STATE EX REL MUIRHEAD v DISTRICT C

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 1.3315 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1976 STATE OF MONTANA, ex r e l . K R L MUIRHEAD, AOA Rela t o r , THE DISrIRICT COURT OF THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE O MONTANA, I N AND F F FOR THE COUNTY OF LEWIS AND CLARK, AND THE HON. PETER G. MELOY, J U D G E PRESIDING, Respondents. O K l G l N A L PKOCEEDING : Counsel of Record : F o r Rela t o r : Td. W i l l i a m L e a p h a r t a r g u e d , Helena, Montana For Respondents: Smith, Smith and S e w e l l , Helena, Montana R o b e r t J . Sewell a r g u e d , Helena, Montana S u b m i t t e d : A p r i l 8, 1976 Decided : Filed: '-' b y ~ a y6 1976 John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f %I. J u s t i c e ;:he C o u r t . R e l a t o r p e t i t i o n e d t h i s Court f o r a w r i t o f p r o h i b i t i o n gr o r h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t , t o r e c o v e r t h e c u s t o d y o f t h r e e minor children. Adversary h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e i s s u e o f j u r i s - d i c t i o n was s e t by t h e Court t o b e h e a r d A p r i l 8 , 1976. Briefs were f i l e d , t h e m a t t e r h e a r d , and t a k e n under advisement by t h e Court. An a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was b r o u g h t by R o b e r t Xuirhead t o modify a d e c r e e of d i v o r c e between Karola V i r g i n i a Yiuirhead and Robert J a c k Muirhead, g r a n t e d by t h e S u p e r i o r Court o f t h e s t a t e o f Washington, K i t s a p County, November 3 , 1972. Karola was g r a n t e d c u s t o d y of t h e t h r e e minor c h i l d r e n o f t h e n a r t i e s and Robert was o r d e r e d t o pay $300 p e r month f o r t h e support of t h e c h i l d r e n . Robert was g i v e n r e a s o n a b l e r i g h t s of v i s i t a t i o n a t p r o p e r t i m e s and p l a c e s . Robert l e f t t h e s t a t e of ' d a s h i n g t o n , and e s t a b l i s h e d a home i n H e l e n a , Montana. R o b e r t , w h i l e v i s i t i n g t h e minor c h i l d r e n on o r a b o u t iugust 2 8 , 1975, a t ~ a r o l a ' shome i n Bremerton, Washington, d l l e g e d h e observed (1) t h e p h y s i c a l and e m o t i o n a l s i t u a t i o n i n which t h e minor c h i l d r e n were l o c a t e d had s e r i o u s l y d e t e r i o r a t e d , , 2 ) t h e o n l y c l e a n c l o t h e s t h e y had were t h o s e t h e y were w e a r i n g 2t t h e t i m e , i4j (3) t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n were p h y s i c a l l y u n c l e a n , t h e household environment was f i l t h y , (5) t h a t Karola had g i v e n b i r t h t o a n o t h e r c h i l d o u t o f wedlock and t h e n i n e y e a r ~ l N i c k i L o r i , was i n c h a r g e o f a l l t h e c h i l d r e n w h i l e K a r o l a d dorked a s a c o c k t a i l w a i t r e s s from 5:00 p.m. t o 2:00 a.m., (6) none , t h e c h i l d r e n were p r o p e r l y f e d , and ( 7 ) t h e f a m i l y was a p p a r e n t l y i i-11 d e s p e r a t e f i s c a l n e e d , i n d i c a t i n g a f a i l u r e on t h e p a r t of v a r o l a t o p r o p e r l y u t i l i z e t h e s u p p o r t money f u r n i s h e d by him. Yubert a l l e g e d t h a t a f t e r s e e i n g t h i s s i t u a t i o n , he t o o k t h e c h i l d r e n dild b r o u g h t them t o Helena, Montana, t o h i s new home. 3n S c t o b e r 5 , 1-975, 3 o b e r t p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f Lewis and C l a r k County t h a t he b e g r a n t e d t h e c a r e , c u s t o d y and c o n t r o l of t h e minor c h i l d r e n . A copy o f t h a t p e t i t i o n was s e n t t o Karola by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l and s h e a p p e a r e d s p e c i a l l y , c h a l l e n g i n g t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o