May v. Anderson
97 L. Ed. 2d 1221, 1953 U.S. LEXIS 2088, 345 U.S. 528 (1953)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state court is not required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to enforce a child custody decree issued by another state if the decreeing court lacked in personam (personal) jurisdiction over the parent whose custody rights were terminated.
Facts:
- Leona Anderson May and Owen Anderson were married and domiciled in Wisconsin with their three children.
- Following marital difficulties, the couple agreed in December 1946 that Leona would take the children to Columbiana County, Ohio, to consider her future.
- By January 1, 1947, Leona decided not to return to Wisconsin and informed Owen of her decision by telephone.
- Shortly thereafter, Owen filed for divorce and custody of the children in Waukesha County, Wisconsin.
- Leona was personally served with a summons and petition in Ohio but did not enter an appearance or participate in the Wisconsin legal proceedings.
- The Wisconsin court granted Owen an absolute divorce and awarded him full custody of the children in February 1947.
- Owen traveled to Ohio, and upon presenting the decree, Leona surrendered the children, who then lived with him in Wisconsin for four years.
- In July 1951, Owen brought the children to Ohio for a visit with Leona, at the end of which she refused to return them to his custody.
Procedural Posture:
- Owen Anderson filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus against Leona Anderson May in the Probate Court of Columbiana County, Ohio (a trial-level court).
- The Probate Court determined it was bound by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to enforce the Wisconsin decree and ordered the children returned to their father.
- Leona May, as appellant, appealed to the Court of Appeals for Columbiana County, Ohio (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Probate Court.
- Leona May, as appellant, sought review from the Supreme Court of Ohio (the state's highest court), which dismissed the appeal, finding no debatable constitutional question.
- Leona May, as appellant, then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which treated the appeal as a petition for a writ of certiorari and granted it.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution require a state to enforce a child custody decree granted by another state in an ex parte divorce proceeding where the decreeing court did not have personal jurisdiction over the non-resident parent?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Burton
No, the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Ohio to enforce the Wisconsin custody decree. A parent's right to the care, custody, and management of their children is a personal right that cannot be terminated by a court lacking personal jurisdiction over that parent. The Court reasoned that a judgment in personam is not entitled to extraterritorial effect if rendered without jurisdiction over the person sought to be bound. Analogizing to its prior decisions in Estin v. Estin and Kreiger v. Kreiger, which established the concept of 'divisible divorce' for alimony, the Court held that a mother's right to custody is at least as significant as her right to alimony and is therefore entitled to the same due process protection. The fact that the children might have been legally domiciled in Wisconsin does not grant Wisconsin the necessary personal jurisdiction over the mother in Ohio to adjudicate her personal custody rights.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Frankfurter
No, Ohio is not required to enforce the Wisconsin decree. The majority correctly holds that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not compel Ohio to accept Wisconsin's disposition of custody. However, this decision does not preclude Ohio from choosing to recognize the Wisconsin decree as a matter of local law or comity. The state's responsibility for the welfare of children within its borders is a paramount interest, distinct from interests in property or marital status, and cannot be foreclosed by a prior adjudication from another state at another time. Legal theories from other types of cases should not be uncritically transferred to the unique context of child custody.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Jackson
Yes, the Ohio courts should have given full faith and credit to the Wisconsin decree. The dissent argues that Wisconsin had a sufficient jurisdictional basis to issue the custody decree because the father and the children were domiciled there. The majority errs by equating a custody proceeding, which is concerned with the welfare of the child (the 'res'), with an in personam money judgment. This ruling undermines the concept of domicile as a jurisdictional foundation and creates a chaotic rule of 'seize-and-run,' where physical possession of a child becomes the ultimate authority in custody disputes, undermining order in the federal system.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Minton
Yes, the Ohio court's decision should be affirmed. This dissent argues that the jurisdictional question was not properly raised in the state court proceedings. The mother, Leona May, never challenged the validity of the Wisconsin decree with a responsive pleading in the Ohio habeas corpus action. Since the Wisconsin decree was valid on its face and its validity was not properly attacked, the Ohio courts were correct to give it full faith and credit without further inquiry.
Analysis:
This decision established that child custody decrees are fundamentally in personam in nature for Full Faith and Credit purposes, requiring personal jurisdiction over both parents to be constitutionally binding in other states. By extending the 'divisible divorce' concept from financial matters to custody, the Court prioritized a parent's due process rights over the jurisdictional claims based on a child's domicile. This ruling created significant practical challenges in interstate custody enforcement, as it could encourage a parent to relocate with a child to a new state to re-litigate custody, a problem later addressed by uniform state laws like the UCCJA and the federal PKPA.
Unlock the full brief for May v. Anderson