345 U.S. 528 (1953)
The parties, Owen Anderson and Leona Anderson May, were married in Wisconsin and lived there with their three children until marital difficulties arose in 1946.1 In December 1946, they agreed that the mother would take the children, Ronald, Sandra, and James, to Lisbon, Ohio, to consider her future course.2 By New Year’s Day 1947, the mother informed the father by telephone that she would not return to Wisconsin.3
Within a few days, the father filed suit in the County Court of Waukesha County, Wisconsin, seeking both an absolute divorce and custody of the children.4 The only service on the mother consisted of personal delivery of the Wisconsin summons and petition to her in Ohio.5 The mother entered no appearance in the proceeding.6 On February 5, 1947, the Wisconsin court issued a decree divorcing the parties and awarding custody of the children to the father, with visitation rights to the mother.7
The father, accompanied by a local police officer, obtained the children from the mother in Ohio.8 The children remained with their father in Wisconsin until July 1, 1951, when he brought them back to Lisbon, Ohio, for a visit with their mother.9 When the father later demanded their return, the mother refused to surrender them.10
On July 5, 1951, the father filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Probate Court of Columbiana County, Ohio, seeking to enforce the Wisconsin custody decree.11 After a hearing on the petition, a stipulation of facts, and testimony, the Probate Court ordered the children discharged from the mother’s restraint.12 The Court of Appeals for Columbiana County affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Ohio denied further review.13
The mother appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certiorari to consider the matter.14
Whether, in a habeas corpus proceeding attacking the right of a mother to retain possession of her minor children, an Ohio court must give full faith and credit to a Wisconsin decree awarding custody of the children to their father when that decree is obtained by the father in an ex parte divorce action in a Wisconsin court which had no personal jurisdiction over the mother?15
The Full Faith and Credit Clause does not entitle a judgment in personam to extraterritorial effect if rendered without jurisdiction over the person sought to be bound.16 A mother's right to custody of her children is a personal right entitled to at least as much protection as her right to alimony.17
No. The Wisconsin court rendered its custody decree in an ex parte proceeding.18 The only service on the mother consisted of personal delivery of the summons and petition to her in Ohio, where she had established domicile, and she entered no appearance in the action.19 The Wisconsin court therefore lacked personal jurisdiction over the mother.20 The Ohio courts were not required by the Full Faith and Credit Clause to treat the Wisconsin custody award as binding on her personal right to the immediate possession of her children in the habeas corpus proceeding.21
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio because the Ohio court was not obligated to give full faith and credit to the Wisconsin custody decree.22
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Frankfurter concurred to clarify that the decision holds only that the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require Ohio to accept the Wisconsin disposition under the circumstances presented.23 He explained that Ohio would not be precluded from recognizing the Wisconsin decree as a matter of local law, since doing so would not offend the Due Process Clause.24 He stressed that child custody implicates a state's continuing responsibility to children within its borders that is not foreclosed by a prior adjudication from another state, distinguishing such cases from property rights or marital status adjudications.25
Joined by Justice Reed
Justice Jackson, joined by Justice Reed, dissented.26 He argued that the Ohio courts' reasoning that domicile of the children in Wisconsin was a sufficient jurisdictional basis was correct.27 This rendered the decree valid and entitled to full faith and credit under the Constitution and 28 U.S.C. § 1738.28
He contended that the decision undermines the federal system by permitting self-help in custody disputes.29 It also improperly equates custody proceedings with in personam money judgments.30 He noted that a state has a strong interest in the welfare of its domiciled children that justifies adjudication even without personal jurisdiction over an absent parent.31
Justice Minton dissented.32 He argued that the jurisdictional question was not properly raised in the record.33 The mother did not challenge the validity of the Wisconsin decree by any responsive pleading in the Ohio habeas corpus proceeding.34
He maintained that the decree was valid on its face.35 Since its validity was not attacked, the Ohio court properly gave it full faith and credit.36 This, together with parenthood, proved the father's right to possession of the children.37