f t h e p e t i t i o n . Temporary c u s t o d y was g r a n t e d by t h e Montana c o u r t t o Robert on October 2 , 1975; on J a n u a r y 1 2 , 1976, Judge Robert W. Winsor o f t h e S u p e r i o r Court o f t h e S t a t e o f Washington, King County, h e l d a h e a r i n g and i s s u e d an o r d e r t o show c a u s e , found Robert i n contempt o f c o u r t f o r f a i l u r e t o comply w i t h t h e c u s t o d y p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e d e c r e e of d i v o r c e and o r d e r e d R o b e r t t o t a k e immediate s t e p s t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d r e n t o Karola. T h e r e a f t e r , on March 3 , 1976, Judge Meloy o f t h e d i s t r i c t ~ o u r t ,Lewis and C l a r k County, s t a t e o f Montana, d e n i e d ~ a r o l a ' s n o t i o n t o d i s m i s s f o r l a c k o f j u r i s d i c t i o n and h e l d t h a t h i s c o u r t had " j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r b o t h t h e p e r s o n o f t h e d e f e n d a n t and o f the subject matter. II Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d by t h e p e t i t i o n : 1. Whether o r n o t t h e Montana d i s t r i c t c o u r t must have i-n Dersonam j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e mother and t h e l e g a l c u s t o d i a n 2f t h e minor c h i l d r e n b e f o r e t h a t c o u r t c a n o r d e r t h e m o t h e r ' s r i g h t t o c u s t o d y t e r m i n a t e d and t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e f a t h e r ? 2. Whether o r n o t r e l a t o r h a s s u f f i c i e n t "minimum c o n t a c t s " with zhe s t a t e of Montana t o come w i t h i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f ~ o n t a n a ' slong arm s t a t u t e , Rule 4 , M.R.Civ.P.? Where, a s h e r e , t h e c l a i m i s t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n i s c o n f e r r e d b y p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e o f t h e c h i l d , we must avoid a c c e p t i n g t h o s e Ldses where c u s t o d y was o b t a i n e d by Il s e i z e and run". T h i s Court i n C a r r o l l v. White, 1 5 1 Mont. 332, 335, 443 P.2d ' - 3 , similar t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , a f t e r f i r s t d i s c u s s i n g s e v e r a l 3 d r l i . e ~c u s ~ o d yc a s e s , h e l d : 'I f The mother, who was awarded t h e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n , had t h e r i g h t t o f i x t h e i r r e s i d e n c e . 9: ;k And t h e m o t h e r ' s r e s i d e n c e d e t e r m i n e s t h a t o f t h e c h i l d r e n . ik 9~ C e r t a i n l y t h e y were r e s i d e n t s o f t h e S t a t e o f Oregon, when t h e Oregon c o u r t awarded t h e c u s t o d y t o t h e i r mother. 9 9 : : The Oregon c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o decree t h e custody of t h e c h i l d r e n i n t h e d i v o r c e a c t i o n . That d e c r e e i s e n t i t l e d t o f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t h e r e . ; k Any q u e s t i o n o f t h e f i t n e s s of t h e mother t o have t h e c a r e and c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d r e n and h e r claimed abandonment o f them s h o u l d have been b r o u g h t t o t h e a t t e n t i o n o f t h e Oregon c o u r t b e f o r e t h e award o f c u s t o d y was made. 1 1 1 * * * tb ? i o n t a n a l s long-arm s t a t u t e , Rule 4 , M.R.Civ.P., c h o s e p e r s o n s and c o r p o r a t i o n s who a r e d i c t i o n o f Montana c o u r t s . JURISDICTION II sets forth subject" t o the juris- The r u l e r e a d s : PERSONS. (1) S u b j e c t t o J u r i s d i c t i o n . A 1 1 p e r s o n s w i t h i n s t a t e o f Montana a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n LJ£ t h e c o u r t s o f t h i s s t a t e . I n a d d i t i o n , any p e r s o n Is s u b j e