Document: 345 U.S. 528 73 S.Ct. 840 97 L.Ed. 1221 MAYv.ANDERSON. No. 244. Argued Jan. 6, 1953. Decided May 18, Messrs. Ralph Atkinson, Salem, Ohio, F. W. Springer, East Palestine, for appellant. Mr. I. Engle, Waukesha, Wis., appellee. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The question presented is whether, in a habeas corpus proceeding attacking right mother to retain possession her minor children, an Ohio court must give full faith and credit Wisconsin decree awarding custody children their father when that obtained by ex parte divorce action which had no personal jurisdiction over mother. For reasons hereafter stated, our answer no. 2 This began July 5, 1951, Owen Anderson, here called appellee, filed petition writ Probate Court Columbiana County, Ohio. He alleged his former wife, Leona Anderson May, appellant, was illegally restraining liberty Ronald, Sandra James, aged, respectively, 12, 8 refusing deliver them him response issued County Waukesha Wisconsin, February 1947. With both parties before it, ordered that, until this matter be finally determined, remain with subject father's visit at reasonable times. 3 After hearing 'on petition, stipulation counsel as agreed statement facts, testimony,' decided it obliged Full Faith Credit Clause Constitution United States1 accept binding upon Accordingly, merits case issues stipulations counsel, discharged from further restraint her. That order has been held abeyance are still Appeals affirmed. 91 App. 557, 107 N.E.2d 358. Supreme without opinion, denied motion directing certify its record review, dismissed appeal on ground debatable constitutional involved. 157 St. 436, 105 648. 4 On Court, we noted probable jurisdiction. Inasmuch, however, neither nor relied statute basis appeal, have treated certiorari, granted pursuant 28 U.S.C. (Supp. V) § 2103, U.S.C.A. while continuing, convenience, refer appellant appellee.2 5 were married and, 1947, domiciled there. marital troubles developed, they December, 1946, should take Lisbon, there think future course. By New Year's Day, she not return telephone, informed husband decision. 6 Within few days he suit seeking absolute children. only service process consisted delivery personally, copy summons petition. Such authorized use but makes mention availability children.3 Appellant entered appearance took part produced divorcing bonds matrimony purporting award father, contests validity custody. See Estin v. Estin, 334 541, 68 1213, 92 1561, Kreiger Kreiger, 555, 1221, 1572, recognizing divisibility decrees those payment alimony. 7 Armed accompanied local police officer, demanded does disclose what place between 1947 except remained 1, 1951. then brought back Lisbon permitted time, return, refused surrender them. Relying decree, promptly now us. Under procedure tests immediate It open door modification any prior showing changed circumstances. Nor available settling first instance. 9 'It well settled proper or appropriate determine, parents, who entitled 10 'The facts disclosed There being evidence superior custody, fully warranted concluding restrained liberty.' In re Corey, 145 413, 418, 61 892, 894—895.4 11 narrow issue thus People State York rel. Halvey Halvey, 330 610, 615—616, 67 903, 906, 907, 1133. instituted Florida. She absent publication appearance. Florida also awarded child. was, therefore, inherent 'whether absence effect husband; * *.' Id., page 615, 906. We compelled decision expressly reserved. 12 Separated interests us elemental whether state, where domiciled, resident present, may cut off care, management companionship having personam. Rights far more precious than property rights will if bound 13 '(I)t too dispute 'full credit' clause act Congress passed it5 do entitle judgment personam extraterritorial made appear rendered person sought bound.' Baker Baker, Eccles & Co., 242 394, 401, see 403, 37 152, 155, 386; Thompson Whitman, 18 Wall. 457, 21 897; D'Arcy Ketchum, How. 165, 14 supra, upheld Nevada husband, Nevada, insofar dissolved matrimony. At same powerless off, proceeding, spouse's financial support under another state.6 instant case, recognize mother's least much protection 15 courts gave weight appellee's contention binds because, time issued, technical domicile although present there.7 find unnecessary determine children's legal even certainly against deprive possession.8 16 accordingly, reversed cause remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 17 Reversed remanded. CLARK, heard oral argument, consideration case. 19 FRANKFURTER, concurring. 20 views expressed my brother JACKSON make important I joining Court's understand deciding What decided—the thing decides—is require disposing accept, circumstances us, disposition Wisconsin. felt itself so bound. decide would precluded recognizing, law, court. respect offend Due Process Clause. doing Ontario Manitoba be, bring into one these provinces. 22 Property, claims, marriage status, see, e.g., Sherrer Sherrer, 343, 1087, 1429, generally rise different relevant discharge State's continuing responsibility within borders. Children very special life law reflect. Legal theories phrasing other cases readily lead fallacious reasoning uncritically transferred determination duty towards are, course, adjudications pertaining instance alimony, definitive decreeing State, let alone Interests prevail interest national unity underlies But child's welfare such claim obviously foreclosed adjudication reflecting time. Reliance opinions regarding out-of-State rights, claims status confuse analysis based previously State. Whatever light opinions, cannot conclusive answers. 23 JACKSON, whom REED joins, dissenting. 24 apparently holding Federal prohibits settles couple's unchallenged precedents can rest proposition Wisconsin's 154, Esenwein Commonwealth Pennsylvania Esenwein, 325 279, 281, 65 1118, 1119, 89 1608. 