William L. Donnelly v. Jane P. Donnelly

First Circuit

William L. Donnelly v. Jane P. Donnelly

515 F.2d 129, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14701

CourtCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit

DecidedMay 13, 1975

Docket75-1023

StatusPublished

Cited by13 cases

This text of 515 F.2d 129 (William L. Donnelly v. Jane P. Donnelly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the First Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

William L. Donnelly v. Jane P. Donnelly, 515 F.2d 129, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14701 (1st Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by which the petitioner sought visiting rights with his children. The suspension of visiting rights was ordered by the Massachusetts probate court which was supervising the divorce of the parents. This is at base a challenge to the state’s authority to resolve the domestic dispute. As we said in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 508 F.2d 348 (1st Cir. 1974), the federal court is ill equipped to determine family obligations, lacking the power and the resources of state family courts to consider the best interests of the entire family. As a matter of policy we would not entertain this case if it were properly before us, but it is not.

Habeas corpus relief is not available under these circumstances. The Habeas Corpus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides for relief against state “custody” pursuant to a judgment of a state “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” It was not intended to encompass the kind of parental custody of children involved in this case. * It is, rather, analogous to 28 U. S.C. § 2255, which provides a modern substitute for the ancient writ of coram nobis as against federal “custody” and is by terms limited to “prisoner[s]”. There having been alleged no other basis for an exercise of federal authority under these facts, the petition was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.

*

Bell v. Leonard, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 179, 251 F.2d 890 (1958), cited by appellee, was not a federal Habeas Corpus Act case but one analogous to a state proceeding and, based on District of Columbia law, the family relationships were properly being adjudicated by the court.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is an appeal from the district court’s dismissal of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus by which the petitioner sought visiting rights with his children. The suspension of visiting rights was ordered by the Massachusetts probate court which was supervising the divorce of the parents. This is at base a challenge to the state’s authority to resolve the domestic dispute. As we said in Armstrong v. Armstrong, 508 F.2d 348 (1st Cir. 1974), the federal court is ill equipped to determine family obligations, lacking the power and the resources of state family courts to consider the best interests of the entire family. As a matter of policy we would not entertain this case if it were properly before us, but it is not.

Habeas corpus relief is not available under these circumstances. The Habeas Corpus Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 provides for relief against state “custody” pursuant to a judgment of a state “only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” It was not intended to encompass the kind of parental custody of children involved in this case. * It is, rather, analogous to 28 U. S.C. § 2255, which provides a modern substitute for the ancient writ of coram nobis as against federal “custody” and is by terms limited to “prisoner[s]”. There having been alleged no other basis for an exercise of federal authority under these facts, the petition was properly dismissed.

Affirmed.

*

Bell v. Leonard, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 179, 251 F.2d 890 (1958), cited by appellee, was not a federal Habeas Corpus Act case but one analogous to a state proceeding and, based on District of Columbia law, the family relationships were properly being adjudicated by the court.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

515 F.2d 129, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 14701, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-l-donnelly-v-jane-p-donnelly-ca1-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack