May v. Anderson – Child Custody – Personal Jurisdiction
May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840, 97 L.Ed. 1221 (1953).
NATURE OF THE CASE: This family law case involved a dispute over a custody award without personal jurisdiction.
FACTS: H and W were married in Wisconsin and remained domiciled there until 1947. The couple experienced marital difficulties and H told W to take the children to Ohio temporarily. After a few weeks W decided not to return and H filed suit in Wisconsin seeking divorce and custody. Service of process consisted of delivery of a copy of the summons and petition. W entered no appearance and the court granted the divorce decree and awarded custody of the children to H.
The children remained with H for four years until the children visited W and W refused to allow them to return to H. H then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Ohio alleging that W was illegally restraining the liberty of their three children by refusing to delivery them to him in response to a custody decree issued by a Wisconsin court. The probate court decided that it was obliged under Full Faith and Credit to accept the Wisconsin decree as binding upon W. Eventually the decree was dismissed by the Ohio Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
ISSUE: Must the court of a first state give full faith and credit to a decree from a second state awarding child custody to a parent, when that decree was obtained by the parent in an ex parte divorce action in the second state, and where the court had no personal jurisdiction over the other parent?
RULE OF LAW: No. The court of a first state need not give full faith and credit to a decree from a second state awarding child custody to a parent, when that decree was obtained by the parent in an ex parte divorce action in the second state, and where the court had no personal jurisdiction over the other parent.
HOLDING AND DECISION (Burton): A mother’s right to custody of her children is a personal right entitled to as much protection as her right to alimony. The order by the Wisconsin court awarding custody of the children to the father is not enforceable against the mother in Ohio because the Wisconsin court had no personal jurisdiction over the mother.
DISPOSITION: Reversed and remanded.
Concurring (Frankfurter): Property, personal claims, and even marital status generally give rise to interests different from those relevant to the discharge of a State’s continuing responsibility to the children within the state’s borders. The law should reflect the special place children have in our society.
Dissenting (Jackson): A conclusion that a state must not recognize a judgment of a sister state involves very different considerations than a conclusion that it must do so. The United States Constitution requires that Ohio recognize a valid judgment and give it full faith and credit. The only escape from this command is that the judgment rendered in Wisconsin is void. However, it is void only if it violates due process of law.
Determination that the children were domiciled in Wisconsin was adjudicated and not disputed in Ohio. The children remained in Wisconsin for the next four years. The only thing that was disputed was that the court in Wisconsin had no jurisdiction over W. If ever domicile of the children and that of one spouse is sufficient to support a custody decree and make it binding on all interested parties, this should be the case. This decision means that a state in which a child and one parent are domiciled cannot constitutionally adjudicate controversies as to guardianship.
Additional Supreme Court case briefs are available at Lawnix.com.