The Rooker-Feldman doctrine applies and bars a federal court from reviewing a de facto appeal from a state court’s judgment only when the federal suit complains of a legal wrong allegedly committed by the state court, and seeks relief from the judgment of that court. However, if the plaintiff complains about harm caused by the opposing party, Rooker-Feldman does not apply and any limits on federal court jurisdiction come from abstention, comity or preclusion. Here, the complaint charged defendants with failing to provide legally required social services and with making false and misleading statements to the state court which caused that court to terminate plaintiff’s parental rights. Neither claim fell within the scope of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine because the claims were about wrongs committed by the defendants, not the state court and did not assert a legal wrong in an allegedly erroneous state court judgment.