Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Frank Carpenter Eileen Carpenter v. West Virginia Department of Health and Human Services, 95-1748 (1995)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 95-1748 Visitors: 1
Filed: Jun. 20, 1995
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 59 F.3d 165 NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Frank CARPENTER; Eileen Carpenter, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant-Appellee. No. 95-1748. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted: May 18, 1995 Decided: J
More

59 F.3d 165
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.

Frank CARPENTER; Eileen Carpenter, Plaintiffs--Appellants,
v.
WEST VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,
Defendant--Appellee.

No. 95-1748.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 18, 1995
Decided: June 20, 1995

Frank Carpenter, Eileen Carpenter, Appellants Pro Se. L. Eugene Dickinson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, WV, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, C.J., and BUTZNER, Sr. C.J.

PER CURIAM:

1

Frank and Eileen Carpenter appeal from the district court's order dismissing their 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254 (1988) petition in which they challenge the termination of their parental rights with respect to their five children. Federal courts are without jurisdiction to consider collateral challenges to state-court judgments involuntarily terminating parental rights. Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Servs., 458 U.S. 502 (1982); Hickey v. Baxter, 800 F.2d 430 (4th Cir.1986); Doe v. Doe, 660 F.2d 101 (4th Cir.1981). Accordingly, we affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer