Legal Document

371 U.S. 187 83 Supreme Court Reporter 273 9 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 240 Barbara D. FORD, Petitioner,v.Herman Atlantic FORD. Number 63. Argued Nov. 15, 1962. Decided Dec. 10, W. Francis Marion, Greenville, S.C., for petitioner. Wesley M. Walker, respondent. Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This is a controversy between husband and wife over custody their three young children which raises questions under Full Faith Credit Clause Constitution.1 Their first litigation was in 1959 when filed Richmond Virginia Law Equity petition habeas corpus alleging that had but not suitable person to keep them asking they be produced before court awarded him. The promptly answered, she proper have writ dismissed. Thereafter negotiations took place parents, both being represented by counsel, agreed was, with minor exceptions, during school year summer vacation other holidays. When notified this agreement, entered following order: 2 'It counsel parties hereto concerning infant children, it ordered case dismissed.' 3 Some nine months later, August 1960, while were mother South Carolina, began suit full Greenville County Juvenile Domestic Relations Court, again not. Service upon husband, who charging reasons set out fit asserting he was. He also up as defense 4 '* * Plaintiff has violated breached agreement made respective legal further Order record Richmond, duly issued based said agreement.' 5 After hearing testimony from 11 witnesses including wife, trial judge found fact father persons 'to best interest control.' rejected husband's argument order dismissal should treated res judicata issue fitness Carolina court. 6 On appeal Common Pleas, like juvenile court, held law interests 'paramount' welfare protected. It decided that, parents would custodians, required parts year, effect inverting arrangement previously parents' agreement. In rejecting contention courts bound proceedings on said: 7 'To hold these fully finally determined Virginia, reached plaintiff's attorneys defendant's unfair too harsh rule follow.' 8 reversed. 239 S.C. 305, 123 S.Ed.2d 33 (1961). That after review certain cases, 'If respondent (the wife) here instituted Courts action commenced her State, appellant could successfully interposed plea action. Since judgment or consent entitled faith credit State. We are Article IV, Sec. Constitution give same State 'dismissed agreed' 'by usage' such judgment.' at 317, S.E.2d, 39. 10 granted certiorari consider question Court's rests. 369 801, 82 642, 71 549 (1962). argued we need reach because rested its decision rather than Federal Constitution. language closing part court's opinion, where 'A judicial award child never final' may 'even own motion' reconsider if new facts circumstances make necessary desirable child's do so. concluded, however, pleadings 'neither allegation nor proof any changed authorizing change action.' 317—318, seems clear us merely stating modify decrees changed.2 equally attempting rely conclusion since there no circumstances, prior decree. issues submitted case, this: 12 must recognize, accordance clause States, Dismissal judicata, unless evidence subsequent misconduct conditions warranting children.' 309, 34—35. 13 What then went discuss whether decree therefore Carolina. convinced squarely solely reading requiring absence Nothing suggests what might done so interpreted Clause. 14 Whether interpretation correct one reserved.3 here. Clause, applicable decree, require recognize binding only it. Recognizing this, largely devoted cases determine dismissal. relied some actions agree parties. All discussed involved purely private controversies4 litigants can settle, none public strong. each result an equivalent compromise intended settle cause action.5 Whatever given dismissals involved, involving raise very different considerations. law, does treat contract bar jurisdiction cases,6 similarly case. 15 hearings children. entering dismissal, neither examined terms exercised meant more themselves. probably every Union,7 requires put first. Appeals stated policy unmistakable clarity: 16 'In established primary, paramount, controlling consideration all controversies matters subordinate.' Mullen versus Mullen, 188 Va. 259, 269, 49 Eastern Reporter, 2nd 349, 354 (1948). 17 Unfortunately, experience shown custody, vital happiness well-being, frequently cannot left discretion parents. particularly true where, here, estrangement beclouds parental emotion prejudice. agreements will bind decide way other. emphasized deep-rooted declaring: 'The subject barter.' Buchanan Buchanan, 170 458, 477, 197 Southeastern KF135 S6 426, 434, 116 American 688 (1938). 18 another considered awarding custody,8 believe view Virginia's strong safeguarding child, itself mere even saw, much less passed upon, heard whatever base 19 precluded determining accordingly. holding otherwise, error. reversed remanded inconsistent opinion. 20 Reversed remanded. U.S.Const. § 1, states: 'Full shall Acts, Records, Judicial Proceedings And Congress general Laws prescribe Manner Records proved, Effect thereof.' statute authority 28 Code KF62 1738, Annotated KF65 U5 1738. New York ex rel. Halvey Halvey, 330 610, 67 903, 91 L.Ed. 1133 (1947). Kovacs Brewer, 356 604, 607, 78 963, 965, 1008 (1958); 615—616, 906—907, Murden Wilbert, 189 358, 53 42 (1949) (negligence arising automobile accident); Hinton Norfolk & W.R. Co., 137 605, 120 135 (1923) (personal injury suit); Bardach Iron Steel company Tenenbaum, 136 163, 118 502 (seller's buyer's breach contract). Ibid. fourth mentioned Concrete Board Supervisors Fairfax County, 821, 415, 56 Reports, 1283 (1956), motion 'with prejudice.' Gloth Gloth, 154 511, 551, 153 879, 892, 700 (1930). See 17A Am.Jur., Divorce Separation, 818 (1957) collected. A 'ordinarily' altered circumstances. E.g., Collins Collins, 183 408, 32 657 (1945); Darnell Barker, 179 86, 271 (1942). Even arguable de novo reviews correctness original decrees. Semmes Semmes, 201 117, 109 545 (1959); Andrews Geyer, 200 107, 104 747 (1958).

Classification Label: 8