Yarborough v. Yarborough, 290 U.S. 202 (1933)

MR. JUSTICE STONE, dissenting.

I think the judgment should be affirmed.

The divorce decree of the Georgia court purported to adjudicate finally, both for the present and for the future, the right of a minor child of the marriage to support and maintenance, by directing her father to make a lump sum payment for that purpose. More than two years later, after the minor had become a domiciled resident of South Carolina, and after the sum paid had been exhausted, a court of that state, on the basis of her need as then shown, has rendered a judgment directing further payments for her support out of property of the father in South Carolina, in addition to that already commanded by the Georgia judgment.

For present purposes, we may take it that the Georgia decree, as the statutes and decisions of the state declare, is unalterable, and, as pronounced, is effective to govern the rights of the parties in Georgia. But there is nothing the decree itself or in the history of the proceedings which led to it to suggest that it was rendered with any purpose or intent to regulate or control the relationship of parent and child, or the duties which flow from it, in places outside the State of Georgia where they might later come to reside. It would hardly be thought that Georgia, by judgment of its courts more than by its statutes, would attempt to regulate the relationship of parents and child domiciled outside the state at the very time the decree was rendered, and, in the face of constitutional doubts which arise here, it is far from clear that its decree is to be interpreted as attempting to do more than to regulate that relationship while the infant continued to be domiciled within the state. But, if we are to read the decree as though it contained a clause, in terms, restricting the power of any other state in which the minor might come to reside, to make provision for her support, then, in the absence of some law of Congress requiring it, I am not persuaded that the full faith and credit clause gives sanction to such control by one state of the internal affairs of another.{1}

Congress has said that the public records and the judicial proceedings of each state are to be given such faith and credit in other states as is accorded to them in the state "from which they are taken." R.S. §§ 905, 906. But this broad language has never been applied without limitations. See M’Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312. Between the prohibition of the due process clause, acting upon the courts of the state from which such proceedings may be taken, and the mandate of the full faith and credit clause, acting upon the state to which they may be taken, there is an area which federal authority has not occupied. As this Court has often recognized, there are many judgments which need not be given the same force and effect abroad which they have at home, and there are some, though valid in the state where rendered, to which the full faith and credit clause gives no force elsewhere. In the assertion of rights defined by a judgment of one state within the territory of another, there is often an inescapable conflict of interest of the two states, and there comes a point beyond which the imposition of the will of one state beyond its own borders involves a forbidden infringement of some legitimate domestic interest of the other. That point may vary with the circumstances of the case, and, in the absence of provisions more specific than the general terms of the congressional enactment,{2} this Court must determine for itself the extent to which one state may qualify{3} or deny{4} rights claimed under proceedings or records of other states.

More than once, this Court has approved the doctrine that a state need give no effect to judgments for conviction of crime or for penalties procured in a sister state. See Wisconsin v. Pelican Insurance Co., 127 U.S. 265; Huntington v. Attrill, 146 U.S. 657, 675; Finney v. Guy, 189 U.S. 335. See also Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 330, 337.{5} And the intervention of a sister state’s judgment will not overcome a local policy against allowing to foreign corporations the use of local courts in settling foreign disputes. Anglo-American Provision Co. v. Davis Provision Co., 191 U.S. 373.{6} Compare Kenney v. Supreme Lodge of Moose, 252 U.S. 411.{7} The state of matrimonial domicile may preserve to its own resident his rights in the marriage status where another state has sought to terminate it, without acquiring jurisdiction of his person, Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, even though terminated within the other state. Cf. Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190.{8} The full faith and credit clause does not require one state, at the behest of the courts of another, to surrender its powers to decide what criminal penalties it shall impose to circumscribe, within limits, the classes of disputes to which its courts must give ear,{9} or to protect its residents from undue interference with the marriage relationship.

A statute, record, or judgment of one state establishing the right of an illegitimate or adopted child to inherit from his putative parent may be given extrastate effect for many purposes, but it does not establish his right to inherit land in another state. See Hood v. McGehee, 237 U.S. 611; Olmstead v. Olmstead, 216 U.S. 386. Parties who have in one state litigated the proper construction of a will disposing of realty are not, by the judgment there, concluded in another state where the testator’s realty is located. Cf. Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186. Nor will a divorce decree seeking to apportion the rights of the parties to realty be conclusive with respect to land outside the state. Fall v. Eastin, 215 U.S. 1. The interest of a state in controlling all the legal incidents of real property located within its boundaries is deemed so complete and so vital to the exercise of its sovereign powers of government within its own territory as to exclude any control over them by the statutes or judgments of other states.

It would be going further than this Court has been willing to go in any decision to say that the power of a state to pass judgment upon the sanity of its own citizen could be foreclosed by an earlier judgment of the court of some other state dealing with the same subject matter. Cf. Gasquet v. Fenner, 247 U.S. 16.

Similarly it has been almost uniformly recognized that a divorce decree which, by its terms or by operation of law forbids remarriage of one or both of the parties can have no effect outside the state which rendered it.{10} Jurisdictional requirements being satisfied, the decree is effective to end the marriage for all states, but enforcement of its prohibition against remarriage in another state, even though the parties do not take up their residence there, would infringe upon the interest which every state has to maintain the stability of a union entered into according to the laws of the place of celebration.{11}

Whatever view may be held of the particular restrictions upon the operation of the full faith and credit clause in these cases, the validity of the principle upon which they rest has never been denied. Its validity is likewise recognized in those cases where this Court has held that the Fourteenth Amendment denies to a state the power of unduly extending its authority beyond its own borders by the mere expedient of rendering a judgment against one of whose person or property it has acquired jurisdiction. New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, 234 U.S. 149; Home Ins. Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397. Just as due process of law will not permit a state, by its judgment, to inflict parties "with a perpetual contractual paralysis" which will prevent them from altering outside the state their contracts or ordinary business relations entered into within it, New York Life Ins. Co. v. Head, supra,161, so full faith and credit does not command that the obligations attached to a status, because once appropriately imposed by one state, shall be forever placed beyond the control of every other state without regard to the interest in it and the power of control which the other may later acquire. See Bradford Elec. Light Co. v. Clapper, 286 U.S. 145, 157, n. 7. Whatever difference there may be between holding that a judgment is invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it is "extra-territorial" and in holding that it is not entitled to full faith and credit although it does not infringe the Fourteenth Amendment is one of degree, or of a difference in circumstances which may prevent the operation of the latter provision of the Constitution. The Georgia judgment with which we are now concerned does not infringe the Fourteenth Amendment, for Georgia had "jurisdiction" of the parties and subject matter at the time its judgment was rendered. The possibility of conflict of the Georgia judgment with the interest of South Carolina first arose when the minor transferred her domicile to South Carolina, long after the Georgia judgment was given.

The question presented here is whether the support and maintenance of a minor child, domiciled in South Carolina, is so peculiarly a subject of domestic concern that Georgia law cannot impair South Carolina’s authority. The subject matter of the judgment in each state is the duty which government may impose on a parent to support a minor child. The maintenance and support of children domiciled within a state, like their education and custody, is a subject in which government itself is deemed to have a peculiar interest and concern. Their tender years, their inability to provide for themselves, the importance to the state that its future citizens should be clothed, nourished, and suitably educated, are considerations which lead all civilized countries to assume some control over the maintenance of minors.{12} The states very generally make some provision from their own resources for the maintenance and support of orphans or destitute children, but, in order that children may not become public charges, the duty of maintenance is one imposed primarily upon the parents, according to the needs of the child and their ability to meet those needs. This is usually accomplished by suit brought directly by some public officer,{13} by the child by guardian or next friend, or by the mother, against the father for maintenance and support.{14} The measure of the duty is the need of the child and the ability of the parent to meet those needs at the very time when performance of the duty is invoked. Hence, it is no answer in such a suit that, at some earlier time, provision was made for the child, which is no longer available or suitable because of his greater needs, or because of the increased financial ability of the parent to provide for them,{15} or that the child may be maintained from other sources.{16}

In view of the universality of these principles, it comes as a surprise that any state, merely because it has made some provision for the support of a child, should, either by statute or judicial decree, so tie its own hand as to foreclose all future inquiry into the duty of maintenance, however affected by changed conditions.{17}

Even though the Constitution does not deny to Georgia the power to indulge in such a policy for itself,{18} it by no means follows that it gives to Georgia the privilege of prescribing that policy for other states in which the child comes to live.{19} South Carolina has adopted a different policy. It imposes on the father or his property located within the state the duty to support his minor child domiciled there. It enforces the duty by criminal prosecution,{20} and also permits suit by the minor child maintained by guardian ad litem. The measure of the duty is the present need of the child and the ability of the parent to provide for it. In this case, the suit was begun by attachment of the father’s property in South Carolina and by personal service of process upon him there. The court found that the lump sum paid for support of the child under the Georgia decree had been expended; that she was justifiably residing with her mother in South Carolina, rather than with her father in Georgia; that she was then without financial resources, and that, considering her station in life and the circumstances of her father, an allowance for the future of $50 a month for her education, maintenance, and support would be fair and just, and this amount was ordered to be paid for that purpose from the attached property.

The opinion of this Court leaves it uncertain whether it is thought that the Constitution commands that the duty of support prescribed by Georgia, the domicile of the father, shall be dominant over that enjoined by South Carolina, the domicile of the child, in any event, or only after the duty has been defined by a judgment of Georgia.{21} It is attested by eminent authority that the Fourteenth Amendment at least does not prevent the state of the child’s domicile from imposing the duty, Restatement of Conflict of Laws § 498A,{22} a view confirmed by the uniform rulings that the father is liable to the criminal process of the state of the child’s residence, though before, and at all times during his failure to conform to the duty demanded by that state, he has been domiciled elsewhere.Kansas v. Wellman, 102 Kan. 503, 170 P. 1052; Ohio v. Sanner, 81 Ohio St. 393, 90 N.E. 1007. The Fourteenth Amendment does not enable a father, by the expedient of choosing a domicile other than the state where the child is rightfully domiciled, to avoid the duty which that state may impose for support of his child. The reason seems plain. The locality of the child’s residence must see to his welfare. While it might be more convenient for creditors of the father to look to the law of his residence as fixing all his obligations, it would seem that the compelling interest in the welfare of children, to which performance of the duties of parentage is a necessary incident, outweighs commercial convenience; the more so where, as in this case, the obligation is to be satisfied from the father’s property within the state of the child’s domicile.

The conclusion must be the same when the issue is that of the credit to be given the prior Georgia judgment. Whatever may be said of the local interest which was deemed controlling in those cases in which this Court has denied to a state judgment the same force and effect outside the state as is given to it at home, it would not seem open to serious question that every state has an interest in securing the maintenance and support of minor children residing within its own territory so complete and so vital to the performance of its functions as a government that no other state could set limits upon it. Of that interest, South Carolina is the sole mistress within her own territory. See Hood v. McGehee, supra,615. Even though we might appraise it more lightly than does South Carolina, it is not for us to say that a state is not free, within constitutional limitations, to regard that interest as fully as important and as completely within the realm of state power as the legal incidents of land located within its boundaries, or of a marriage relationship, wherever entered into but of which it is the domicile, or its power to pass upon the sanity of its own residents, notwithstanding the earlier pronouncements of the courts of other states.

The case of Sistare v. Sistare, 218 U.S. 1, seems to have no bearing on the question presented here. There, the plaintiff in error procured in the courts of New York a judgment of judicial separation awarding alimony for herself and child at a weekly rate. Leave was given to her by the judgment to apply for such orders as might be necessary for its enforcement or her protection. Her husband failed to pay the alimony, and she brought suit against him in the courts of Connecticut for the past-due alimony which had accrued under the judgment. Upon an examination of the New York law, this Court concluded that the judgment was final as to all past alimony, and that the effect of it was to create a debt in New York, collectible there by execution, for all past-due installments, and it held that the full faith and credit clause required the Connecticut courts to render a like judgment. The Court was careful to distinguish the case from one where the suit was brought to compel the payment of alimony in the future. See p. 16. Compare Lynde v. Lynde, 181 U.S. 183, 187. The record discloses that neither party to the suit was domiciled in Connecticut. The wife relied on the New York judgment, as did the husband, whose only defenses were based on its effect in New York as not there conferring on her an unqualified right to the alimony. The Court was not asked, and did not assume to pass upon, the duty of the husband to support the wife or children independently of the New York judgment. No question whether the enforcement of the New York decree in Connecticut would infringe the authority of Connecticut to regulate or control the incidents of a marriage, one or both of the parties to which were then domiciled in the state, was either raised or considered.

The decision in Sistare v. Sistare lends no support to the contention that South Carolina can be precluded by a judgment of another state from providing for the future maintenance and support of a destitute child domiciled within its own borders out of the property of her father also located there. Here, the Georgia decree did not end the relationship of parent and child, as a decree of divorce may end the marriage relationship. Had the infant continued to reside in Georgia, and had she sought in the courts of South Carolina to compel the application of property of her father, found there, to her further maintenance and support, full faith and credit to the Georgia decree applied to its own domiciled resident might have required the denial of any relief. Cf. Bates v. Bodie, 245 U.S. 520; Thompson v. Thompson, 226 U.S. 551. But, when she became a domiciled resident of South Carolina, a new interest came into being, the interest of the State of South Carolina, as a measure of self-preservation, to secure the adequate protection and maintenance of helpless members of its own community and its prospective citizens. That interest was distinct from any which Georgia could conclusively regulate or control by its judgment, even though rendered while the child was domiciled in Georgia. The present decision extends the operation of the full faith and credit clause beyond its proper function of affording protection to the domestic interests of Georgia, and makes it an instrument for encroachment by Georgia upon the domestic concerns of South Carolina.

MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO concurs in this opinion.

1. It may be assumed for present purposes that the child was sufficiently represented in the Georgia proceedings. But the point is doubtful. See Walder v. Walder, 159 La. 231, 105 So. 300; Graham v. Graham, 38 Colo. 453, 88 P. 852. The reasoning of the opinion of the Court -- that, since Georgia does not give the child a cause of action, it has no property right and need not have been represented -- would lead to the conclusion that what was decided in Georgia was something quite different from that which was in litigation and decided in South Carolina; that the child’s suit is upon a right afforded only by the law of South Carolina, and that the Georgia suit, giving no similar right but only a right to the mother, could have no effect upon the present litigation.

2. The mandatory force of the full faith and credit clause as defined by this Court may be, in some degree not yet fully defined, expanded or contracted by Congress. Much of the confusion and procedural deficiencies which the constitutional provision alone has not avoided may be remedied by legislation. Cook, Powers of Congress under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, 28 Yale Law Journal, 421; Corwin, The "Full Faith and Credit" Clause, 81 University of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 371. Cf. 33 Columbia Law Rev. 854, 866. The constitutional provision giving Congress power to prescribe the effect to be given to acts, records, and proceedings would have been quite unnecessary had it not been intended that Congress should have a latitude broader than that given the courts by the full faith and credit clause alone. It was remarked on the floor of the Constitutional Convention that, without the extension of power in the legislature, the provision "would amount to nothing more than what now takes place among all Independent Nations." Hunt and Scott, Madison’s Reports of the Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 503. The play which has been afforded for the recognition of local public policy in cases where there is called in question only a statute of another state, as to the effect of which Congress has not legislated, compared with the more restricted scope for local policy where there is a judicial proceeding, as to which Congress has legislated, suggests the congressional power.

3. M’Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312.

4. Grover & Baker Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U.S. 287, 299.

5. The extent to which the doctrine may be applied to judgments for penalties has not been clearly defined. Leflar, Extrastate Enforcement of Penal and Governmental Claims, 46 Harvard Law Rev.193. Compare 33 Columbia Law Rev. 492, 507. And see New York v. Coe Manufacturing Co., 162 A. 872, 10 N.J.Misc. 1161 (New York judgment based on tax claims given full faith and credit); 42 Yale Law Journal 1131.

6. See also Weidman v. Weidman, 274 Mass. 118, 174 N.E. 206; Palmer v. Palmer, 265 Mass. 242, 163 N.E. 879; 42 Harvard Law Rev. 701.

7. That corporations cannot invoke the privileges and immunities clause does not explain the difference between these two cases. Application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens, while more limited when applied to actions based on foreign judgments, is not altogether precluded. 33 Columbia Law Review 492, 502.

8. But see Beale, Constitutional Protection for Divorce, 19 Harvard Law Rev. 586; Haddock Revisited, 39 Harvard Law Rev. 417. Compare Harper, Collateral Attack upon Foreign Judgments, 29 Michigan Law Rev. 661, 679.

9. Cf. Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107, with Union Pacific R. Co. v. Rule, 155 Minn. 302, 193 N.W. 161. See 39 Yale Law Journal 719. Cf. Tennessee Coal, I. & R. Co. v. George, 233 U.S. 354.

10. In re Estate of Ommang, 183 Minn. 92, 235 N.W. 529; Bauer v. Abrahams, 73 Colo. 509, 216 P. 259; Dudley v. Dudley, 151 Iowa 142, 130 N.W. 785. Sometimes the state granting the divorce will not recognize the validity of the later marriage, Wilson v. Cook, 256 Ill. 460, 100 N.E. 222, unless the party had changed his domicile before remarrying, Pierce v. Pierce, 58 Wash. 622, 109 P. 45. Thus, the divorce proceedings, on the one hand, and the marriage record, on the other, are denied full credit. See Beale, Laughlin, Guthrie and Sandomire, Marriage and the Domicil, 44 Harvard Law Rev. 501; 16 Minnesota Law Rev. 172. The present case is not distinguished by arguing that, in the divorce situation, it is a question of faith and credit to be given to a statute, and not to judicial proceedings. Goodwin v. Goodwin, 158 App.Div. 171, 173, 142 N.Y.S. 1102. While it is usually a statute that prescribes the disability which is to attach to the divorce, it is the judicial proceedings themselves which are in question as much as in the present case, where the judgment for support is unalterable within the state by virtue of the Georgia statute. Without denying the validity of a marriage in another state, the privileges flowing from marriage may be subject to the local law. State v. Bell, 7 Baxt. 9 (husband and wife of different races may be prohibited from cohabiting within state though lawfully married elsewhere); Restatement of Conflicts of Law § 181.

11. Further examples might be referred to. The policy of the state in which the foreign judgment is set up fixes the periods of limitations, and the priority which foreign judgment creditors may have. M’Elmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet. 312; Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107, 112. A state may, under some circumstances, deny the authority of foreign officers to deal with things within its territory, see Great Western Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Harris, 198 U.S. 561, 576, even though the officer’s action took place in the foreign state, Clarke v. Clarke, 178 U.S. 186, 194; Hoyt v. Sprague, 103 U.S. 613, 631. The limitation upon the doctrine of such cases which this Court has imposed in holding that certain statutory successors to corporations in a foreign state shall have the privilege of maintaining suit, Converse v. Hamilton, 224 U.S. 243; Bernheimer v. Converse, 206 U.S. 526, illustrates the appropriate function of this Court in balancing the interests of local and foreign sovereign. The extrastate force given to a voluntary assignment in receivership, as compared with the more restricted effect of an assignment which is commanded by court order, further demonstrates the nature of the full faith and credit mandate. See Cole v. Cunningham, 133 U.S. 107, 129; Catlin v. Wilcox Silver-Plate Co., 123 Ind. 477, 482, 24 N.E. 250; Zacher v. Fidelity Trust & Safety-Vault Co., 106 F. 593; Laughlin, Extraterritorial Powers of Receivers, 45 Harvard Law Rev. 429, 461ff. The problems in relation to the extrastate consequences of the dissolution of a corporation are becoming important. Compare Clark, Receiver v. Williard, 94 Mont. 508, 23 P.2d 959, cert. granted, post, p. 619, with National Surety Co. v. Cobb, 66 F.2d 323, cert. denied, post,

p. 692.

