STATE EX REL. v. CLARK

Factual and Procedural Background

The case arises from a custody dispute initiated by a father seeking custody of his minor children from their mother. The parents were divorced in California and neither party resided in Florida. The mother had taken the children from the father in Florida under the assurance they would return after a short visit but subsequently took them to Georgia. The mother was personally served in Florida while the children remained in Georgia. The father filed an action in Florida, which resulted in a final judgment in habeas corpus adverse to him for lack of jurisdiction. This appeal comes via a writ of error from the Circuit Court for Duval County, Florida, seeking review of that judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Florida court had jurisdiction to determine custody of the minor children when the children were not physically present in Florida at the time of service and thereafter.

Whether jurisdiction over the parties alone suffices for a court to adjudicate custody, or whether jurisdiction over the children (the subject matter) is also required.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant contended that this case differs from precedent because the wrongful detention of the children occurred in Florida.

The appellant argued that the Florida court should exercise jurisdiction based on the children’s initial presence and alleged wrongful detention in Florida.

Respondent's Arguments

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the respondent's legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Dorman v. Friendly, 1 So.2d 734	Establishes that courts must have jurisdiction over both parties and subject matter (the children) to decide custody.	The court reaffirmed that jurisdiction over the children is essential to determine custody rights; without jurisdiction over the children, the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.
Lanning v. Gregory, 100 Tex. 310, 99 S.W. 542	Supports the principle that custody jurisdiction requires control over the children themselves.	Used to bolster the requirement that the court must have physical jurisdiction over the children to adjudicate custody.
Ex parte Chandler, 97 P.2d 1048	Addresses jurisdictional requirements in custody matters.	Reinforced the principle that jurisdiction over the children is necessary for custody determinations.
Titcomb v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. 34, 29 P.2d 206	Confirms that custody jurisdiction depends on jurisdiction over the children.	Referenced as supporting authority for the court’s jurisdictional analysis.
State ex rel. Rasco v. Rasco, 139 Fla. 349, 190 So. 510	Florida precedent affirming the necessity of jurisdiction over the children in custody cases.	Applied to confirm Florida’s adherence to the principle that custody jurisdiction requires physical jurisdiction over the children.
Breene v. People ex rel. Breene, 51 Colo. 342, 117 P. 1000	Represents a contrary view regarding jurisdiction in custody cases.	Mentioned to acknowledge differing opinions but ultimately not followed by this court.
Shaw v. Shaw, 114 S.C. 300, 103 S.E. 526	Another case presenting a contrary jurisdictional view.	Cited as part of the opposing authority considered but not adopted.
Crowell v. Crowell, 190 Ga. 501, 9 S.E.2d 628	Also reflects a contrary position on jurisdiction in custody matters.	Noted but distinguished from the court’s holding.

Precedent

Rule or Principle Cited For

Application by the Court

Dorman v. Friendly, 1 So.2d 734

Establishes that courts must have jurisdiction over both parties and subject matter (the children) to decide custody.

The court reaffirmed that jurisdiction over the children is essential to determine custody rights; without jurisdiction over the children, the court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Lanning v. Gregory, 100 Tex. 310, 99 S.W. 542

Supports the principle that custody jurisdiction requires control over the children themselves.

Used to bolster the requirement that the court must have physical jurisdiction over the children to adjudicate custody.

Ex parte Chandler, 97 P.2d 1048

Addresses jurisdictional requirements in custody matters.

Reinforced the principle that jurisdiction over the children is necessary for custody determinations.

Titcomb v. Superior Court, 220 Cal. 34, 29 P.2d 206

Confirms that custody jurisdiction depends on jurisdiction over the children.

Referenced as supporting authority for the court’s jurisdictional analysis.

State ex rel. Rasco v. Rasco, 139 Fla. 349, 190 So. 510

Florida precedent affirming the necessity of jurisdiction over the children in custody cases.

Applied to confirm Florida’s adherence to the principle that custody jurisdiction requires physical jurisdiction over the children.

