Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency 458 U.S. 502

8/3/2019 Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency 458 U.S. 502

1/19

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Date/Time of Request: Monday, November 28, 2011 09:41 Eastern

Client Identifier: PATRON ACCESS

Database: SCTFIND

Citation Text: 102 S.Ct. 3231

Lines: 1067

Documents: 1

Images: 0

Civil. No state has the right toinvoke habeas corpus and take your parental rights via termination. Lehman v.

Lycoming County Children's Services

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,

West and their affiliates.


2/19

Supreme Court of the United States

Marjorie LEHMAN, etc., Petitioner

v.

LYCOMING COUNTY CHILDREN'S SERVICES

AGENCY.

No. 80-2177.

Argued March 30, 1982.

Decided June 30, 1982.

Mother whose parental rights in her sons were

terminated under Pennsylvania law petitioned for

writ of habeas corpus, asserting unconstitutionalityof state statute under which state had obtained cus-

tody of the children and terminated involuntarily

her parental rights. The United States District Court

for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Malcolm

Muir, J., dismissed petition for lack of jurisdiction,

and mother appealed. The Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit, 648 F.2d 135, affirmed, and certior-

ari was granted. The Supreme Court, Justice Pow-

ell, held that federal habeas corpus jurisdiction un-

der section 2254 may not be invoked to challenge

constitutionality of state statute under which the

state had obtained custody of children and had ter-

minated involuntarily parental rights of their natural

parent.

Affirmed.

Justice Blackmun, with whom Justice Brennan

and Justice Marshall joined, filed a dissenting opin-

ion.

West Headnotes

[1] Habeas Corpus 197 464

197 Habeas Corpus

197II Grounds for Relief; Illegality of Restraint

197II(B) Particular Defects and Authority for

Detention in General

197k463 Authority for Detention Under

Statute or Ordinance

197k464 k. Validity of Statute or Or-

dinance. Most Cited Cases

(Formerly 197k45(3))

Federal habeas corpus jurisdiction under sec-

tion 2254 may not be invoked to challenge constitu-

tionality of state statute under which state has ob-

tained custody of children and has terminated invol-

untarily parental rights of their natural parents. 28

U.S.C.A. 2254.


197 Habeas Corpus


197II(C) ReliefAffecting Particular Persons

or Proceedings

197k531 Infants

197k536 k. Dependent or Neglected

Children; Termination of Parental Rights. Most

Cited Cases

(Formerly 197k25.3)

Under federal habeas corpus statute, natural

parent 's sons were not involuntarily in the

custody of the state, where they were in foster

homes pursuant to order issued by state court fol-lowing involuntary termination of natural parent's

parental rights, the sons were not prisoners nor did

they suffer any restrictions imposed by state crim-

inal justice system, and sons were in the custody

of their foster parents in essentially the same way

and to the same extent that other children are in

custody of their natural or adopted parents. 28

U.S.C.A. 2254.

[3] Habeas Corpus 197 532(1)

197 Habeas Corpus197II Grounds for Relief; Illegality of Restraint

197II(C) ReliefAffecting Particular Persons

or Proceedings

197k531 Infants

197k532 Custody in General

197k532(1) k. In General. Most

102 S.Ct. 3231 Page 1

458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928

(Cite as: 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231)

2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k463http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k464http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k464http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k531http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k536http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k536http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k536http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k531http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k532http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k532%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k532%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k532http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k531http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k536http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k536http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k536http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k531http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k464http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k464http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k463http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038


3/19

Cited Cases


Federal courts consistently have shown special

solicitude for state interests in the field of family

and family property arrangements, and thus exten-

sion of federal habeas corpus writ to challenges to

state child custody decisions based on alleged con-

stitutional defects collateral to actual custody de-

cision would be unprecedented expansion of juris-

diction of lower federal courts. 28 U.S.C.A. 2254.

