Document: 356 U.S. 604 78 S.Ct. 963 2 L.Ed.2d 1008 Aida S. KOVACS, Petitioner,v.George A. BREWER, Sr. No. 200. Argued April 3, 1958. Decided May 26, Mr. Louis Haimoff, New York City, for petitioner. No appearance respondent. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 On January 17, 1951, a court granted George Brewer, Jr., decree divorce from his wife, now Kovacs. Custody their five-year-old daughter, Jane, was awarded to Sr., paternal grandfather, pending discharge Navy. As contemplated by decree, grandfather removed child home in North Carolina where she has since resided. In November 1954 mother asked modify its and award her custody child. Although father presented affidavits through counsel challenging mother's claim, her. modifying apparently relied, part, on findings that ill with heart trouble diabetes living accommodations which he able provide were not as suitable those then offered mother. The refused surrender child, but took no steps enforce until February 1956—14 months after had been modified. At time brought present action state secure child.1 She certified copy asserted it 'entitled full faith credit courts except matters showing changed circumstances date such decree.' again challenged right They numerous attesting facts they argued demonstrated child's best interests would be served leaving grandparents. Many these at modified, new evidence also concerning surroundings, school church experiences life general, particularly reference period elapsed between when modified proceedings.2 3 After hearing case affidavits, stipulations pleadings, trial made findings. Among other things, determined more than year immediately preceding required medical care or diabetic ailments work properly granddaughter. found 17-year-old stepson, who residing grandfather's moved thus space remaining occupants giving better opportunity grandchild. basis concluded 'not bound give effect Court State 1954' welfare demanded remain under environment become accustomed. 4 appeal Supreme approved court's findings, without specifying any particular reason upheld 'conclusion law.' went declare, seemingly an alternative ground decision, binding because jurisdiction original resident domiciliary Carolina. 245 N.C. 630, 97 S.E.2d 96. We certiorari consider claim failed judicial proceedings another State. 355 810, 27, 28. 5 this petitioner, Mrs. Kovacs, contends (1) awarding (2) event question res judicata both appeared proceeding, (3) Federal Constitution statute.3 argues obligated same York, we reserved ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 610, 615 616, 67 903, 906—907, 91 L.Ed. 1133. presented, obviously raises difficult important questions constitutional law, should postpone deciding long reasonable exists.4 6 Whatever Full Faith Credit Clause may have respect decrees, is clear, stated 'that forum least much lee-way disregard judgment, qualify it, depart does rendered.' page 615, 906. Petitioner concedes if call different arrangement protect health welfare.5 below raised considerable introduced issue, number material proper longer 1956 And though clear Court, be, view background, intended decide case, alternatively, basis. Under all think advisable remand clarification, and, already decided, so determine issue circumstances. Cf. Minnesota National Tea Co., 309 551, 60 676, 84 920; Spector Motor Co. McLaughlin, 323 101 105, 65 152, 154, 89 101. If find conditions make interest custody, decision before us unnecessary. Those explicitly reserve expressly impliedly indicating views about them. 7 judgment vacated cause remanded further inconsistent opinion. 8 It ordered. 9 Judgment directions. 10 FRANKFURTER, dissenting. 11 stake More what restriction, any, United States impose determining it. contest here grandparents: whom court, while did custodian, grandparents, Carolina, decreed twelve years age, lived happily last six one-half years. A second rendered hearing, relevant parties, including precludes severance 12 are these: son respondent, married City 1945. Jane Elizabeth, born them 1946. 1950 instituted against petitioner him divorce. Finding 'the child' required, Elizabeth respondent discharged Navy, might assume sole custody. domiciled York. into hiding Respondent secured control writ habeas corpus September 1951 wife time. respondent's son, still 13 1954, having one applied modification December judge '(t)he surround(ing)s acceptable infant desirable eight old girl, whose bringing up belongs mother.' 14 deliver directed decree. suit seeking compelled court. merits present, denied relief requested petitioner; respodnent.* affirmed, 96, holding extraterritorial effect. 15 While there substantial accord among practical out-come cases involving little confusion lack clarity language employed justifying results. uncritical reliance courts, dealing problem upon concepts 'change circumstances' led learned commentator remark 'words chief trouble-makers field.' Stansbury, Maintenance Law Across Lines, & Contemp. Prob. 819, 826. narrow one, kind confronts great frequency: require petitioner? evident implication Court's today that, unless 'circumstances changed' latter must given credit. 