Document: 458 U.S. 502 102 S.Ct. 3231 73 L.Ed.2d 928 Marjorie LEHMAN, etc., Petitionerv.LYCOMING COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES AGENCY. No. 80-2177. Argued March 30, 1982. Decided June Syllabus Petitioner voluntarily placed her three sons in the legal custody of respondent county agency, which turn them foster homes. Thereafter, a Pennsylvania state court terminated petitioner's parental rights with respect to because incapacity, and Supreme Court affirmed. then filed an action Federal District Court, seeking writ habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), requires district entertain application for such behalf "of person custody" pursuant state-court judgment alleged violation Constitution. She requested declaration invalidity statute were order releasing custody. The dismissed petition on ground that respondent's over was not type 2254(a) may be addressed. Appeals Held: Section does confer jurisdiction federal courts consider collateral challenges judgments involuntarily terminating rights. Pp. 508-516. (a) Although scope has been extended beyond most literal reading might require, considered generally available remedy every writ's availability limited situations where, as result criminal conviction, petitioner suffered substantial restraints shared by public generally, found "in within meaning 2254(a). Here, children are "custody" State way this term used determining corpus. They their parents essentially same way, extent, other natural or adoptive parents. suffer no restraint liberty cf. Jones v. Cunningham, 371 236, 83 373, 9 285; Hensley Municipal 411 345, 93 1571, 36 294, nor do they "collateral consequences" sufficient outweigh need finality, Carafas LaVallee, 391 234, 88 1556, 20 554. To extend child-custody decisions based constitutional defects actual decision would unprecedented expansion courts. 508-512. (b) Federalism exceptional finality disputes also argue strongly against grant here. Extended uncertainty inevitable many cases if had relitigate decisions. 512-514. (c) Habeas States England, 2255, authorizing federal-court review decisions, could construed include subject. But reliance what appropriate system is little force case, attacked collaterally court. have judicial time-barred challenge final entered system. 514-515. 3rd Cir., 648 F.2d 135, Martin Guggenheim, Brooklyn, N. Y., petitioner. Charles F. Greevy, III, Williamsport, Pa., respondent. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented whether statute, 2254, confers 2 * facts case described detail In re William L., 477 Pa. 322, 383 A.2d 1228, cert. denied, sub nom. Lehman Lycoming County Children's Services, 439 880, 99 216, 58 192 (1978), born 1963, 1965, 1969.1 1971, Ms. discovered she pregnant again. Because housing problems related care sons, Services Agency, it 3 visited monthly, did request return until 1974. At point, Agency initiated termination proceedings. those proceedings, Orphan's Division Common Pleas heard testimony from caseworkers, psychologist, nutrition aides, petitioner, sons.2 judge concluded: "[I]t absolutely clear that, reason very social intellectual development combined five-year separation children, mother incapable providing minimal care, control supervision children. Her incapacity cannot will remedied."3 Lehman, Nos. 2986, 2987 2988, p. 4 (Ct.Common Pleas, County, 3, 1976).4 therefore declared respecting terminated. affirmed "parental involve misconduct." supra, at 331, A.2d, 1232. It held legislature's power protect physical emotional needs authorized absence serious harm risk misconduct. stressed "[i]n instant cases, basis several years demonstrated incapacity. . ." Ibid. unconstitutionally vague either its face applied. 5 sought Court's certiorari rather than appeal.5 We denied petition. (1978). proceeding January 16, 1979, United Middle Pennsylvania, §§ 2241 2254. (i) terminated; (ii) parent children; (iii) unless 60 days judicially determined best interest required temporary remain State. 6 without hearing. Relying primarily Sylvander New England Home Little Wanderers, 584 1103 (CA 1978), concluded "the maintained Respondent addressed." Civ. 79-65 (MD Pa.1979), reprinted App. Pet. Cert. 135a, 147a. 7 Sitting en banc, Third Circuit dismissal divided vote six four. 135 (1981). No majority written. A plurality four, written Judge Garth, "disputes nature addressed here more who shall raise child maturity, implicate personal sufficiently warrant extension corpus." Id., 146. support conclusion, Garth reasoned "[i]t protected but only right particular them." 140 (footnote omitted). 8 second Adams wrote "would appear both unwise impolitic uncover whole new font jurisdiction. 151. He disposed standing assert See id., 151-155. This view conclusion once parent's proceeding, longer presumed represent child. 153-154.6 can stated fully jurisdiction, invoked constitutionality obtained parent. As importance heretofore one Circuits divided,7 we granted certiorari. 