Master The Supreme Court held that an out-of-state child custody decree issued without personal jurisdiction over the mother is not entitled to full faith and credit. with this comprehensive case brief.
May v. Anderson is a cornerstone Supreme Court case at the intersection of conflict of laws, family law, and constitutional limits on state court authority. Decided in 1953, it clarifies the reach of the Full Faith and Credit Clause when a custody decree is rendered by a court that never obtained personal jurisdiction over an absent parent. The decision extends the then-emerging doctrine of divisible divorce: a state that can unilaterally alter the marital status of the parties based on domicile cannot, without personal jurisdiction, conclusively determine personal rights such as alimony, support, or—here—custody as against an absent parent.
For law students, the case is significant because it underscores the jurisdictional preconditions for interstate enforcement of family law judgments and the distinction between status determinations and personal obligations. May teaches that full faith and credit stops at the threshold of due process: judgments rendered without proper jurisdiction over the person whose rights are being adjudicated need not be respected elsewhere. The opinion foreshadows later statutory solutions to interstate custody disputes, including the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), while preserving a constitutional baseline tied to notice and jurisdiction.
May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1953)
The parties were married and resided in Wisconsin, where they lived with their minor children. After marital difficulties, the mother left Wisconsin and moved to Ohio with the children. The father filed an action for divorce and custody in a Wisconsin court. The mother was not personally served in Wisconsin and did not appear in the action; service occurred only by publication and/or out-of-state service pursuant to Wisconsin law. The Wisconsin court granted the father a divorce and awarded him custody by default. Armed with the Wisconsin custody decree, the father then went to Ohio and filed a habeas corpus proceeding to obtain physical custody of the children, arguing that the Ohio courts were constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to the Wisconsin decree. The Ohio courts declined to enforce the Wisconsin custody award on the ground that the Wisconsin court had lacked personal jurisdiction over the mother when it purported to determine her custodial rights. The father sought review in the U.S. Supreme Court.
Does the Full Faith and Credit Clause require a state to enforce a sister state's child custody decree against a nonresident parent when the rendering court lacked personal jurisdiction over that parent?
A state is not constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to a sister state's judgment adjudicating a parent's custodial rights if the rendering court did not have personal jurisdiction over that parent. While a state with proper authority may dissolve a marriage ex parte based on domicile, it cannot, without personal jurisdiction (or equivalent due process protections) over a nonappearing parent, enter a custody judgment that binds that parent's personal rights in other states.
No. The Ohio courts were not required to give full faith and credit to the Wisconsin custody decree because the Wisconsin court lacked personal jurisdiction over the mother when it adjudicated her custodial rights. The judgment therefore did not conclusively determine her custody rights in Ohio.
The Court began from first principles of full faith and credit: sister states must generally respect final judgments, but only if the rendering court had jurisdiction consistent with due process. The Court distinguished between a court's power to alter a marital status (which may be done ex parte where a spouse is domiciled, as in Williams v. North Carolina) and a court's power to impose or determine personal rights and obligations, which requires personal jurisdiction. Drawing on the divisible divorce line of cases, particularly Estin v. Estin, the Court explained that a decree may be valid in part and invalid in part: a state may effectively terminate the marriage but cannot, without personal jurisdiction over the absent spouse, conclusively adjudicate that spouse's personal rights, such as support or custody, in a way binding on other states. A custody determination, the Court reasoned, directly affects a parent's personal right to the care, companionship, and control of his or her children. Because the mother had neither been personally served within Wisconsin nor appeared to submit to jurisdiction, Wisconsin's decree could not extinguish or conclusively redefine her custodial rights as against her in other jurisdictions. The Court emphasized that full faith and credit does not transform a judgment rendered without personal jurisdiction into a binding adjudication elsewhere. It expressly refrained from deciding where the children were domiciled or which state could best assess their welfare; the narrow holding was that Ohio need not defer to a custody award entered without personal jurisdiction over the mother. The Court also rejected the view that the children's putative domicile in Wisconsin or the modifiability of custody decrees eliminates the personal jurisdiction requirement. Although custody orders are modifiable and grounded in the child's best interests, they nevertheless adjudicate a parent's personal rights. Absent proper jurisdiction over that parent, the decree is not entitled to conclusive effect in other states. Dissenting views urged that custody turns on the child's status and that domicile or presence should suffice for full faith and credit, but the majority maintained the constitutional line between status and personal obligations.
May v. Anderson cements the divisible divorce doctrine in the custody context and articulates a constitutional limit on the interstate reach of custody decrees: personal jurisdiction over the parent whose rights are adjudicated is required for full faith and credit. The case is a staple in conflict of laws and family law because it teaches how jurisdictional defects in the rendering court constrain enforcement elsewhere. The decision also set the stage for statutory reforms. Later frameworks—the UCCJEA and the PKPA—aim to reduce interstate competition and child snatching by prioritizing the child's home state and requiring notice and opportunity to be heard. While these statutes modify the practical landscape and can authorize custody jurisdiction without traditional in-person jurisdiction over a parent, May remains an important constitutional anchor: a judgment issued without adequate jurisdictional basis and due process protections is not entitled to binding effect across state lines.
No. The Court did not reach the merits of who should have custody or which state would be the better forum to decide the children's best interests. It decided only that Ohio was not constitutionally required to give full faith and credit to Wisconsin's custody award because Wisconsin lacked personal jurisdiction over the mother.
It extends the divisible divorce concept to custody. A state may change the marital status ex parte based on domicile (as in Williams v. North Carolina), but it cannot adjudicate personal obligations and rights—such as alimony, support, or custody—without personal jurisdiction over the nonappearing spouse (as reflected in Estin v. Estin). Thus, a divorce decree can be valid as to status but not binding as to custody.
They can be, and often are, entitled to full faith and credit if the rendering court had a proper jurisdictional basis and provided due process (notice and opportunity to be heard). May holds only that when the rendering court lacked personal jurisdiction over the nonappearing parent, sister states need not treat the custody award as conclusive. Later statutes like the PKPA and UCCJEA provide jurisdictional rules that, when followed, typically require interstate enforcement.
They did not overrule May, a constitutional decision, but they changed the jurisdictional framework for custody. The PKPA requires states to enforce custody orders made consistently with its standards, focusing on the child's home state and requiring notice and an opportunity to be heard. Under these modern schemes, a court may exercise custody jurisdiction without traditional in-person jurisdiction over a parent, provided statutory criteria and due process are satisfied. May still stands for the proposition that judgments rendered without an adequate jurisdictional basis and due process protections are not constitutionally entitled to full faith and credit.
Traditional bases would include her voluntary appearance or consent, personal service on her while physically present in Wisconsin, or other sufficient contacts coupled with a statute authorizing jurisdiction and service consistent with due process. In May, the mother neither appeared nor was served in Wisconsin, and out-of-state service alone did not suffice to subject her to Wisconsin's personal jurisdiction for purposes of conclusively adjudicating her custodial rights.
May v. Anderson draws a clear constitutional boundary: a state cannot conclusively adjudicate an absent parent's custody rights for nationwide enforcement unless it has personal jurisdiction over that parent or otherwise satisfies due process. The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not obligate sister states to enforce custody decrees born of jurisdictional defects.
For students and practitioners, the case offers a durable framework for analyzing interstate family judgments and demonstrates how constitutional principles of jurisdiction shape practical outcomes. Even in the modern era of the PKPA and UCCJEA, May remains essential for understanding why proper jurisdiction and procedural fairness are prerequisites for interstate respect of custody determinations.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →