bars the interposition of the constitutional claims.” Id. (citation and internal marks omitted). As the Middle-sex Court framed the issue, “The question ... is threefold: first, do [the proceedings] constitute an ongoing state judicial proceeding; second, do the proceedings implicate important state interests; and third, is there an adequate opportunity in the state proceedings to raise constitutional challenges.” Id. (emphasis omitted); see also Old Republic Union Ins. Co. v. Tillis Trucking Co., 124 F.3d 1258, 1261 (11th Cir.1997). The parties agree, and so do we, that the continuing state dependency proceedings involving each of the plaintiffs are ongoing state proceedings for the purposes of Middlesex analysis, see J.B. ex rel. Hart v. Valdez, 186 F.3d 1280, 1291 (10th Cir. 1999) (<HOLDING>), although they dispute whether this federal
holding that a juvenile has a right to a voluntariness hearing in a transfer proceeding holding that there was adequate opportunity when state court judicial review of an administrative proceeding was available holding that juvenile court has no jurisdiction to consider constitutional claims holding that continuing jurisdiction of juvenile court and six month periodic review hearings constituted an ongoing state judicial proceeding holding no state court jurisdiction in an adoption proceeding