25 A conclusion state sister commonwealth involves considerations so. If valid judgment, requires every credit, 1738, referring judicial proceedings, commands 'shall States Territories Possessions usage Territory Possession taken.'1 escape obedience lies void standing denies due law. 26 reasoned wife lacking, sufficient jurisdictional enable bind all interested contested either bar below. Therefore, precedents, conclusive. Williams North Carolina, 317 287, 302, 63 207, 215, 87 279. plaintiff times Wisconsin; defendant-wife native, move December stipulate acquired domicile. born always there, physically specifically found understanding go returned spite fact did kept less two months after given up physical residence out breach agreement. 27 subsequently went retrieved four years. Then voluntarily mother, whereupon them, courts. situation meddler reaching draw controversies arose concerned communities. ever plus spouse parties, case.2 Cf. Yarborough Yarborough, 290 202, 210, 54 181, 184, 78 269. am quite aware recent chipping away concept connecting factor individual obligations.3 mobile people, historically move, perhaps rigid derived common feudal attachment land society restless ours. federal system maintain separate communities, evidently contemplates, some test determining belongs. If, purpose, better domicile, yet hit it. Abandonment ancient doctrine leave partial vacuums many branches seems abandoned here. 29 holds child parent primarily about constitutionally adjudicate guardianship. state's power defeated period months. convenience leave-taking placed above child, party greatly aided obtaining father. this, merely nine points self-help ultimate authority, little commend logic principle system. 30 agree treatment wife. never therefore rested Milliken Meyer, 311 339, 85 278. And heretofore view necessary contrived sham. 311, 219; Rice Rice, 336 674, 676, 69 751, 752, 93 957. decamps good-faith provision legally real concern transactions actions litigated divorce-mill forums whose judgments commanded states recognize. 31 judges writers long recognized similarity requirements custody,4 appears equate money judgment. One reads vain discover choice, unless remark 'rights off' proceeding. force cardiac self-evident, me reflect misapprehension nature revision prevailed. When deal inanimate conventional rem principal distribution property, rather apart ownership claims. dealing solely 'res' minimal claimants paramount, exercise claimants.5 Only seek render liable performance acquire jurisdiction.6 32 difference involving apparent elaboration. former, longer proprietary contestants court, itself. Custody viewed idea adjudicating chattels, making best possible To speak court's 'cutting raised problems similar involved plot ground, obliterate obvious distinctions. Personal affected highly desirable, certain notice opportunity heard. assumption overrides impotent resolve questions flies face own cases. wife's ties genuine because domiciliary sufficiently urgent. Certainly relief himself exhaust state. home-keeping determined certainty, free incessant tug war squabbling equally 33 probability permanently attempting redetermine allow circumstances, could accomplished parties. 1133; cf. Lynde Lynde, 181 183, 45 810. And, parents prevent responsible taking adverse parent. No 34 fear author new confusions. interpretative concurrence, true interpretation, reduce rule seize-and-run. affirm equal shall modify 35 MINTON, 36 dissent record. As 'parents natural custodians each order, competent fixing Section 8032, General Code. children.' 894 895. 38 succeed show authenticated unappealed from, contended face, challenge responsive pleading corpus. 39 decree. attacked pleading. admission concerned, purported face. Since failed pleading, Art. IV, Constitution. properly accorded evidence, together parenthood, proved 40 affirm. 'Full public Acts, Records, Proceedings general Laws prescribe Manner Records proved, Effect thereof.' 1. drawn repugnant Fourteenth Amendment 7996 Code 1910 providing head family. choose mode living, conform thereto.' said section establishing basis, validly depriving '262.12 Publication outside permitted. diligence served defendant verified complaint provided Rule 262.13, following cases: '(5) annulment marriage. '262.13 state; service. '(4) specified 262.12 may, option lieu publication, personally object require, completed mailing. *' Wis.Stat., 1949. limitation contrasts securing presence corpus, proceed 1133 (New procedure); Boor Boor, 241 Iowa 973, 43 N.W.2d 155; Helton Crawley, 296, 41 60. developed Act 26, 1790, Stat. 122. '* exacting, inexorable (Sherrer supra (334 1429)), mean, through constructive service, enter changes incidence relationship. result divisible—to affects ineffective alimony.' pages 546, 549, 1217. stipulation, also, supra; separation live Restatement, Conflict (1934), §§ 146, Illustrations 2. authority favor confining divorce, nonresident appear, substituted only, extends rendered, seat appeared action. (Citing cases.) 'By void.' Weber Redding, 200 Ind. 448, 454—455, 163 N.E. 269, 271. Sanders Sanders, 223 Mo.App. 834, 837—838, S.W.2d 458, 459 460; Carter Carter, 201 Ga. 850, S.E.2d 532. arise parent, leaves purpose escaping otherwise evading jurisdiction, unlawfully surreptitiously taken other. None exceptions point See, Fall Eastin, 215 3, 65. American Law Institute, Laws, 1934, 117, 144—147. Curry McCanless, 307 357, 59 900, 83 1339; Tax Commission Utah Aldrich, 316 174, 62 1008, 86 1358; Dorrance litigation, Martin, 678, 56 949, 80 1399; Dorrance's Estate, 115 N.J.Eq. 268, 170 A. 601; 309 Pa. 151, 303. Goodrich, 'Custody Children,' Corn.L.Q. Harris Balk, 198 625, 49 1023; 897. Pennoyer Neff, 95 714, 565.

Category: 3