c t t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e c o u r t s of t h i s s t a t e a s t o any c l a i m f o r r e l i e f a r i s i n g from t h e d o i n g $ e r s o n a l l y , t h r o u g h an employee, o r t h r o u g h a n a g e n t , .3f any of t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t s : ( a ) t h e t r a n s a c t i o n of any b u s i n e s s w i t h i n this state; 'he jb) t h e commission o f any a c t which r e s u l t s i n accrual within t h e s t a t e of a t o r t action; ,c) t h e ownership, u s e o r p o s s e s s i o n o f any p r o p e r t y , dr o f any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , s i t u a t e d w i t h i n this state; c o n t r a c t i n g t o i n s u r e any p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y o r r i s k located within t h i s s t a t e a t the t i m e of contracting; ) ;e; ,f) RelaLur :riteria. e n t e r i n g i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r s e r v i c e s t o be r e n d e r e d o r f o r m a t e r i a l s t o be f u r n i s h e d i n t h i s s t a t e by such p e r s o n ; o r a c ~ i n g s d i r e c t o r , manager, t r u s t e e , o r o t h e r a o f f i c e r o f any c o r p o r a t i o n o r g a n i z e d u n d e r t h e laws o f , o r having i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s within t h i s s t a t e , o r a s executor o r administrator d f any e s t a t e w i t h i n t h i s s t a t e . I I n o t f i t w i t h i n any o f t h e enumerated ~ O C S She h a s no I1 c o n t a c t s " w i t h t h e s t a t e o f Hontana which . ~ u u l d a r r a n i s u b j e c t i n g h e r t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e liontana w courts. Any a t t e m p t by Montana t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r : < a r o l a Muirhead would b e i n v i o l a t i o n o f t h e due p r o c e s s c l a u s e of ,:he F o u r t e e n t h Amendment t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n . R e l a t o r i s n o t s u b j e c t t o t h e long-arm s t a t u t e o f t h e s t a t e of Montana and t h u s t h e Montana c o u r t cannot o b t a i n i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n over h e r . Any custody d e c r e e rendered by t h e Montana c o u r t would n o t be e n t i t l e d t o f u l l f a i t h and c r e d i t and t h u s t h e i n t e r s t a t e custody b a t t l e would c o n t i n u e and whate v e r chance t h e c h i l d r e n have f o r s t a b i l i t y and happiness would be l o s t amidst t h e d i n of warring p a r e n t s . It i s t h e s t a t e of Washington which has t h e c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e p a r t i e s j u s t i f y i n g an e x e r c i s e of j u r i s d i c t i o n . Washington i s t h e s i t u s of t h e marriage a s w e l l a s t h e d i v o r c e and i s t h e l e g a l domicile of r e l a t o r and t h u s t h e c h i l d r e n of which s h e has l e g a l custody. There i s p r e s e n t l y a contempt proceeding i n p r o g r e s s i n t h e s t a t e of Washington concerning t h e custody of t h e Muirhead children. A show cause h e a r i n g was h e l d i n S e a t t l e on January 12, 1976 a t which Robert .Mu'irZiead was h e l d i n contempt of c o u r t f o r r e f u s a l t o r e t u r n custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o r e l a t o r and he was f u r t h e r ordered t o t a k e immediate s t e p s t o s o r e t u r n custody of t h e c h i l d r e n . Muirhead's Pfuirhead The m a t t e r of a p p r o p r i a t e s a n c t i o n s f o r Robert contempt was continued u n t i l such time a s Robert i s brought b e f o r e t h e Washington Court. I t was f u r t h e r ordered t h a t a copy of t h e Washington o r d e r be s e n t t o t h e Hon. Judge Meloy of t h e Montana d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Equity demands t h e Montana d i s t r i c t c o u r t d e f e r