[4] Habeas Corpus 197 765.1

197 Habeas Corpus

197III Jurisdiction, Proceedings, and Relief

197III(C) Proceedings

197III(C)4 Conclusiveness of Prior De-

terminations

197k765 State Determinations in Fed-

eral Court

197k765.1 k. In General. Most

Cited Cases

(Formerly 197k765, 197k1)

The writ of habeas corpus is a major exception

to doctrine of res judicata, as it allows for litigation

of final state court judgment disposing of precisely

the same claims. 28 U.S.C.A. 2254.


197 Habeas Corpus

197I In General

197I(D) Federal Court Review of Petitions

by State Prisoners

197I(D)1 In General

197k311 k. Petitions by State or Territ-

orial Prisoners in General. Most Cited Cases


Federal courts properly have been reluctant to

extend habeas corpus writ beyond its historic pur-pose in light of tension between state's interest in

finality and asserted federal interest. 28 U.S.C.A.

2254.

[6] Child Custody 76D 531(1)

76D Child Custody

76DVIII Proceedings

76DVIII(D) Judgment

76Dk531 Operation and Effect

76Dk531(1) k. In General. Most Cited

Cases

(Formerly 211k19.3(4))

State's interest in finality of decision is unusu-

ally strong in child custody disputes.


197 Habeas Corpus


197II(B) Particular Defects and Authority for

Detention in General

197k463 Authority for Detention Under

Statute or Ordinance

197k464 k. Validity of Statute or Or-

dinance. Most Cited Cases


Although the term custody in statute author-

izing federal court collateral review of federal de-

cisions could be construed to include type of cus-

tody children were subject to following termination

of natural parent's parental rights by state court,

federal habeas corpus jurisdiction could not be in-

voked to challenge constitutionality of state statuteunder which state had terminated parental rights

since reliance on what may be appropriate within

federal system, or even within a state system, was

of little force in case where state judgment was at-

tacked collaterally in federal court. 28 U.S.C.A.

2254, 2255.


197 Habeas Corpus

197I In General

197I(D) Federal Court Review of Petitionsby State Prisoners

197I(D)1 In General

197k311 k. Petitions by State or Territ-

orial Prisoners in General. Most Cited Cases


Federal writ of habeas corpus, representing as

102 S.Ct. 3231 Page 2

458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928

(Cite as: 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231)

http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k532%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197III%28C%294http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k765http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k765.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k765.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k765.1http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%291http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k311http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k311http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76Dhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76DVIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76DVIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76DVIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76Dk531http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76Dk531%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=76Dk531%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=76Dk531%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k463http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k464http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k464http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2255&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%291http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k311http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k311http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k311http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k311http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%291http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2255&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k464http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k464http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k463http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197II%28B%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=76Dk531%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=76Dk531%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76Dk531%281%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76Dk531http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76DVIII%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76DVIIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=76Dhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k311http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k311http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%291http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197I%28D%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197Ihttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k765.1http://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k765.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k765.1http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197k765http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197III%28C%294http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197III%28C%29http://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197IIIhttp://www.westlaw.com/KeyNumber/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=KEY&DocName=197http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Digest/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&CMD=MCC&DocName=197k532%281%29


4/19

it does a profound interference with state judicial

system and finality of state decisions, should be re-

served for those instances in which federal interest

in individual liberty is so strong that it outweighs

federalism and finality concerns. 28 U.S.C.A.

2254.

**3232 *502 SyllabusFN*

FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the

opinion of the Court but has been prepared

by the Reporter of Decisions for the con-

venience of the reader. See United States v.

Detroit Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26

S.Ct. 282, 287, 50 L.Ed. 499.

Petitioner voluntarily placed her three sons in

the legal custody of respondent county agency,

which in turn placed them in foster homes. There-

after, a Pennsylvania state court terminated peti-

tioner's parental rights with respect to her sons be-

cause of parental incapacity, and the Pennsylvania

Supreme Court affirmed. Petitioner then filed an

action in Federal District Court, seeking a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2254(a), which re-

quires a district court to entertain an application for

such a writ in behalf of a person in custody pur-

suant to a state-court judgment in alleged violationof the Federal Constitution. She requested a declar-

ation of the invalidity of the Pennsylvania statute

under which her parental rights were terminated

and an order releasing her sons to her custody. The

District Court dismissed the petition on the ground

that respondent's custody over petitioner's sons was

not the type of custody to which 2254(a) may be

addressed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: Section 2254(a) does not confer jurisdic-

tion on federal courts to consider collateral chal-

lenges to state-court judgments involuntarily ter-minating parental rights. Pp. 3235-3240.