454 813, 89, 70 82 now affirm. II A. 10 seeks decision. 2254(a): 11 "The thereof, circuit judge, he Constitution laws treaties States." 12 language especially light 2241, suggests convictions prisoners actually State,8 modern involving decisions.9 first these 285 (1963), allowed parolee his conviction purposes 2254(b) Parole Board significant addition imposed upon generally." U.S., 242, S.Ct., 377. And 554 (1968), even though prisoner, incarcerated time filed, finished serving sentence during requirement had, course, met moot subject " 'collateral consequences' 237, 1559, "is suffering, continue suffer, disabilities 239, 1560. Most recently, 294 (1973), defendant released own recognizance after sentencing prior commencement incarceration. "subject 'not generally,' 351, 1575 (citation omitted)—indeed, arrest imminent.10 13 Thus, although never Instead, past where—as conviction—a generally. addition, each 2254.11 14 argues 2254 homes issued prisoners. Nor any restrictions justice These factors alone distinguish all sustained judgments. Moreover, court, sense Their situation differs generally; unusual certainly Jones, consequences"—like Carafas—sufficient finality. traditionally challenged through habeas.12 simply relitigate, habeas, rights.13 15 existed ever since 1867, custody.14 Indeed, two refused allow instances. Matters Ryan, 249 375, 39 315, 63 L.Ed. 654 (1919); Burrus, 136 586, 850, 34 1500 (1890). rest question, opinions suggest consistently shown special solicitude interests field family family-property arrangements." Yazell, 382 341, 352, 86 500, 507, 16 404 (1966). Under circumstances, extending decisions—challenges decision—would lower courts.15 B concerns Lehman's petition.16 major exception doctrine res judicata, allows relitigation disposing precisely claims. tension between State's asserted interest, properly reluctant historic purpose. Campbell noted Wanderers: 17 "Federal involves thrust into sphere normally reserved states hence change federal-state balance. so remedy, recently fashioned, offers forum regardless proceedings already taken place effect single overrule highest unfettered constraints estoppel judicata." F.2d, 1111-1112.17 18 unusually strong disputes. prolong possibly lessening chances adoption. undisputed require secure, stable, long-term, continuous relationships There detrimental child's sound current "home," parents, when prolonged. decisions.18 III 19 should procedure various England. notes 238-240, 374-375, indicated construing reference made common law practices true States. 239-240, nn. 8, 12, 13, 375-376, citing Ford Ford, 187, 273, 240 (1962); Boardman Boardman, Conn. 124, 138, 62 521, 528 (1948); Ex parte Swall, Nev. 171, 174, 134 P. 96, 97 (1913); M'Clellan, Dowl. 81 (K.B.1831); Earl Westmeath Countess Westmeath, set out reporter's footnote Lyons Blenkin, Jac. 245, 264, 37 Eng.Rep. 842, 848 (Ch. 1821). illustrate, 2255—authorizing decisions—could to, orders. case—a thing use called "habeas corpus" resolving obligated resolve appropriate. free limits bringing actions well impose requirements ensure speedy resolution however, First gave compelling answer argument: applied persons unique potency framework, having far different far-reaching consequences state's utilization test part fabric matters. If provided, some needed effectuate substantive relationships. purely matter procedural 'habeas' something else. government, parallel matters serve. sole issues bottom, adequately raised usual channels—appeal, civil statutes—or vehicle features, required." 1111. IV 21 considerations quite present corpus, representing profound interference systems instances individual outweighs federalism concerns.19 Congress intention reach encompass claim like hold below, affirming denial 22 ordered. 23 BLACKMUN, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 24 I sympathize accomplish today, reconcile myself holding "§ jurisdiction," ante, page, my view, statutory requisites exercise satisfied here—in particular, must custody." believe achieved much practical area decreeing complete withdrawal respectfully dissent. 25 Black, speaking unanimous 243, 377, observed static, narrow, formalistic remedy." 26 "While limiting 'in custody,' attempt mark boundaries 'custody' word limit used. determine legality given liberty, looked common-law usages history country." 238, 374. 27 Even brief historical examination teaches lessons: first, centuries, English American issue writs ordering release unlawful custody; and, second, exercised broad discretion deciding invoke case. minor custody.1 tradition, early Oaks, Corpus States—1776-1865, 32 U.Chi.L.Rev. 270-274 (1965). While acknowledging States," 514, derives authority law, 'the matters.' Ante, 515, quoting 1103, 1111 (CA1 1978). illogical, surely ahistorical. Contrary suggestion, 'purely [state] "habeas" else.' court's traditional confined always derived directly writ, matters.2 29 codification indicates congressional intent contract scope. sparse legislative predecessor Act February 5, ch. 28, 1, Stat. 385, "no indication whatever bill intended general classical jurisdiction." Bator, Finality Criminal Law Prisoners, 76 Harv.L.Rev. 441, 476-477 (1963) (emphasis original).3 Nor, time, purpose originally underlying barred custody.4 recent precedents firmly established 2254's flexible element, stressing restraint, "there man's thought English-speaking world issuance 240, 376. 30 Today bows direction precedent leaving open possible institution, order.5 511, n. 12. presents reasons why lack "jurisdiction" latter form Not erect jurisdictional, opposed prudential, bar relief.6 31 First, restrictively reads supra; (1968); deems individuals "as conviction." 511 added). Yet plainly drew distinction detention. contrary, expansive widely severe liberty." 1575.7 interpretation requirement, itself expressly relied fact "permitted obtain parent, imprisonment, duress kind.' Second, living somehow "they children." 511. unadopted whose ties severed wards State, decides where live, reserves move settings will, consents marriage, enlistment Armed Forces, regarding medical, psychiatric, surgical treatment. Tr. Oral Arg. 18, Pa.Cons.Stat. 2521(c) (1980). 33 concept enough hear applications petitioners freely traveled across borders while recognizance, unattached, inactive Army Reserve duty, Strait Laird, 406 92 1693, 141 (1972). precedents, difficulty finding orders, peculiarly restrained deemed statute. Cf. Braden 30th Judicial Ky., 410 484, 501, 1123, 1133, 35 443 (1973) (opinion concurring result); 353, 1576 result). Equally important, "[w]ith argument, improper used, authorize removing infant one," authorities show "it necessary exist towards it." 81, 84 (K.B.1831) (Patteson, J.). Accord: R. Hurd, Treatise Right Personal Liberty Writ 455 (1858); W. Church, 555 (1886). Third, asserts "[f]ederalism petition." 512. am sensitive concerns, again understand how deprive petitions. attack recognized similar jurisdictional bars relief. carefully separated circumstances comity orderly administration forgo power." Francis Henderson, 425 536, 539, 96 1708, 1710, 48 149 (1976). Stone Powell, 428 465, 478, 11, 495, 37, 3037, 3044, 3052, 49 1067 (1976) ("Our mean lacks ."); Fay Noia, 372 391, 425-426, 822, 827 (1963). precedent, then, "[t]here this. goes 538-539, 1709-1710. 155 (CA3 1981) (en banc) (Seitz, C. J., concurring). difficult discretionary whether, relinquished involuntary direct appeal, remains proper "next friend" apply amended 1948, permits third-party relief "signed verified someone acting behalf." 2242 "But signs verifies thereby become applicant"; detention real party interest. Nash ex rel. Hashimoto MacArthur, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 268, 270, 184 606, 608 (1950), 342 838, 72 64, 634 (1951). For reason, uncommonly granted, see Weber Garza, 570 513-514 (CA5 1978); Bryant Houston, 273 915, 916 (CA2 1921); Funaro Watchorn, 164 152, 153 (CC SDNY 1908), automatically See, e.g., Evans Bennett, 467 F.Supp. 1108, 1110 (SD Ala.1979). Gilmore Utah, 429 1012, 1013-1014, 436, 50 632 (BURGER, Historically, permitted vindicating courts, soon Lord Mansfield's King Delaval, manner adapted serve welfare U.Chi.L.Rev., 270 274. rule came stands parent; liable defeated wrongdoing unfitness demands society well-being paramount unworthy parent." Hand, Proceedings Release Infants, 56 Cent.L.J. 389 (1903). 38 Similarly, interpreted being 'When comes here, using privilege next friend infants, bounden duty really acts benefit promote own.' McLean Asylum Massachusetts General Hospital, 64 356 1894), Sale Sale, Beav. 587, 1068, 1069 (1839). "[I]n exercises age requirements." York Foundling Hospital Gatti, 203 429, 439, 53, 55, 51 254 (1906).8 Against background, find telling observation "Ms. rights." notes, record reveals evidence wanted mother. Seeante, 504, 2. filing petition, seek disturb trial factual findings. Brief 6. Those findings "absolutely [petitioner] remedied." 1239-1240, 40 On record, found, matter, showing acted issuing friend."9 tradition supported recognition withhold extraordinary conditions confinement constrained likely 41 Such ruling inconsistent bases reserve "for concerns." 516. explicit balancing approach yields strict bar. rare demanded "capacity cut barriers mazes." Harris Nelson, 394 286, 291, 89 1082, 1086, 281 (1969). overrides contrary lie, married. fathers 82, 117-118, 122-125, 127-129. decade removed Frank, oldest, him adoption anyone, including 25-26. Bill Mark, respectively. provides, relevant part: regard following grounds: "(2) repeated continued abuse, neglect refusal caused essential subsistence mental causes remedied 2511(a) appeared strategic one, making possible, event plenary review, problem judicata summary affirmance appeal want question. oral lawyer explained confused facial applied, chosen conservative route issues. Tr.Oral 21-22. Chief Seitz separate opinion. "most difficult," noting section said satisfied." 155. nevertheless concurred "such departure uses judgments" "await directive matter." 