t o t h e Washington c o u r t f o r t h e reason t h a t Robert Muirhead he has does n o t have "clean hands", i.e., p e t i t i o n e d i n Montana f o r a m o d i f i c a t i o n of a CJashington d e c r e e , which d e c r e e he i s p r e s e n t l y v i o l a t i n g . Brown v. Brown, 105 Ariz. 273, 463 P.2d 71'; S t a t e ex r e l . G l a s i e r v. G l a s i e r , 272 Minn. 62, 137 N.W.2d 549. I n h i s c h a p t e r on Marriage, Divorce, and Custody, p. 198, i n h i s "Commentary on t h e C o n f l i c t of Laws!' (1971), P r o f e s s o r R u s s e l l J. Weintraub of t h e U n i v e r s i t y of Texas, poses t h i s q u e s t i o n and answer: It How can we end t h e d i s g r a c e f u l i n t e r s t a t e custody b a t t l e s t h a t r a g e about u s w i t h c h i l d r e n a s t h e weapons? JC J JC What i s needed i s t h a t c o u r t s v o l u n t a r i l y i d e s i s t from e n t e r t a i n i n g a p e t i t i o n t o modify a s i s t e r s t a t e custody d e c r e e when t h a t d e c r e e was rendered by a c o u r t t h a t had s u f f i c i e n t c o n t a c t s w i t h t h e p a r t i e s t o r e a c h an i n t e l l i g e n t d e c i s i o n , when t h a t o t h e r c o u r t s t i l l has t h e s e c o n t a c t s s o t h a t i t could make an informed d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e r e q u e s t f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n , and when t h e r e i s no compelling r e a s o n , such a s imminent t h r e a t of i r r e p a r a b l e harm t o t h e c h i l d , why t h e p a r t i e s should n o t be r e m i t t e d t o t h a t o t h e r s t a t e f o r d e c i s i o n on t h e p e t i t i o n t o amend t h e o u t s t a n d i n g decree. I I R e l a t o r submits t h a t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i s m i s s ~ o b e r t ' s p e t i t i o n f o r l a c k of i n personam j u r i s d i c t i o n over r e l a t o r and/or d e f e r t o t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Washington c o u r t , because: 1. ~ o n t a n a ' slong-arm s t a t u t e does n o t encompass a person i n r e l a t o r ' s s i t u a t i o n ; 2. The s t a t e of Washington i s t h e s i t u s of t h e marriage and t h e d i v o r c e between t h e p a r t i e s and i s t h e d o m i c i l e of r e l a t o r a s well a s the children; 3. hands", Robert i s b e f o r e t h e Montana c o u r t w i t h "unclean i.e., he i s p e t i t i o n i n g t o modify a d e c r e e which he i n t u r n i s v i o l a t i n g ; and 4. Robert Muirhead has s u f f i c i e n t "contacts" w i t h t h e s t a t e of Washington t o b e s u b j e c t t o t h a t s t a t e ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . F u r t h e r t h e r e i s p r e s e n t l y pending i n t h e s t a t e o f Washington a contempt proceeding i n which he h a s been p e r s o n a l l y served and ordered t o r e t u r n custody of t h e c h i l d r e n t o r e l a t o r . I n view of t h e f a c t t h e c h i l d r e n h e r e involved a r e now i n school and have b u t a month t o go t o complete t h e f u l l y e a r , t h i s Court d i r e c t s t h e f a t h e r Robert Muirhead, t o r e t u r n t h e c h i l d r e n t o t h e i r mother i n Washington immediately a f t e r t h e school y e a r ends. I f t h e r e be any q u e s t i o n o f p e t i t i o n e r K a r o l a ' s f i t n e s s , t h a t i s f o r t h e c o u r t i n t h e s t a t e o f Washington t o d e c i d e , f o r t h e r e i s where j u r i s d i c t i o n l i e s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d . // Chief Justice Justices. - Mr. Justice Frank I. Haswell specially concurring: I concur in the result based. on lack of subjec~macter jurisdiction. In my view, the Washington custody award was controlling UriilL aodified or superseded by the Washington court. White, 151 Mont. 332, 443 P.2d 13. Carroll v. In Carroll, as here, the Washington