Summary
denying writ of mandamus for paternity statusand child support in diversity case
Summary of this case from Tomas v. GillespieOpinion
CIVIL ACTION NO: 01-2262 SECTION: "R"(2)
July 31, 2001
ORDER DENYING WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Before the Court is plaintiff's "petition for writ of mandamus for paternity status and child alimony." For the following reasons, the Court denies the petition.
I. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
On July 25, 2001, plaintiff filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus. In her petition, plaintiff, a resident of the Phillippines, seeks a court order as a writ of mandamus for paternity status and child support for her son. Plaintiff claims that defendant, William Coleman, is the father of her son and should be required to pay for her son's education.
The Court denies the petition for writ of mandamus. First, the Court lacks jurisdiction over domestic relations disputes. Federal courts have abstained from the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over cases involving intra-family relations. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 2209 (1992) (citing Barber v. Barber, 21 How. 582 (1859)). Therefore, as a general rule, this Court cannot hear "suits for divorce and alimony, child custody actions, disputes over visitation rights, suits to establish paternity and to obtain child support, and actions to enforce separation or divorce decrees still subject to state court modification." See Crouch v. Crouch, 566 F.2d 486, 487 (5th Cir. 1978). Plaintiff seeks a determination of paternity and child support; therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction. Further, the Court finds that a writ of mandamus is not appropriate here. Accordingly, the Court denies the motion for writ of mandamus.