F.3d 241, 246 (3d Cir.2008) (reasoning that a “modification of a divorce decree is analogous to the issuance of a divorce decree,” and therefore subject to the domestic-relations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction); Norton v. McOsker, 407 F.3d 501, 505 (1st Cir.2005) (“Even if the Rhode Island Family Court did have jurisdiction, the domestic relations exception ... would not apply[ ] because [the plaintiff] did not bring any claim related to a divorce, alimony, or a child custody decree.”); Dunn v. Cometa, 238 F.3d 38, 41 (1st Cir.2001) (“[L]awsuits affecting domestic relations, however substantially, are not within the [domestic-relations] exception unless the claim at issue is one to obtain, alter or end a divorce, alimony or child custody decree.”); Lloyd, 694 F.2d at 493 (<HOLDING>). Thus, the domestic-relations exception to
holding that the political subdivisions of a state are subject to federal diversity jurisdiction holding court of competent jurisdiction includes federal courts holding that the domesticrelations exception to federal diversity jurisdiction does not prevent federal courts from adjudicating a tort action when the plaintiffs do not contest the validity of the state custody decree because the tort issues  were not entangled with issues that only state courts are competent to resolve holding that in diversity cases federal courts are to apply state substantive law and federal procedural law holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state