241 F. Supp. 3d 372
E.D.N.Y2017Background
- Tait (U.S. citizen) and Powell (Jamaican) are unmarried parents of twin girls born in Jamaica in 2008; children became U.S. lawful permanent residents and moved to live with Tait in Queens in October 2015.
- On July 4, 2016, while visiting the U.S., Powell took the children for a visit to Brooklyn and did not return them to Tait; custody dispute followed.
- Powell filed for custody in Kings County Family Court (July 27, 2016) and obtained a final custody order after Tait defaulted; subsequent Family Court proceedings included orders about passports and Powell’s return to Jamaica.
- Tait filed a federal complaint (Nov. 23, 2016) asserting (1) violation of federal parental kidnapping statute, (2) breach of contract, (3) INA violations, and (4) declaratory judgment; he sought a TRO and preliminary injunction to transfer Family Court proceedings and obtain custody.
- The District Court denied emergency relief, held a show-cause hearing, and dismissed the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the domestic relations exception, without prejudice to state-court relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction over custody-related claims | Tait framed claims as federal (kidnapping statute, INA, declaratory relief) and breach of contract to invoke federal-question or diversity jurisdiction | Powell argued the dispute is a family custody matter properly for state court and thus barred by the domestic relations exception | Court held the domestic relations exception divests federal jurisdiction because the dispute centers on child custody |
| Whether claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1204 gives Tait a civil remedy | Tait treated the federal kidnapping statute as a basis for relief | Powell and Court noted the statute is criminal and provides no private right of action | Court held Tait lacks a private civil remedy under §1204 and the claim is within domestic relations context |
| Whether breach-of-contract claim avoids domestic relations exception | Tait asserted an express or implied contract regarding custody and related expenditures | Powell argued the contract claim is essentially about custody and thus state-law family matter | Court held the contract claim is rooted in custody and falls within the domestic relations exception |
| Whether declaratory relief re: children’s U.S. citizenship and resulting custody is proper in federal court | Tait sought a declaration that children are U.S. citizens and that custody should revert to him | Powell noted failure to exhaust administrative remedies and that requested declaration would effectively alter custody | Court held declaratory claim improperly seeks custody-related relief and implicated administrative-exhaustion rules, so it cannot overcome the domestic relations bar |
Key Cases Cited
- Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992) (recognizing domestic relations exception barring federal issuance of divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees)
- In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586 (1890) (affirming that domestic relations belong to state law, not federal courts)
- Durant, Nichols, Houston, Hodgson & Cortese-Costa P.C. v. Dupont, 565 F.3d 56 (2d Cir. 2009) (federal courts have continuing duty to ensure subject-matter jurisdiction)
- MyWebGrocer, LLC v. Hometown Info, Inc., 375 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2004) (standards for preliminary injunction)
- Merkos L’inyonei Chinuch, Inc. v. Otsar Sifrei Lubavitch, Inc., 312 F.3d 94 (2d Cir. 2002) (preliminary injunction standard framework)
- S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. v. Clorox Co., 241 F.3d 232 (2d Cir. 2001) (district court’s discretion in preliminary injunction determinations)
- United States v. Bond, 762 F.3d 255 (2d Cir. 2014) (jurisdictional limits and related principles)
- Williams v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1275 (2d Cir. 1995) (noting narrow scope of the domestic relations exception)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (1908) (foundational rule on federal-question jurisdiction)
- Henry v. Quarantillo, 684 F. Supp. 2d 298 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (district-court declaratory relief on citizenship requires exhaustion of administrative remedies)