Federal court abstains from suit to enforce immigration affidavit of support

A federal court declined to hear a case by a U.S. permanent resident seeking to enforce the I-864 Affidavit of Support that her husband had signed in the immigration process. But the ruling, Wigley v. Wigley, USDC W.D.Va., Roanoke, 3/5/18,  is narrowly worded and seems to allow several ways in which other such cases could be pursued in federal court. It said abstention under Younger v. Harris, 410 US 37 (1971), was appropriate because three requirements were met:

1. When the suit was filed, the parties were already litigating a divorce and alimony case in state court, in which the I-864 issue was raised.
2. That case is still pending in Virginia's courts.
3. The wife had, and still has, adequate opportunity to raise the issue in the state court case. She hasn't claimed the state courts "would improperly avoid her claim."

And there is no claim that the husband "is avoiding" the I-864 issue in state court, nor of any extraordinary circumstances to allow an exception to Younger abstention.

The Supreme Court and other federal courts have drawn and redrawn the boundaries of federal abstention from family-law cases over the years. The Roanoke court described the currently applicable standards as:

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Younger doctrine requires federal courts to abstain from exercising jurisdiction when doing so would interfere with pending state court proceedings. Robinson v. Thomas, 855 F.3d 278, 285 (4th Cir. 2017) ... The Fourth Circuit has strictly applied the test for abstention under Younger, diverting from it only upon a showing of bad faith or other extraordinary circumstances. [It] has strictly applied the three-prong test for Younger abstention without separately considering whether the federal action has the practical effect of interfering with the state court action. See Nivens v. Gilchrist, 444 F.3d 237, 241 (4th Cir. 2006)

... In determining whether the doctrine applies, courts use a three-pronged test, asking whether: (1) “there are ongoing state judicial proceedings”; (2) “the proceedings implicate important state interests”; and (3) “there is an adequate opportunity to raise federal claims in the state proceedings.” Id. (citing Middlesex City Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423, 432 (1982)).

... See Kawai v. UaCearnaigh, 249 F. Supp. 3d 821, 825 (D.S.C. 2017) (abstaining under Younger doctrine in an action to enforce an I-864 Affidavit based on pending state court divorce and support proceedings).