family situation. The federal courts are not well suited to this task. They are not local institutions, they do not have staffs of social workers, and there is too little commonality between family law adjudication and the normal responsibilities of federal judges to give them the experience they would need to be able to resolve domestic disputes with skill and sensitivity. 694 F.2d at 492. 4 . In various unpublished cases, we have continued to limit the domestic-relations exception to “cases involving the issuance of a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree,” Ankenbrandt, 504 U.S. at 704, 112 S.Ct. 2206, and cases seeking to modify or interpret a divorce, alimony, or child custody decree. See, e.g., Abdallah v. Abdallah, No. 98-1551, 1999 WL 331631, at *1 (6th Cir. May 13, 1999) (<HOLDING>); Chambers v. Michigan, 473 Fed.Appx. 477,
holding that the domesticrelations exception prevented the plaintiff from challenging in federal court the constitutionality of the statecourt judges decision to consider certain assets and property when calculating the plaintiffs husbands income for the purposes of determining alimony payments because the plaintiff ultimately wanted this court to enjoin the state court from using property  to determine the amount of alimony owed holding that fraud creates an exception to the rule holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud holding that under the pre1986 jurisdictional limitation a claim by the state which discovered the fraud investigated the fraud disclosed the fraud to the federal government and which was the original source of the information was jurisdictionally barred holding that the domesticrelations exception barred federal adjudication of a statelaw fraud action because the plaintiff essentially sought a modification of the process in the divorce decree relating to distribution