(a) Although the scope of the federal writ of

habeas corpus has been extended beyond that which

the most literal reading of the statute might require,

the writ has **3233 not been considered a generally

available federal remedy for every violation of fed-

eral rights. The writ's availability has been limited

to challenges to state-court judgments in situations

where, as a result of a state-court criminal convic-

tion, a petitioner has suffered substantial restraints

not shared by the public generally, and the petition-

er has been found to be in custody within the

meaning of 2254(a). Here, petitioner's children

are not in the custody of the State in the way in

which this term has been used in determining the

availability of the writ of habeas corpus. They are

in the custody of their foster parents in essen-

tially the same way, and to the same extent, other

children are in the custody of their natural or adopt-

ive parents. They suffer no restraint on liberty not

shared by the public generally, cf. Jones v. Cun-ningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9 L.E d.2d

285; Hensley v. Municipal Court, 411 U.S. 345, 93

S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294, nor *503 do they suffer

collateral consequences sufficient to outweigh the

need for finality, cf. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S.

234, 88 S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554. To extend the

federal writ to challenges to state child-custody de-

cisions based on alleged constitutional defects col-

lateral to the actual custody decision would be an

unprecedented expansion of the jurisdiction of the

federal courts. Pp. 3235-3238.

(b) Federalism and the exceptional need for fi-

nality in child-custody disputes also argue strongly

against the grant of the writ here. Extended uncer-

tainty for the children would be inevitable in many

cases if federal courts had jurisdiction to relitigate

state custody decisions. Pp. 3238-3239.

(c) Habeas corpus has been used in child-

custody cases in many States and in England, and

28 U.S.C. 2255, authorizing federal-court collat-

eral review of federal decisions, could be construed

to include the type of custody to which petitioner's

children are subject. But reliance on what may be

appropriate within the federal system or within a

state system is of little force where, as in this case,

a state judgment is attacked collaterally in a federal

court. Petitioner would have the federal judicial

102 S.Ct. 3231 Page 3

458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928

(Cite as: 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1906101604&ReferencePosition=287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1906101604&ReferencePosition=287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1906101604&ReferencePosition=287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1906101604&ReferencePosition=287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1906101604&ReferencePosition=287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1906101604&ReferencePosition=287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1906101604&ReferencePosition=287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1906101604&ReferencePosition=287http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L


5/19

system entertain a writ that is not time-barred to

challenge collaterally a final judgment entered in a

state judicial system. Pp. 3239-3240.

3rd Cir., 648 F.2d 135, affirmed.

Martin Guggenheim argued the cause for petitioner.

With him on the brief was Burt Newborne.

Charles F. Greevy III argued the cause and filed a

brief for respondent.

Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the

Court.

The question presented is whether the habeas

corpus statute, 28 U.S.C. 2254, confers jurisdic-

tion on the federal courts to consider collateralchallenges to state-court judgments involuntarily

terminating parental rights.

I

The facts of this case are described in detail in

In re William L., 477 Pa. 322, 383 A.2d 1228, cert.

denied, sub nom. *504 Lehman v. Lycoming County

Children's Services, 439 U.S. 880, 99 S.Ct. 216, 58

L.Ed.2d 192 (1978), the Pennsylvania Supreme

Court decision terminating the parental rights of pe-

titioner Marjorie Lehman with respect to three sons

born in 1963, 1965, and 1969.FN1 In 1971, Ms.

Lehman discovered that she was pregnant again.

Because of housing and other problems related to

the care of her sons, Ms. Lehman voluntarily placed

them in the legal custody of the Lycoming County

Children's Services Agency, and it placed them in

foster homes.

FN1. Petitioner has never been married.

The fathers to these sons voluntarily have

relinquished their parental rights in state-

court proceedings.

Although Ms. Lehman visited her sons

monthly, she did not request their return until 1974.