Breene v. People ex rel. Breene, 51 Colo. 342, 117 P. 1000

Represents a contrary view regarding jurisdiction in custody cases.

Mentioned to acknowledge differing opinions but ultimately not followed by this court.

Shaw v. Shaw, 114 S.C. 300, 103 S.E. 526

Another case presenting a contrary jurisdictional view.

Cited as part of the opposing authority considered but not adopted.

Crowell v. Crowell, 190 Ga. 501, 9 S.E.2d 628

Also reflects a contrary position on jurisdiction in custody matters.

Noted but distinguished from the court’s holding.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that custody cases involve the children as the subject matter; therefore, jurisdiction over the children themselves is indispensable. The court reiterated the principle from Dorman v. Friendly and related cases that jurisdiction over the parties alone is insufficient without jurisdiction over the children. Although the appellant argued that the wrongful detention occurred in Florida, the children were not physically present in Florida at the time of service or thereafter. Without physical jurisdiction over the children, the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over the subject matter to decide custody. The merits of the controversy do not grant jurisdiction where it otherwise does not exist. Consequently, the court found no error in the record and affirmed the judgment for lack of jurisdiction.

Holding and Implications

The judgment of the lower court was affirmed for lack of jurisdiction.

The direct effect of this decision is that Florida courts cannot adjudicate custody disputes unless they have physical jurisdiction over the children involved, even if the parties are served within the state. This ruling reinforces the established jurisdictional principle in custody matters but does not establish new precedent beyond reaffirming existing case law. No broader implications beyond the immediate parties were discussed.

STATE OF FLORIDA, ex rel. JOSEPH JAMES CLARK v. MARY CATHERINE CLARK

ADAMS, J.

This case is here on writ of error to review a final judgment in habeas corpus adverse to plaintiff in error for want of jurisdiction.

The action was brought by a father to gain custody of his minor children from their mother. The parties were divorced from each other in the State of California. Neither are residents of Florida. The mother procured the children from the father in Florida upon assurance that she would return them after a short visit. She carried them to the State of Georgia. The mother was served personally in Florida. At the time of service and at all times subsequent, the children were in the State of Georgia.

This Court has held that infants are wards of the court having jurisdiction of their person, Dorman v. Friendly, 1 So.2d 734. We held:

"A court must not only have jurisdiction of the parties but it must have jurisdiction of the subject matter also. The subject matter involved in the question of custody of minor children is the children themselves, and if the court has not jurisdiction of the children it has not jurisdiction of the subject matter to determine the right of custody as between the parties to the suit over which it may have jurisdiction."

Lanning v. Gregory, 100 Tex. 310, 99 S.W. 542, 10 L.R.A. (N.S.) 690, 123 Am. St. Rep. 809; Ex parte Chandler, 97 P.2d 1048; Titcomb v. Superior Court In and For Santa Clara County, et al., 220 Cal. 34, 29 P.2d 206; State ex rel. Rasco v. Rasco, 139 Fla. 349, 190 So. 510.

When the case of Dorman v. Friendly was decided, we were not unmindful of a contrary view. Breene v. People, ex rel. Breene, 51 Colo. 342, 117 P. 1000; Shaw v. Shaw, 114 S.C. 300, 103 S.E. 526; Crowell v. Crowell, 190 Ga. 501, 9 S.E.2d 628.

Counsel for appellant insists that this case differs from Dorman v. Friendly and Lanning v. Gregory supra in that, here the wrongful detention occurred in Florida. We are much impressed with the justice of such argument. The alleged conduct of respondent impels us to afford plaintiff relief, however, before we can give consideration to the merits of any controversy, jurisdiction must be obtained. With jurisdiction our action is vested with power but without it the judgment is of no effect. The merits of the controversy will not aid the court in acquiring jurisdiction. Here, as in the Dorman case, the children themselves are the subject matter of the action.

Finding no error in the record and judgment the same is affirmed.

BROWN, C. J., WHITFIELD, and BUFORD, J. J., concur.