Webb v. Webb

1981-05-18

Headline: Custody dispute review blocked as Court dismisses case for lack of jurisdiction because the mother failed to raise a federal “full faith and credit” claim in Georgia courts, leaving Georgia’s custody ruling in place.

Holding: The Court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction because the mother did not properly present a federal "full faith and credit" constitutional claim to the Georgia courts, so the Supreme Court could not decide the custody dispute.

Real World Impact:

Leaves the Georgia custody decision in place because the federal claim wasn't raised.
Requires litigants to raise federal constitutional claims in state courts first.
Does not decide custody merits; the dismissal is procedural, not substantive.

Topics: child custody, full faith and credit, state court procedure, federal claims in state courts

Summary

Background

A mother and father fought over custody of their child after two state courts issued conflicting orders. The mother sued in Florida on March 8, 1979, and a Florida court granted her custody on April 18, 1979. The father filed in Georgia on March 23, 1979, and a Georgia court awarded him custody on June 21, 1979; the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed. The mother then asked the United States Supreme Court to decide whether Georgia had to give constitutional "full faith and credit" to the Florida decree.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined the state-court record and found that the mother did not properly present a federal constitutional claim to the Georgia courts. Although she used the words "full faith and credit," her filings and arguments relied on Georgia’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, and the Georgia Supreme Court treated the dispute as a matter of state law. The Court explained that under 28 U.S.C. §1257 and its rules it cannot review a state-court judgment unless the federal question was clearly raised there, so the Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

Real world impact

Because the Court dismissed the petition for procedural reasons, it did not decide who should have custody. The Georgia judgment therefore remains in effect for now. The ruling emphasizes that parties who want federal constitutional review must raise those federal claims clearly in state court first. The decision is procedural, not a ruling on custody rights.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Powell (joined by Justice Brennan) concurred, noting a narrow "plain error" exception exists for fundamental unfairness. Justice Marshall dissented in part, arguing the mother’s repeated use of "full faith and credit" should have led to state-court review rather than dismissal.