May v. Anderson
Facts
After marital difficulties, the mother took the children from Wisconsin to Ohio, where she decided not to return. The father then filed an ex parte divorce action in Wisconsin seeking divorce and custody, and the only service on the mother was personal delivery in Ohio of the Wisconsin summons and petition; she did not appear. The Wisconsin court granted the divorce and purported to award custody to the father. Years later, after the children were visiting the mother in Ohio, she refused to return them, and the father brought an Ohio habeas corpus action relying on the Wisconsin custody decree.
Issue
Must an Ohio court, in a habeas corpus proceeding over immediate possession of children, give full faith and credit to a Wisconsin custody decree entered in an ex parte divorce action when the Wisconsin court had no personal jurisdiction over the mother?
Rule
A state need not give full faith and credit to a sister-state custody decree that cuts off a parent's immediate right to the care, custody, management, companionship, or possession of minor children when the decree was entered without personal jurisdiction over that parent. A judgment in personam is not entitled to extraterritorial effect if rendered without jurisdiction over the person to be bound.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
Derek files habeas corpus in Ohio seeking immediate possession of the children based solely on the Nevada custody award. Is Ohio constitutionally required to enforce the Nevada custody decree against Nina under the Full Faith and Credit Clause?