
constitutional
challenges
cognizable
proceedings
suits
affecting
relationship
therefore
case
like
hernandez
finley
supp
nd
summarily
aff
sub
nom
quern
hernandez
found
remand
trainor
hernandez
applicable
state
procedures
permit
defendant
raise
constitutional
challenge
thus
agree
dissenters
characterization
claims
raised
unrelated
child
abuse
traffic
violations
district
properly
perceived
action
comprehensive
attack
integrated
statutory
structure
best
suited
resolution
one
forum
disagreement
district
choice
forum
likewise
little
case
law
sound
judicial
administration
commend
suggestion
younger
invoked
respect
claims
case
others
left
federal
forum
post
given
interrelated
nature
claims
bifurcation
result
duplicative
litigation
lack
interpretation
integrated
statutory
framework
trainor
hernandez
supra
identified
central
concerns
underlying
younger
doctrine
dissenters
additional
argument
constitutional
attack
state
procedures
automatically
vitiates
adequacy
procedures
purposes
line
cases
reiteration
theme
sounded
rejected
prior
cases
see
trainor
hernandez
supra
stevens
dissenting
juidice
vail
stevens
concurring
judgment
district
focused
psychiatric
examinations
although
evidence
examination
nature
administered
sims
children
temporary
removal
sims
state
dept
public
welfare
supp
proposition
claims
must
cognizable
defense
ongoing
state
proceeding
put
forward
dissenting
brethren
post
converts
doctrine
substantive
content
mere
semantical
joust
magic
term
defense
used
connection
younger
doctrine
word
defense
intended
used
term
art
deal
niceties
distinguished
among
defense
counterclaims
setoffs
recoupments
like
stated
juidice
vail
abundantly
clear
appellees
opportunity
present
federal
claims
state
proceedings
required
invoke
younger
abstention
appellees
need
accorded
opportunity
fairly
pursue
constitutional
claims
ongoing
state
proceedings
failure
avail
opportunities
mean
state
procedures
inadequate
footnotes
omitted
emphasis
original
brief
appellees
argue
adequate
remedy
state
law
every
effort
obtain
judicial
relief
state
either
frustrated
denied
brief
appellees
oral
argument
counsel
appellees
responded
request
justification
involvement
case
stating
appellees
believe
state
action
pending
tr
oral
arg
counsel
argue
perceived
deficiency
state
proceedings
product
procedural
bar
appellees
constitutional
claims
dissenters
concern
requiring
appellees
raise
challenges
texas
family
code
pending
proceeding
complicate
delay
resolution
merits
state
claims
clearly
misplaced
dissent
correct
characterization
bulk
appellees
claims
analogous
traffic
violation
far
relation
pending
state
proceeding
concerned
appellees
simply
obtain
resolution
pending
proceeding
file
separate
action
certainly
required
pursue
unwise
impractical
course
litigation
post
reason
believe
consolidating
claims
federal
litigating
simultaneously
two
different
courts
prove
expeditious
wise
practical
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
stewart
justice
marshall
join
dissenting
asking
whether
recognized
exceptions
doctrine
younger
harris
make
appropriate
federal
exercise
jurisdiction
pass
constitutionality
state
statute
first
decide
whether
legitimate
basis
invoking
younger
doctrine
never
suggested
every
pending
proceeding
state
federal
plaintiff
justifies
abstention
unless
one
exceptions
younger
applies
example
pending
charge
federal
plaintiff
guilty
traffic
violation
justify
dismissal
federal
attack
constitutionality
state
childabuse
legislation
policy
equitable
restraint
expressed
younger
founded
premise
ordinarily
pending
state
prosecution
provides
accused
fair
sufficient
opportunity
vindication
federal
constitutional
rights
kugler
helfant
since
citizen
member
community
immune
prosecution
good
faith
alleged
criminal
acts
younger
harris
supra
justification
intervention
equity
rule
claims
may
raised
defense
criminal
prosecution
meritorious
result
adequate
relief
forum
moreover
federal
system
intervention
federal
respect
questions
issue
state
proceedings
carries
additional
costs
terms
comity
federalism
readily
interpreted
reflecting
negatively
upon
state
ability
enforce
constitutional
principles
huffman
pursue
district
conclusion
abstention
inappropriate
case
based
squarely
finding
plaintiffs
opportunity
fairly
pursue
constitutional
claims
ongoing
state
proceeding
absence
opportunity
younger
simply
inapplicable
underlying
concerns
comity
equity
federalism
recognized
little
force
vitality
single
pending
state
proceeding
constitutional
claims
may
raised
defense
effective
relief
secured
state
criminal
proceeding
pending
time
federal
complaint
filed
federal
intervention
result
duplicative