court made a valid custody award involving children and parents who were Washington domiciliaries. The custody award in both cases was entitled to full faith and credit in 14ontana. United States Constitution, Art. IV, Sec. 1; Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 947. In this case the Washington custody award was violated by the father, then a Montana domiciliary, when he removed the children from their mother's custody in Washington and brought them to Montana. Such unauthorized removal in violation of an existing valid custody award did not vest jurisdiction in the Montana courts to readjudicate custody based on changed circumstances. State ex rel. Nipp v. District Court, 46 Mont. 425, 128 P. 590. As I see it, neither ~ontana's "long arm statute1' (Rule 4( 8 ) (I), M. R. Civ. P.) nor the 'minimum contactsr'test is germane to determining the jurisdiction of Montana courts in interstate custody cases involving II seize & run" violations of valid custody orders of sister states. Justice. I N T E SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA H F F STATE O MONTANA e x r e l . K R L F AOA MUIRHEAD , Relator, VS. THE DISTRICT COURT O T E FIRST F H JUDICIAL DISTRICT O THE STATE F O MONTANA, I N AND F R T E F O H COUNTY O LEWIS AND CLARK, AND F THE HONORABLE PETER G. MELOY, J U D G E PRESIDING, CLERK OF S ~ P R E M E COURT STATE OF rdCSJT6lrtlA - Respondents. O D R ON PETITION F R REHEARING R E O On p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e o p i n i o n f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r t h e Uniform M a r r i a g e and D i v o r c e A c t , s e c t i o n s 48-301 t h r o u g h 48-341, R.C.M. 1947, which became e f f e c - t i v e J a n u a r y 1, 1976, and t h a t s a i d Act a p p l i e d t o a l l p r o c e e d i n g s p e n d i n g on t h a t d a t e . 48-331, R.C.M. Appellant f u r t h e r argues t h a t s e c t i o n 1947, r e l a t i n g t o j u r i s d i c t i o n was n o t a p p l i e d o r d i s t i n g u i s h e d by t h e C o u r t i n i t s d e c i s i o n and t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o do s o c o u l d c a u s e c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n f u s i o n i n t h e l a w . S e c t i o n 48-331, R.C.M. 1947 p r o v i d e s : "48-331. Jurisdiction--commencement o f p r o c e e d i n g s . (1) A c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e c o m p e t e n t t o d e c i d e d h i l d c u s t o d y matters h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n t o make a c h i l d c u s t o d y d e t e r m i n a t i o n by i n i t i a l o r m o d i f i cation decree i f : "(a) this state "(i) i s t h e home s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d a t t h e t i m e o f commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , o r " ( i i ) had been t h e c h i l d ' s home s t a t e w i t h i n s i x ( 6 ) months b e f o r e commencement o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g and t h e c h i l d i s a b s e n t from t h i s s t a t e b e c a u s e o f h i s removal o r r e t e n t i o n by a p e r s o n c l a i m i n g h i s c u s t o d y o r f o r o t h e r r e a s o n , and a p a r e n t o r person a c t i n g a s parent continues t o l i v e i n this state; or " ( b ) it i s i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t o f t h e c h i l d t h a t a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e assume j u r i s d i c t i o n because " ( i ) t h e c h i l d and h i s p a r e n t s , o r t h e c h i l d and a t l e a s t o n e c o n t e s t a n t , have a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h i s s t a t e , and " ( i i ) t h e r e i s a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s s t a t e substant i a l evidence concerning t h e c h i l d ' s present o r f u t u r e c a r e , p r o t e c t i o n , t r a i n i n g , and p e r s o n a l relationships; o r " ( c ) the child