156. Rosenn, joined judges, dissented. "[t]he total extinction familial relationship biological drastic measure impose, short sanctions." 163. Gibbons dissenting opinion, arguing there subject-matter on-going effects. 177. split issue. Only full opinion; avoid rationale Garth's Other assumed—without analysis—that lies. Davis Page, 640 599, 602 banc); Rowell Oesterle, 626 437 1980). (empowering judges writs; subsection provides prisoner unless. .") added); ("An [state remedies exhausted available, are] rendering process ineffective prisoner") When entities, implicated. available. instances—e.g., (1972) (inactive member bring military obligation); Brownell Tom Shung, 352 180, 182-184, 77 252, 254-255, 225 (1956) (alien exclusion States)—is below: "[T]he assumes implications operation cuts systems. context, empowers determinations adjudicated state." 139. Jurisdiction conferred 2241. conferring attacks judgments, relevance challenging nonprisoners. constitute Hensley, behind bars, prevented stay subsequently Justices 1575. penal institution context treated purposes. 1571 ("This us custody' 1559 (similar); 373 (similar). express order. hearing before "[t]his 67. parental-rights reached decision, habeas. Santosky Kramer, 745, 1388, 71 599 (1982). BLACKMUN's history, admittedly sparse, supports scope." post, 518. cites least 100 passage cases. contemplated Congress, understood Bar remedy. maintains approval limited. takes away determines routine intrafamily dispute. apparent distinctions theory matter. vary widely, disputed person—over objections else—by principled distinguishing grandparents unrelated third party. arguments equal dissent inform construction certain kinds Post, 522-523. Fair Assessment Real Estate Assn. McNary, 100, 177, 271 (1981), lead conclude 42 1983 suits tax refunds adequate expressed views: ability characteristic system—that is, entertains state—the [T]he assumption complaining rendered represents unparalleled assertion intrusion deeply implicates principles impair smooth workings our awesome federalism, demand role: preservation danger "if litigation expenses mount, workers charitable organizations less willing placements parents' objections, rational irrational, honest 1112. observed: designed preserve liberty. Since large extent uninhibited rules urgency, conventional neither immediate." Burr. 1434, 1436-1437, 913, 914 (K.B.1763), Mansfield declared: "In directed private 'to up infants,' bound, debito justitiae, restraint: bound deliver body give privilege. left discretion, according them. 'that Court[s] case; directions accordingly.' 454-521 555-557 (1886); L. Hochheimer, Relating Custody Infants 156-162 (1887); H. Clark, Domestic Relations 578-580 Bantz, Corpus—Custody Infant, 281, 281-282 (1882) omitted) (The guardian master inquire child, ward, etc.; object enforce custody, remove restraint"); 388 (1903) ("Whenever recover person, approved campus."); legislators enact "a largest liberty" "restrain all" "enable freedom wife soldiers States, persons." Cong.Globe, 39th Cong., 1st Sess., 4151 (1866) (remarks Rep. Lawrence) Wales Whitney, 114 564, 1050, 277 (1885), delineated forms stated: "There satisfactory definition adjudged character imprisonment applying sustain writ. Wives husbands, withheld guardian, arbitrary individuals, madhouse, control, subjects 571, 1053 (1890), (1919), permit disputes, stating dictum correctly 511-512, petitions federal-question thus deny Notwithstanding conclusions lie foreclose secure extreme circumstances. 144 (Garth, announcing court) (" 'Were [the boys] home, truly struggle imprisoned aegis state,' available") omitted; emphasis original); (Adams, concurring) ("Should attack"). 1113 1978) (leaving possibility custody). disagree announcement basis" 512, 15. When, initiates ongoing custodian order, create "custody States" Intrafamily ordinarily privately awarded them, legitimate arise "may fairly actor." Lugar Edmondson Oil Co., 457 922, 937, 2744, 2754, 482 Dennis Sparks, 449 24, 101 183, 186, 66 185 (1980) ("Of merely resorting winning side lawsuit make joint actor judge"). (the "grand purpose" protection erosion wrongful liberty"); "province" provide effective instrument inquiry person"); 350, 1574 ("[W]e rejected interpretations suffocate stifling formalisms hobble effectiveness manacles arcane scholastic requirements. That theme indelibly marked statute's requirement"). Presiding Green, F.Cas. (No. 15,256) RI 1824), Story father account absolute father, infant, presuming nurture protector, maintenance education. therefore, asked lend aid put withdraw persons, look ascertain permanent infant; consult wishes. entire mistake suppose events vested 31-32. Petitioner's colorable infringed entitled friend." Adams' "Even assume occurred, survived unconstitutional, highly Mrs. ostensibly asserting derogates environment represented unity. [W]hat questionable resort framed 154 disagree, "standing [a habeas] Rosenn responded dissent, best—or proper—relator action." 156, 154, 47

Category: 0