12. This control is particularly important in the case of the children of divorced couples. They are usually young; in Maryland, over 60 percent are under ten years of age when divorce occurs. Divorces are often not contested, and the intervention of a disinterested judge is frequently nominal. Allowances for children in the divorce court are typically small. Marshall and May, The Divorce Court, 31, 79, 80, 82, 226-231, 323.

13. Frequently a criminal statute provides as an alternative penalty for nonsupport of a child that the guilty party post a bond or otherwise provide for the future support of the child. Such a statute exists in South Carolina. Section 1123, South Carolina Code 1932. Cf. Mason’s 1927 Minn. St. § 10136. The state’s special interest in securing the father’s liability is emphasized not only by the frequency of penal measures, but also by the fact that, in some places, a statute is necessary before any suit can be maintained against the father. Huke v. Huke, 44 Mo.App. 308; Rawlings v. Rawlings, 121 Miss. 140, 83 So. 146. Cf. Hooten v. Hooten, 168 Ga. 86, 147 S.E. 373. See Madden, Domestic Relations, 383. Contra, Doughty v. Engler, 112 Kan. 583, 211 P. 619. Cf. Craig v. Shea, 102 Neb. 575, 168 N.W. 135. Likewise notable is the extensive repudiation of the view that the duty to support is correlative with the right to custody and services. See Jacobs, cases on Domestic Relations 772.

14. The duty of support is also enforced through entertaining suits by third parties to recover for necessaries furnished. However, conflicting policies make this an unsatisfactory method, for the courts seek to discourage wrongful action on the part of wives or minors in leaving their homes, and have consequently gone to some lengths in refusing to impose liability on the father unless he has been at fault in breaking up the home. Baldwin v. Foster, 138 Mass. 449. See Mihalcoe v. Holub, 130 Va. 425, 107 S.E. 704. Contra, Maschauer v. Downs, 53 App.D.C. 142, 289 F. 540. See Birdsong v. Birdsong, 182 Ky. 58, 206 S.W. 22. Cf. Sanger Bros. v. Trammell, 198 S.W. 1175.

15. See State v. Miller, 111 Kan. 231, 206 P. 744; Walder v. Walder, 159 La. 231, 105 So. 300; People v. Miller, 225 Ill.App. 150; Hilliard v. Anderson, 197 Ill. 549, 552, 553, 64 N.E. 326. See also State v. Moran, 99 Conn. 115, 121 A. 277; McCloskey v. St. Louis Union Trust Co., 202 Mo.App. 28, 213 S.W. 538; State v. Langford, 90 Or. 251, 176 P. 197. An attempt to relieve himself of liability by a settlement or other contract will normally be ineffectual. See Harper v. Tipple, 21 Ariz. 41, 184 P. 1005; Edleson v. Edleson, 179 Ky. 300, 200 S.W. 625; Michaels v. Flach, 197 App.Div. 478, 189 N.Y.S. 908, aff’g 114 Misc. 225, 186 N.Y.S. 899; Von Roeder v. Miller, 117 Misc. 106, 190 N.Y.S. 787. Cf. Henkel’s Estate, 13 Pa.Super.Ct. 337. Higher education is properly an object of a suit for an increased allowance. Cf. Esteb v. Esteb, 138 Wash. 174, 244 P. 264, 246 P. 27; Hilliard v. Anderson, 197 Ill. 549, 64 N.E. 326; Commonwealth ex rel. Smith v. Gillmor, 95 Pa.Super.Ct. 557; Sisson v. Schultz, 251 Mich. 553, 232 N.W. 253; Moskow v. Marshall, 271 Mass. 302, 171 N.E. 477.

