work of this type than are federal courts, which lack the close association with state and local government organizations dedicated to handling issues that arise out of conflicts over divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.” Id. at 703-04, 112 S.Ct. at 2215. Similarly, the federal district court in Bromley v. Bromley concluded that, except for the limited matters of international abduction expressly addressed by the [Hague] Convention [on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction], [child custody matters] would better be handled by the state courts which are more numerous and have both the experience and resources to deal with this special area of the law. 30 F.Supp.2d 857, 862 (E.D.Pa.1998); accord Teijeiro Fernandez v. Yeager, 121 F.Supp.2d 1118, 1125-26 (W.D.Mich.2000) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, federal immigration law recognizes
holding first amendment guarantees access to criminal trials and limitations on access are subject to strict scrutiny holding that the total denial of all access to the law library for seven months violated the plaintiffs constitutional right of access to the courts recognizing a right of access to civil proceedings holding that patria potestas rights under mexican law are custody rights under the hague convention holding that because hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction lacks specific remedy for rights of access to children matters relating to access are best left to the state courts which are more experienced in resolving these issues