Free Motion to Vacate - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

_ Case 3:03-cv-00143-AWT Document 22 Filed 10/24/2003 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ° UI * ·‘’!i A ’1C‘
FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT é1,i,¢_; , -¢_; ,.
A i, { Jfjl I `_ _]
.,2.____A_I____I, , _, I ’ `”‘`“ ’= 53 I
DAVID and I : "'I{I!;.O}%}D i
Plaintiffs, ; CIVIL ACTION 3:03 Cv 0143 (AWT)
V. Z
; JUDGE Aw. THOMPSON
PAUL DAVID WOOSLEY, ;
: October 22, 2003
Defendant. : I
MOTION TO VACATE PORTION OF PERMANENT
INJUNCTION ORDER REGARDING ADOPTION DECREE U
PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60gb)g4[
AND NOW COMES Defendant, Paul David Woosley, who under Rule
60(b)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, tiles this Motion to Vacate a i
I
Portion of the Permanent Inj unction Order Regarding an Adoption Decree.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. On February 28, 2003, this Honorable Court entered its Permanent
1
Injunction Order (Doc. #16). _ I
2. On March 14, 2003, Defendant Woosley tiled a timely Motion to
Amend Permanent Injunction Order (Doc. #18), which was denied by Order dated O
September 29, 2003 and docketed on September 30, 2003 (ref Doc #18). _

I I

‘ · Case 3:03-cv-OO1¢&3·€`WT Document 22 Filed 10/@003 Page 2 of 4
SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT _
3. The Permanent lnjunction Order restrains and enj oins Defendant
from litigating the question of "whether the adoption decree . . . should be set
aside". N
4. Federal courts do not have authority to issue or uphold child custody
decrees, which includes decrees of adoption; therefore, the portion of the i
Permanent Injunction Order, as referenced above, must be vacated. 5
I
ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES I
5. Federal courts are expressly prohibited from entering judgments
involving the issuance of child custody decrees, and other matrimonial decrees, per I i
the domestic relations exception as articulated in Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504
i U.S. 689, 703 (1992).
6. Quoting Ankenbrandt, in City of Chicago v. International College of
Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 190 (1997), the Supreme Court "reaffirmed the absence
of statutory jurisdiction for federal court adjudication of original civil actions for
divorce, alimony, and child custody. Id, at 703. The Court explained that its
conclusion was also
‘supported by sound policy considerations .... [S]tate courts are more
eminently suited to work of this type than are federal courts, which lack the
close association with state and local govermnent organizations dedicated to
handling [the] issues [involved]? Id, at 703-704.”
2
gl

_ ‘ Case 3:03-cv-OO143—€rWT Document 22 Filed 10/€4€OO3 Page 3 of 4
. `—-· -~ l
7. Accordingly, it is apparently unprecedented for any inferior federal 3
court to enjoin litigants from challenging custody determinations in state courts, l
given that federal courts have no such judgments to protect.
8. A valid adoption decree would normally only be set aside for cause
by the state court that issued it. An invalid decree, as with any void judgment, is 1
already a legal nullity so there is no requirement to have it set aside. E
9. Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (1988), confirms that the
federal PKPA, 28 U.S.C. § 173 8A, is directed to the states, not federal courts, to
decide whether sister states’ custody/visitation decrees are to be accorded full faith I
and credit.
1
CONCLUSION
10. For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Woosley respectfully requests
I that this Honorable Court vacate the portion of its Permanent Injunction Order
enjoining him from litigating, in state court, the issue of whether an adoption
decree should be set aside.
Respectfully submitted,
Patnaet 2/
One Rohr Drive
Doylestown, PA 18901-4439 {
(215) 348-7113 215-348-2469 (Fax)
267-980-6405 (Mobile)
Dated: October 22, 2003
3 i
l

. Case 3:03-cv-OO1¢&3{iWT Document 22 Filed 10/2/4[2003 Page 4 of 4 N
` ..., I y
I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the foregoing
MOTION TO VACATE PORTION OF PERMANENT INJUNCTION ORDER
REGARDING ADOPTION DEGREE was served upon Plaintiffs’ counsel of
record this 22"° day of October, 2003, by first-class Priority Mail, Delivery
Coniirmation No. 0300 1290 0006 5309 3263, as follows:
Patrick F. Lemon, Esquire K
TISDALE & LENNON, LLC I
10 Spruce Street I
Southport, CT 06490
By: (/0 :
Karen Woosley
I

I
4 I
I