is physically present i n t h i s s t a t e and " ( i )h a s been abandoned o r " ( i i ) i s n e c e s s a r y i n a n emergency t o p r o t e c t it him b e c a u s e he h a s been s u b j e c t e d t o o r t h r e a t e n e d w i t h mistreatment o r abuse o r i s neglected o r dependent; o r " ( d ) ( i )no o t h e r s t a t e h a s j u r i s d i c t i o n under p r e r e q u i s i t e s s u b s t a n t i a l l y i n accordance w i t h paragraphs ( a ) , ( b ) , o r ( c ) , o r another s t a t e has d e c l i n e d t o e x e r c i s e j u r i s d i c t i o n on t h e ground t h a t t h i s s t a t e i s t h e more a p p r o p r i a t e forum t o d e t e r m i n e c u s t o d y o f t h e c h i l d , and "(ii) it i s i n h i s b e s t i n t e r e s t t h a t t h e c o u r t assume j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ( 2 ) Except under p a r a g r a p h s ( c ) and ( d ) of subs e c t i o n ( l ) ,p h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e i n t h i s s t a t e o f t h e c h i l d , o r o f t h e c h i l d and o n e of t h e c o n t e s t a n t s , i s not alone s u f f i c i e n t t o confer jurisd i c t i o n on a c o u r t o f t h i s s t a t e t o make a c h i l d custody determination. " ( 3 ) P h y s i c a l p r e s e n c e of t h e c h i l d , w h i l e d e s i r able, i s not prerequisite f o r jurisdiction t o determine h i s custody. " ( 4 ) A c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g i s commenced i n the d i s t r i c t court: " (a) by a p a r e n t , by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n " ( i ) f o r dissolution o r legal separation; o r permanently r e s i d e n t o r found; o r "(b) by a p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n a p a r e n t , by f i l i n g a p e t i t i o n f o r c u s t o d y of t h e c h i l d i n t h e c o u n t y i n which he i s permanently r e s i d e n t o r found, b u t o n l y i f he i s n o t i n t h e p h y s i c a l c u s t o d y o f one of h i s parents. " ( 5 ) N o t i c e of a c h i l d c u s t o d y p r o c e e d i n g s h a l l be given to the child's parent, guardian, and custodian, who may appear, be heard, and file a responsive pleading. The court, upon a showing of good cause, may permit intervention of other interested parties. " We find no conflict in our opinion with the above set forth law. Our opinion requires the service of process as provided for by Rule 41, M.R.Civ.P. of the notice provided for in subse~tion(5~. This requirement of "notice" under section 48-331, R.C.M. 1947, is consistent with the requirement of service of process under Rule 4(b) since the purpose of serving a summons is to give notice. The purpose of serving a summons is to give notice to the defendant and thereby afford him an opportunity to defend himself or his property--an essential of due process. This section has been interpreted by this Court consistently with Rule 4(b) just as any other statute which requires due process of law, i.e., notice and a hearing. To argue as appellant does here that such service of process is only within the State of Montana, is error. Rule 4 is a "long-arm statute" authorizing service on all persons subject to jurisdiction regardless of whether or not those persons are within the State of Montana. Such a holding is consistent with the United States Supreme Court holding in May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 97 L.ed 1221, 73 S.Ct. 840, and WiLliams v. Williams, 44 Ohio St.2d 28, 336 N.E.2d 426, that a court may not terminate a parent's custody without having in personum jurisdiction over the parent. ~d "a DATED this 2'y of June, 1976. Justice Justices Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell: I n view o f t h e f o r e g o i n g I hereby withdraw t h e f i n a l p a r a g r a p h o f my s p e c i a l c o n c u r r i n g o p i n i o n . Justice I

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.