# Jerry Parker, Jr. v. Kenneth Turner

> Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · September 19, 1980 · 626 F.2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466911

## Case

- **Full name:** Jerry PARKER, Jr. Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Kenneth TURNER Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- **Decided:** September 19, 1980
- **Citations:** 626 F.2d 1
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Merritt
- **Judges:** Keith, Merritt, Martin
- **Cited by:** 135 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466911

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding Younger abstention appropriate where plaintiffs sought "a declaratory judgment that certain allegedly widespread practices in the juvenile court are unconstitutional," as this "would necessarily require monitoring of the manner in which the state juvenile judges conduc…
- stating that because of extensive concerns about federal intrusion in and a resulting audit of the state judicial system, the need to abstain the federal court’s jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint is appropriate and “near absolute”
- recognizing that matters relating to domestic relations cases and child custody disputes implicate important state interests when abstaining under Younger from a constitutional challenge to state child support proceedings
- stating that a federal order requiring state courts to provide appointed counsel and other asserted due process rights would necessitate continual federal court monitoring of the state courts
- discussing Supreme Court cases defining the extent of a plaintiff’s standing to enjoin threatened state prosecutions, and ruling that fathers who could not afford to make child support payments and thus were likely to face future contempt proceedings had standing to challenge …

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466911. Public record. Not legal advice.