legal
proceedings
disruption
state
criminal
justice
system
federal
intervention
circumstance
interpreted
reflecting
negatively
upon
state
ability
enforce
constitutional
principles
steffel
thompson
sure
argued
whenever
federal
rules
constitutionality
state
statute
making
decision
interferes
operation
important
state
mechanisms
performing
task
equally
performed
state
see
ante
sort
lesser
affront
principles
comity
federalism
one
justifies
federal
refusing
exercise
jurisdiction
federal
claims
congress
entrusted
repeatedly
held
constitutional
violation
alleged
even
respect
important
state
statute
plaintiff
free
bring
suit
federal
without
requirement
first
exhaust
state
judicial
remedies
requiring
abstention
case
judgment
departing
principles
extending
younger
beyond
logical
bounds
sims
parents
sought
relief
federal
days
diligent
efforts
secure
hearing
state
order
regain
custody
children
despite
efforts
failed
regain
custody
also
even
opportunity
heard
state
constitutional
challenge
federal
directed
primarily
legality
children
seizure
detention
period
without
hearing
statutory
scheme
allowed
serious
deprivation
liberty
occur
proceeding
pending
state
time
brought
suit
suit
affecting
relationship
initiated
harris
county
welfare
unit
april
pursuant
ch
texas
family
code
first
hearing
federal
may
yet
receive
notice
suit
let
alone
actual
hearing
judge
federal
intervened
however
notice
eventually
provided
assuming
compliance
statute
adversary
hearing
eventually
taken
place
mean
abstention
required
appropriate
hearing
afforded
ch
state
required
decide
whether
children
returned
custody
parents
whether
interests
better
served
alternative
arrangements
care
limited
exceptions
simses
suit
federal
nothing
question
issues
raised
federal
complaint
go
fitness
parents
rights
permanent
custody
children
rather
thrust
federal
complaint
procedures
employed
state
gather
information
seize
retain
children
pending
formal
adversary
hearing
ch
violated
constitution
constitutional
claims
hearing
afforded
state
parental
fitness
permanent
custody
virtually
irrelevant
hearing
traffic
violation
clearly
case
majority
suggest
otherwise
simses
avoid
losing
custody
children
point
successfully
arguing
state
acted
unconstitutionally
initial
seizure
children
hearing
afforded
earlier
claims
raised
defense
ongoing
proceedings
juidice
vail
nothing
ch
determinations
required
consider
pass
upon
different
issues
simses
sought
raise
federal
may
well
majority
suggests
simses
raised
constitutional
claims
state
defense
nature
permissive
counterclaims
findings
district
however
suggest
contrary
even
texas
allow
party
raise
claims
party
matter
unrelated
single
proceeding
certainly
mandate
broadening
scope
state
litigation
encompass
new
difficult
issues
complicate
delay
simses
efforts
obtain
hearing
merits
state
complaint
promptly
possible
meantime
course
custody
children
remain
state
deprivation
parents
interests
integrity
family
unit
continue
younger
doctrine
require
litigant
pursue
unwise
impractical
course
litigation
younger
bar
consideration
issue
raised
defense
criminal
prosecution
gerstein
pugh
considerations
comity
equity
federalism
underlying
doctrine
implicated
sims
decision
claims
unrelated
pending
state
proceeding
brought
federal
rather
state
similar
decision
absence
unrelated
state
proceeding
requirement
federal
plaintiffs
initiate
constitutional
litigation
state
rather
federal
first
instance
repeatedly
held
coincidence
unrelated
state
proceeding
provides
justification
imposing
requirement
factor
alone
sufficient
render
younger
doctrine
inapplicable
even
basic
objection
application
younger
abstention
circumstances
merely
deprive
plaintiffs
right
initiate
new
claims
forum
choice
far
seriously
deprives
relief
state
forum
afford
plaintiffs
sufficient
opportunity
vindicate
constitutional
rights
predicate
younger
dismissal
also
entitlement
constitution
three
sims
children
taken
custody
harris
county
child
welfare
unit
march
based
telephone
report
one
children
possibly
victim
child
abuse
diligent
unsuccessful
efforts
parents
heard
state
finally
went
federal
days
lost
custody
children
simses
heard
first
time
law
children
returned
due
course
federal
held
state
statutory
procedures
defective
provide
adequate
notice
parents
provide
adequate
hearing
whenever
state
sought
retain
custody
days
although
portions
district
decision
state
procedures
challenged
appeal
appellants
questioned
aspects
district
judgment
therefore
undisputed
texas
procedures
afford
parents
fair
opportunity
vindicate
rights
opportunity
raise
timely
decided
competent
state
tribunal
federal
issues
involved
course
required
support
