May v.Anderson,
345 U.S. 528 (1953).


Facts: Owen Anderson (P) and Leona (Anderson) May (D) were married in Wisconsin and lived there until it was agreed that D would take their children to Ohio for a while after some discord in the family. D decided she and the chil-dren would not return. P filed for divorce, which was granted, along with an order giving him custody of the children. D was served personally but did not appear, which bound her to the divorce. P filed a writ of habeas corpus in Ohio to gain custody of the children from D, claiming D was illegally restraining them by refusing to deliver them to P in response to the decree from Wisconsin. D appeals only the validity of the custody portion of the decree.

Issue: Whether 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?

Holding: No. Judgment reversed.
The Court of Appeals, entered judgment of affirmance, and the mother appealed. The Supreme Court of Ohio, entered judgment dismissing the appeal, and the mother sought review by the United States Supreme Court which treated the purported appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari. The United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Burton, held, that since the mother was not domiciled, resident, or present in state wherein decree was issued and jurisdiction was not obtained over her in personam, the court could not cut off her immediate right to the custody of her minor children.

Analysis: A parent's right to custody of her children is a personal right that cannot be taken away without gaining in personam jurisdiction over her. This is not a question of who should have custody since habeas corpus is not a permissive vehicle for resolving that question. It is simply not pos-sible to have an in personam judgment without jurisdiction over the per-son.

Concurrence: (Frankfurter, J.). All that is decided here is that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Ohio to accept the disposition made by Wisconsin, and does not preclude Ohio from recognizing it.

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.