Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Miguel A. Gargallo v. Tecla Gargallo

Miguel A. Gargallo v. Tecla Gargallo, 472 F.2d 1219 (6th Cir. 1973)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-01-31
Topic
general

PER CURIAM. This is a diversity action brought by Miguel A. Gargallo against Tecla Gar-gallo in which Mr. Gargallo alleges that Mrs. Gargallo illegally removed his three minor children from the State of Ohio.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Miguel A. Gargallo v. Tecla Gargallo. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Authority status
pending
Cited by
7 opinions
GARGALLO v. GARGALLO,472 F.2d 1219(6th Cir. 1973)
MIGUEL A. GARGALLO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. TECLA GARGALLO,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 72-1462.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued November 29, 1972.
Decided January 31, 1973.
Page 1220
Miguel A. Gargallo, in pro. per.

Paul A. Scott, Tyack, Scott Colley, Columbus, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and PECK and LIVELY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
[1] This is a diversity action brought by Miguel A. Gargallo against Tecla Gargallo in which Mr. Gargallo alleges that Mrs. Gargallo illegally removed his three minor children from the State of Ohio. Mr. Gargallo requests that an order issue restraining Mrs. Gargallo from removing the children from this country and ordering her to return these children to the State of Ohio. He further demands $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages for her wrongful acts. Upon its own motion the District Court dismissed this action for lack of jurisdiction of subject matter. We affirm.

[2] This is essentially a child custody case. While the language of the diversity statute,28 U.S.C. § 1332, may be broad enough to encompass this action, this court is bound by the long standing exception to the statute that federal courts will not accept jurisdiction in domestic relations cases, Barber v. Barber, 62 U.S. (21 How.) 582, 584,16 L.Ed. 226(1858). In 1890 this rule was found to encompass child custody cases, In re Burrus,136 U.S. 586,10 S.Ct. 850,34 L.Ed. 500. There the Court stated: "The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and child, belongs to the laws of the states, and not to the laws of the United States."136 U.S. at 593-594,10 S.Ct. at 853. Subsequent decisions have been in accord. Hernstadt v. Hernstadt,373 F.2d 316(2d Cir. 1967); Harris v. Turner,329 F.2d 918,923(6th Cir. 1964); Carqueville v. Woodruff,153 F.2d 1011(6th Cir. 1946).

[3] Under the above rule, we hold the District Court was correct in its finding that federal courts lack jurisdiction over the subject matter.

[4] Affirmed.Page 1225