younger
dismissal
circumstances
case
also
concededly
required
due
process
clause
opportunity
simply
available
system
opportunity
heard
later
ch
hearing
state
accepts
late
meet
requirements
due
process
afford
relief
interim
deprivation
ordering
abstention
nonetheless
majority
extending
younger
doctrine
beyond
underlying
premise
also
implicitly
sanctioning
deprivation
parental
rights
without
procedural
protections
state
agrees
constitutionally
required
sims
state
dept
public
welfare
supp
quoting
juidice
vail
comparable
finding
district
following
remand
trainor
hernandez
led
unanimous
summary
affirmance
holding
younger
harris
justify
abstention
see
quern
hernandez
see
steffel
thompson
lake
carriers
assn
macmullan
see
also
younger
harris
threat
plaintiff
federally
protected
rights
must
one
eliminated
defense
single
criminal
prosecution
see
monroe
pape
steffel
thompson
supra
see
also
mitchum
foster
home
telephone
telegraph
los
angeles
plaintiffs
sought
diligent
efforts
opportunity
heard
state
proceeding
must
conclude
whatever
opportunities
exist
allow
fairly
pursue
constitutional
objections
proceedings
suspended
apparently
voluntarily
state
april
department
human
resources
received
notice
federal
suit
second
ch
suit
later
filed
department
respect
paul
sims
alone
may
suit
federal
filed
first
hearing
held
whether
action
circumstances
serve
predicate
younger
dismissal
substantial
question
purport
address
see
hicks
miranda
addition
challenges
practices
procedures
afforded
state
prior
final
adversary
hearing
simses
also
claimed
attorney
ad
litem
appointed
child
suit
affecting
relationship
state
sought
conservatorship
child
termination
relationship
required
prove
case
clear
convincing
evidence
second
claim
relates
rules
governing
formal
ch
hearing
first
hearing
well
prior
hearings
claimed
required
see
plaintiffs
constitutional
challenge
directed
primarily
legality
children
seizure
detention
period
without
hearing
clear
issue
raised
defense
normal
course
pending
judicial
proceeding
abstention
inappropriate
ibid
single
state
proceeding
plaintiffs
may
look
relief
constitutional
grounds
ibid
see
also
fuentes
shevin
see
generally
developments
law
section
federalism
harv
rev
see
supra
majority
address
separately
question
federal
authority
order
children
returned
custody
parents
pending
final
state
hearing
since
order
resolve
merits
issue
decided
state
proceeding
ch
see
basis
distinguishing
decision
district
underlying
holdings
statutory
scheme
pursuant
children
seized
detained
state
unconstitutional
specifically
appellants
challenge
validity
paragraphs
judgment
entered
district
paragraphs
read
follows
use
section
conjunction
chapter
title
texas
family
code
deprive
parents
custody
children
longer
ten
days
measured
date
deprivation
without
full
adversary
hearing
unconstitutional
application
said
provision
section
unconstitutional
face
insofar
fails
require
state
make
reasonable
efforts
serve
notice
parents
ex
parte
hearing
held
immediately
possession
child
taken
state
section
unconstitutional
face
insofar
fails
require
state
hold
full
adversary
hearing
adequate
notice
parents
possession
child
taken
state
retained
state
beyond
ten
days
section
unconstitutional
face
insofar
fails
require
state
hold
full
adversary
hearing
expiration
ex
parte
order
state
seeks
obtain
order
retain
possession
child
beyond
ten
days
section
unconstitutional
face
insofar
fails
require
notice
parents
hearing
state
makes
showing
order
allowing
psychological
psychiatric
examinations
necessary
aid
investigation
abuse
neglect
order
obtained
app
gibson
berryhill
gibson
concluded
predicate
younger
dismissal
present
district
conclusion
merits
plaintiffs
challenge
state
board
incompetent
adjudicate
issues
pending
critical
point
administrative
body
unconstitutionally
constituted
entitled
hear
charges
filed
appellees
case
us
analogous
district
correct
state
accepts
least
part
procedures
afforded
state
seizure
children
fail
comport
minimum
requirements
due
process
reason
abstain
favor
unconstitutionally
limited
opportunity
favor
unconstitutionally
composed
board
gibson
availability
later
full
hearing
state
cure
problem
either
case
recognized
gibson
subsequent
de
novo
hearing
undo
interim
harm
constitutional
rights
see
also
juidice
vail
stevens
concurring
judgment
sense
every
younger
dismissal
involves
implicit
constitutional
decision
remitting
federal
plaintiff
defend
state
forum
deprivation
constitutional
rights
younger
careful
point
citizen
member
community
immune
prosecution
good
faith
alleged
criminal
acts
said
extended
deprivation
custody
one
children
without
form
notice
hearing
see
supra