16. Hunter v. state, 10 Okl.Cr. 119, 134 P. 1134; State v. Waller, 90 Kan. 829, 136 P. 215; Cruger v. Heyward, 2 Desaus 94, 110; State v. Constable, 90 W.Va. 515, 112 S.E. 410; Gulley v. Gulley, 111 Tex. 233, 231 S.W. 97. Cf. Taylor v. San Antonio Gas & Elec. Co., 93 S.W. 674. When suit is instituted by the wife, considerations of equity as between husband and wife may obtrude, McWilliams v. Kinney, 180 Ark. 836, 22 S.W.2d 1003; Fulton v. Fulton, 52 Ohio St. 229, 39 N.E. 729, unless the wife is unable to support the child, State v. Miller, 111 Kan. 231, 206 P. 744; White v. White, 169 Mo.App. 40, 154 S.W. 872.

17. Georgia seems to be the only state to do so. 2 Vernier, Family Laws, 196ff. A similar attempt by the courts of another state has been held null and void and subject to collateral attack. See Walder v. Walder, 159 La. 231, 105 So. 300.

18. Cf. Laumeier v. Laumeier, 308 Mo. 201, 271 S.W. 481. And there could be no complaint if South Carolina chose to follow the Georgia determination. Cf. Laumeier v. Laumeier, 242 N.Y. 501, 152 N.E. 401.

19. In the custody cases, a very similar situation is presented. As conventionally stated, the rule has been that the most the full faith and credit clause can require is that the prior ruling shall be deemed conclusive in the absence of an asserted change in circumstances. See Calkins v. Calkins, 217 Ala. 378, 115 So. 866. Cf. People ex rel. Allen v. Allen, 105 N.Y. 628, 11 N.E. 143, aff’g 40 Hun. 611. In one state, a distinction has been drawn between personal rights of the parents and the interest of the state in the welfare of the child -- unless there is an allegation that the best interest of the child requires a change in custody, the parties will be bound. Wear v. Wear, 130 Kan. 205, 285 P. 606. See In re Bort, 25 Kan. 308, 309. Another state gives credit to the extent that prior determinations of fact are deemed incontrovertible, but exercises an independent judgment of the conclusion to be drawn from them. Commonwealth ex rel. Rogers v. Daven, 298 Pa. 416, 148 A. 524. In no case has there been such an abject surrender as this Court now requires of South Carolina. A tendency may be discerned to give conclusive force to the determinations of the state wherein the child resides, as long as that residence continues, but that, upon change of residence, the questions will be open in the state to which the change is made. In re Erving, 109 N.J.Eq. 294, 157 A. 161, 164; Milner v. Gatlin, 139 Ga. 109, 113, 76 S.E. 860; Steele v. Steele, 152 Miss. 365, 118 So. 721; In re Alderman, 157 N.C. 507, 73 S.E. 126; Griffin v. Griffin, 95 Or. 78, 84, 187 P. 598; In re Groves, 109 Wash. 112, 114, 186 P. 300; cf. Barnes v. Lee, 128 Or. 655, 275 P. 661. See 80 University of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 712; 81 University of Pennsylvania Law Rev. 970; Restatement of Conflict of Laws §§ 153, 156. Reasonable latitude should be preserved to states where the child is found to take temporary police measures, even though contrary to the terms of a decree of the state of residence. Cf. Hartman v. Henry, 280 Mo. 478, 217 S.W. 987.

20. Supra,note 13.

21. Cf. Home Insurance Co. v. Dick, 281 U.S. 397, with Kryger v. Wilson, 242 U.S. 171.

22.

A state may impose upon one person a duty to support another person if

1. The person to be supported is domiciled within the state, and the person to support is within the jurisdiction of the state. . . .