I.          Questions Presented For Review

A.      Does Rooker-Feldman doctrine apply to deny federal courts subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a), and 42 U.S.C. §1983 for a complaint for relief from an old state court child support judgment based upon a subsequent decision by this Court that changed the controlling law and where relief is prohibited in the state’s courts by state statute?  Does district court have subject matter jurisdiction to decide underlying constitutional challenge to state statute pursuant to District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, (1983) 460 U.S. 462, 482-487, 75 L. Ed. 2d. 206, 103 S. Ct. 1303?  Is Feldman inconsistent with subsequent decisions of this Court?  Did 1996 Amendment to 42 U.S.C. §1983 create exception to Rooker-Feldman where declaratory relief is otherwise unavailable in motion or action for relief from old state court judgment?

B.      Does the subsequent decision, Troxel v. Granville, (2000) 530 U.S. 57, 147 L. Ed. 2d. 49, 120 S. Ct. 2054, 2061, change the law controlling the issue of whether the state’s interest in establishing and enforcing child support orders is limited to the situation where the support is necessary to allow the custodial parent to adequately care for the children and only to the extent so necessary?

If the back button does not take you there, click Home to go to the Index page of this Antipeonage Act Website, click Enemies for the main Enemies page, click Letters for the Letters page, and click Allies for the Allies page.  Click 01-35459 to get to the main page for this case.  Or you can use the Antipeonage Act Site Map.