It has always been my impression that the US Supreme Court does not hear many cases involving traditional family law matters (divorce, custody, support, adoption). I am not saying there are never cases that work their way up to the highest Court of the land; however, then tend to be few and far between.

Recently, however, there was a decision that was rendered today (March 7th) by the US Supreme Court that unanimously entered a decision without hearing any argument from either side.  In V. L. v. E. L., ET AL., the US Supreme Court  basically told the Alabama Court that it has to recognize an adoption Order entered by the Court in Georgia. At first glance, you might think that was a “no-brainer”; however, the additional facts that I glossed over were the facts that the Georgia adoption order allowed a woman to adopt her same-sex partner’s  biological children. When the parties separated, the biological mother refused to allow the adoptive mother to spend time with the children. The adoptive mother asked the Court in Alabama (where the parties lived at time of their separation) to enforce her parental rights as established by the Georgia Court. The appellate court in Alabama refused to recognize the adoptive mother’s parental rights.

The US Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, decided that the Alabama Court had no basis to refuse to recognize the adoptive mother’s parental rights as established by the Georgia Court. The US Supreme Court based its decision on the Full Faith and Credit provision of the US Constitution. That provision basically provides that a decision validly entered by one court is supposed to be given full recognition by another state – even if the laws on that state differed. For example (in simplest terms), if Person A gets a judgment for $25,000 against Person B, when Person B moves to another state, Person A’s judgment can be enforced against Person B.  In a family law context, if Mother obtains a support Order against Father in Pennsylvania stating he has to pay $500 per month in support, Mother can enforce that order against Father in New Jersey if that is where Father lives.

From a less litigious perspective, the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution also comes into play when couples who are married in one state move to another state. They do not have to get remarried because the new state is supposed to recognize the decision made in the first state – that the parties could legally marry.  This Clause was frequently used to give recognition in another state to a common law marriage that was entered into in Pennsylvania.

So, in this case, the adoptive parent formally and legally adopted the children of the biological parent by consent in Georgia. Under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, the Alabama Court must recognize that decision so long as the Georgia Court had jurisdiction over the prior case – which it did. It does not matter whether or not the Alabama Court would have reached the same decision as the Georgia Court – if it was valid in Georgia, Alabama has to honor it. While the Court in Alabama tried to rationalize its decision asserting that, under Georgia law, the Georgia Court should have entered a different Order, the US Supreme Court indicated that it did not matter. Georgia had jurisdiction over the case when it entered the adoption order. Alabama can’t second guess the Georgia Court.