Legal Document

Cite as: 577 U. S. ____ (2016) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES V. L. v. E. L., ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO ALABAMA No. 15–648 Decided March 7, 2016 PER CURIAM. A Georgia court entered a final judgment of adoption making petitioner legal parent the children that she and respondent had raised together from birth. later separated while living in Alabama. asked Alabama courts to enforce grant her custody or visitation rights. The Supreme Court ruled against her, holding Full Faith Credit Clause United States Constitution does not require re- spect judgment. That Ala- bama is now reversed by this summary disposition. I are two women who were relation- ship approximately 1995 until 2011. Through as- sisted reproductive technology, gave birth child named 2002 twins N. H. 2004. After born, them as joint parents. eventually decided give status relationship between having formally adopt them. To facilitate adoption, couple rented house Alpharetta, Georgia. then filed an petition Superior Fulton County, also appeared proceeding. While relinquishing own parental rights, express consent L.’s 2 Va. second parent. determined complied with applicable requirements law, decree allowing recognizing both their ended 2011, Alabama, moved out shared. Circuit Jefferson alleging denied access interfered ability exercise She register judg- ment award some measure matter was transferred Family County. order awarding scheduled children. appealed Civil Appeals. argued, among other points, should recognize because lacked subject-matter jurisdiction enter it. Appeals rejected argument. It held, however, family erred failing conduct evidentiary hear- ing before so it manded for hearing. reversed. held no under law still As consequence, required accord full faith credit II provides “Full shall be given each State public Acts, Records, 3 judicial Proceedings every State.” Const., Art. IV, §1. requires effect valid judgments rendered its sister States. serves “to alter several states independent foreign sovereignties, free ignore obligations created laws proceedings others, make integral parts single nation.” Milwaukee County M. White Co., 296 U.S. 268, 277 (1935). With respect judgments, “the obligation exacting.” Baker General Motors Corp., 522 222, 233 (1998). “A one State, if adjudicatory authority over subject persons governed judgment, qualifies recognition throughout land.” Ibid. may disregard disagrees reasoning underlying deems wrong on merits. On contrary, clause Constitu- tion precludes any inquiry into merits cause action, logic consistency decision, valid- ity principles which based.” Milliken Meyer, 311 457, 462 (1940). required, afford “did have relevant parties.” Underwriters Nat. Assurance Co. North Caro- lina Life & Accident Health Ins. Guaranty Assn., 455 691, 705 (1982). “Consequently, bound [a] another inquire jurisdictional basis court’s decree.” inquiry, limited one. “[I]f face appears ‘record general jurisdiction, such parties presumed unless disproved extrinsic evidence, record itself.’ ” 4 Milliken, supra, at (quoting Adam Saenger, 303 59, 62 (1938)). Those resolve case. Under here, “[t]he superior counties exclusive all matters adoption.” Ga. Code Ann. §19–8–2(a) (2015). provi- sion subject- hear decide peti- issue here. resolved entering made adoptive Whatever within statutory juris- diction “all thus “adjudicatory matter” entitle credit. Baker, 233. reached different result relying §19–8–5(a). statute (as here) “a has guardian adopted third party . only voluntarily writing surrendered his rights child.” con- cluded provision prohibited keep existing further concluded went but jurisdic- tion. In reaching crucial conclusion, seems relied solely fact right purely statutory, “ ‘[t]he Georgia’s adoptions statutes mandatory must strictly construed favor natural parents.’ App. Pet. Cert. 23a– 24a re Marks, 300 239, 243, 684 S.E. 2d 364, 367 (2009)). 5 analysis consistent Court’s control- ling precedent. Where indicates competent ‘is disproved.’ Adam, 62). There nothing here rebut presumption. relied, §19–8–5(a), speak dictional terms; instance, say “shall decree” Neither nor appellate court, moreover, §19–8–5(a) jurisdictional. construction would difficult reconcile law. recognizes general, addresses “whether particular class cases,” Goodrum Goodrum, 283 163, 657 S.E.2d 192 (2008), whether relief Unlike §19–8–2(a), expressly gives “exclusive adoption,” power cases. rule decision apply determining allowed. Section 19–8–5(a) become just ‘mandatory’ ‘must strued.’ 23a–24a 2d, 367). This “has long notion prescriptions, however emphatic, properly typed jurisdictional.” Gonzalez Thaler, 565 134, ___ (2012) (slip op., 10–11) (internal quotation marks ellipsis omitted). Indeed, requirement Geor- 6 gia statutes, since those construed. 367. comport neither common sense. Justice Holmes observed more than century ago, “it sometimes certain words directed merits.” Fauntleroy Lum, 210 230, 234–235 (1908). cases, especially where concerned, “slow read ambiguous words, meaning leave open dispute, intended do fix decide.” Id., 235. time-honored controls been issued there established contrary. follows refusing writ certiorari granted. reversed, case remanded inconsistent opinion. ordered.

Classification Label: 7