J. B. v. Tiffany Woodard, 997 F.3d 714

Background

Edwin and Erika Bush divorced after allegations that Edwin choked their son J.B.; Erika reported the allegation to J.B.’s therapist who notified DCFS, prompting an investigation by DCFS investigator Tiffany Woodard.
During Woodard’s investigation, Woodard and two deputies went to Edwin’s apartment; the visit ended acrimoniously and Woodard later recommended limiting Edwin’s parenting time pending evaluation.
Erika attached Woodard’s email to an emergency petition in state domestic-relations court; the court entered a protective order and suspended Edwin’s parenting time, later conditioning reinstatement on anger-management counseling.
The state court excluded J.B.’s statements from therapy under Illinois’s counseling-communications bar, 750 ILCS 5/607.6(d). Edwin exhausted state appeal avenues but the custody dispute remained ongoing.
Edwin sued in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against DCFS employees (individually) and the Acting Director (official capacity): Count I challenged the constitutionality of § 5/607.6(d) (First and Fourteenth Amendments); Counts II–III alleged substantive and procedural due-process violations from DCFS conduct.
The district court dismissed: Count I for lack of Article III standing (no causal trace to the Acting Director); Counts II–III based on Younger abstention. The Seventh Circuit affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to bring First Amendment challenge to 750 ILCS 5/607.6(d)	Bush argued the statute prevented him from introducing his son’s counseling statements, causing a concrete injury to his speech/associational rights	Acting Director (Smith) had no role in enforcing the statute; the alleged injury was caused by state-court application, not DCFS official conduct	No standing: injury not fairly traceable to the named state official; state judiciary enforced the statute
Abstention (Younger and related doctrines) for due-process claims tied to ongoing custody proceedings	Bush argued his § 1983 claims assert federal constitutional rights to familial association and thus federal court jurisdiction is proper	Federal adjudication would interfere with ongoing state domestic-relations proceedings and undermine comity/federalism; abstention required	Abstention required: federal court must decline to intervene to avoid disruptive intrusion into state family-court matters
Applicability of Rooker–Feldman or domestic-relations exception	Bush maintained his claims are constitutional challenges to officials’ conduct, not attempts to overturn a state-court judgment	Defendants argued doctrines (Younger, Rooker–Feldman, domestic-relations principles) bar federal intervention or counsel abstention	Neither doctrine perfectly fit literally, but underlying principles (equity, comity, federalism) compel abstention anyway; Rooker–Feldman not applicable because state proceedings were ongoing
Relief sought (declaratory/injunctive/monetary) — stay vs dismissal	Bush sought damages and declaratory/injunctive relief to vindicate rights and affect state proceedings	Granting declaratory/injunctive relief would give Bush an offensive tool to influence ongoing custody matters; staying a long-term custody dispute is impractical given minors’ ages	Dismissal affirmed under federalism/comity principles; a long-term stay was impractical and federal courts should remain on sidelines until state courts refuse to address the claims

Key Cases Cited

Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability)
Hollingsworth v. Perry, 570 U.S. 693 (2013) (plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction must demonstrate standing)
E.A. v. Gardner, 929 F.3d 922 (7th Cir. 2019) (injury must be traceable to the defendant, not independent state-judicial action)
Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts should abstain to avoid interfering with ongoing state proceedings)
Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280 (2005) (Rooker–Feldman bars federal review of final state-court judgments)
Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69 (2013) (limits and categories for Younger abstention)
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) (domestic-relations exception to federal jurisdiction)
Courthouse News Serv. v. Brown, 908 F.3d 1063 (7th Cir. 2018) (abstention warranted where federal relief would intrude on state-court administration)
SKS & Assocs., Inc. v. Dart, 619 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2010) (abstention grounded in comity and federalism principles)
New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U.S. 350 (1989) (federalism requires respect for state functions)