16 purpose preclude dissatisfied litigants taking advantage federal character Nation relitigating issues duly decided another. clause designed promote major policy law: certainty finality end harassing litigation. But confronted responsibility children, consideration asserts itself regard curbing litigious strife subordinated—namely, That, familiar phrase used 'is polar star guided custody.' 635, pages 100—101. When protection minors within borders falls free do 'what child,' Finlay Finlay, 1925, 240 N.Y. 429, 433, 148 N.E. 624, 626, 40 A.L.R. 937 (per Cardozo, J.); see Queen Gyngall, (1893) Q.B. 232, 241 ('The placed position * act supreme parent exercise manner wise, affectionate, careful child'). 17 Because controlling guide determination, essentially transitory nature. passage even relatively short changes, although ascertainment, needs developing Subtle, almost imperceptible, changes fitness adaptability custodians develop corresponding rapidity. called will cannot, perform function responsibly, prior irrespective whether 'changes objectively provable. To say pay attention status quo established These are, course, exercising requires. See People Allen Allen, 1887, 105 628, 143, 144 (Illinois 'a fact circumstance bearing discretion exercised dictating it'). 18 short, underlying nature decrees militate strongly constitutionally enforced requirement foreign decrees. itself, demanded, rejected applicability See, e.g., Bachman Mejias, 1956, N.Y.2d 575, 580, 154 N.Y.S.2d 906, 136 N.E.2d 866, 868 apply decrees'); Herzog Morgan, 1942, 287 317, 320, 39 255, 256; supra; Hicks Bridges, A.D.2d 335, 339, 155 746, 751; Kniffin Knight, 1945, 184 Misc. 545, 550, 56 108, 113. writers subject observed marked tendency arrive conclusion, often spelling out judgments traditional terms. Ehrenzweig, Interstate Recognition Decrees, 51 Mich.L.Rev. 345; supra. 19 This vividly illustrates evil requiring peculiarly well-situated making delicate determination interests, defer well result superficial abstract proceeding present—indeed, State—by who, far record shows, never seen force events blind acceptance elsewhere. minimum nexus exist carry authority adequately inform regarding desires interests. very expected order investigation responsibly thorough enlightening physically available source arriving Solomon's judgment. Stumberg, Status Children Conflict Laws, U. Chi.L.Rev. 42, 56, 58, 62. dispense seriously undermine conscientious efforts most expend functions responsible way. 20 formal disavowal, can review only requires, however implicitly, For obliged legal significance Clause. declared unqualifiedly—not 'alternative ground' necessary disposition claim—that allowed stand highest shelter nurturing years, labeling factors 'changed absentee found. Inevitably open door wide evasion finding command carry. Errors Connecticut pointed fifty ago '(a)s easily inclined, plausible grounds therefor quite generally found, follows recognition extraterritorially orders receive liable theoretical consequence.' Morrill Morrill, 1910, 83 Conn. 479, 492—493, 77 1, 6. Principles Laws (2d ed.), 328—329. 21 indeed rigorous avoiding exists. cannot not, avoided ruling necessarily—and less impliedly—includes justify change rendered, default justification held disregarded duty decree? construction enforceability absentia necessarily implied meaning today's mean enforcing local law conflicts paid nprior 22 sure, situations disavows passing here. rests unclear admixture therefore disclose jurisdiction, ambiguity remanding clarifying appropriate certificate. surely said review, true 555, 678, 920, 'there uncertainty precise (of court).' Any interpolated; carries ambiguity. goes back entire action, accepting rightfully being concerned relating need custodial considering propitious purports suggest based changed. 23 I affirm 'custody children parents divorced outside special either *.' N.C.Gen.Stat.Ann., 1950, § 50—13. Unlike situation Art. IV, declares: 'Full shall each public Acts, Records, Proceedings every Congress general prescribe Manner Records proved, Effect thereof.' By statute provided 'shall Territories Possessions usage State, Territory Possession taken.' 28 U.S.C. 1738, U.S.C.A. 1738. approach reinforced neither nor submitted brief support There some indication whenever demands, not. 6A Gilbert-Bliss' N.Y.Civ.Prac., 1944, 1170. Majias, 868; Sutera Sutera, 356, 358, 150 448, 451, 452. many canvassed health, religious activities, community respondent; suitability residence standpoint size, location, appearance, equipment; training wife; scholastic record, associations, health; educational recreational facilities evidence, following fact, others: '13. That fit person care, minor, Brewer. '14. man excellent character, good habits conduct, '15. welfare, development materially promoted allowing accustomed measure depends.'

Category: 8