At that point, the Lycoming **3234 County Chil-

dren's Services Agency initiated parental termina-

tion proceedings. In those proceedings, the

Orphan's Court Division of the Lycoming County

Court of Common Pleas heard testimony from

Agency caseworkers, a psychologist, nutrition

aides, petitioner, and the three sons.FN2

The judge

concluded: [I]t is absolutely clear to the court that,

by reason of her very limited social and intellectual

development combined with her five-year separa-

tion from the children, the mother is incapable of

providing minimal care, control and supervision for

the three children. Her incapacity cannot and will

not be remedied.FN3

In re Lehman, Nos. 2986,

2987 and 2988, p. 4 (Ct.Common Pleas, Lycoming

County, Pa., June 3, 1976).FN4

The court therefore

*505 declared that petitioner's parental rights re-

specting the three sons were terminated.

FN2. There was no evidence that any ofthe sons wanted to return to their mother.

See Tr. 82, 117-118, 122-125, 127-129.

FN3. It has now been over a decade since

the sons were removed from the custody of

their mother. Frank, the oldest, is now 18,

and the case is moot with respect to him

since he is free to seek adoption by any-

one, including his natural mother. See Tr.

of Oral Arg. 25-26. The other two sons,

Bill and Mark, are now 12 and 16 respect-

ively.

FN4. The judge relied on the Pennsylvania

statute which provides, in relevant part:

The rights of a parent in regard to a

child may be terminated after a petition

filed on any of the following grounds:

(2) The repeated and continued incapa-

city, abuse, neglect or refusal of the par-

ent has caused the child to be without es-

sential parental care, control or subsist-

ence necessary for his physical or mental

well-being and the conditions and causes

of the incapacity, abuse, neglect or re-

fusal cannot or will not be remedied by

the parent. 23 Pa.Cons.Stat. 2511(a)

(1980).

102 S.Ct. 3231 Page 4

458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928

(Cite as: 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978100656http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978100656http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000262&DocName=PA23S2511&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000262&DocName=PA23S2511&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978100656http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978100656http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038


6/19

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the

termination order based on parental incapacity,

which does not involve parental misconduct. In re

William L., supra, at 331, 383 A.2d, at 1232. It held

that the legislature's power to protect the physical

and emotional needs of children authorized termin-

ation in the absence of serious harm or risk of seri-

ous harm to the children and in the absence of par-

ental misconduct. The court stressed that, [i]n the

instant cases, the basis for termination is several

years of demonstrated parental incapacity.... Ibid.

It also held that the statute was not unconstitution-

ally vague either on its face or as applied.

Petitioner sought this Court's review in a peti-

tion for certiorari rather than by appeal.

FN5

Wedenied the petition. Lehman v. Lycoming County

Children's Services, 439 U.S. 880, 99 S.Ct. 216, 58

L.Ed.2d 192 (1978). Petitioner then filed the instant

proceeding on January 16, 1979, in the United

States District Court for the Middle District of

Pennsylvania, seeking a writ of habeas corpus*506

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 and 2254. Petitioner

requested (i) a declaration of the invalidity of the

Pennsylvania statute under which her parental

rights were terminated; (ii) a declaration that peti-

tioner was the legal parent of the children; and (iii)

an order releasing the children to her custody unlesswithin 60 days an appropriate state court judicially

determined that the best interest of the children re-

quired that temporary custody remain with the

State.

FN5. This decision appeared to have been

a strategic one, making possible, in the

event this Court did not grant plenary re-

view, the filing of a habeas corpus petition

in federal district court without any prob-

lem of res judicata on the federal issues as

a result of this Court's summary affirmance

or dismissal of the appeal for want of a

substantial federal question. At oral argu-

ment, however, petitioner's lawyer also ex-

plained that he was confused as to whether

he could appeal both the facial attack on

the statute and the challenge to the statute

as applied, and had therefore chosen the

more conservative route of seeking a peti-

tion for a writ of certiorari on both issues.

See Tr.Oral Arg. 21-22.

The District Court dismissed the petition

without a hearing. Relying primarily on Sylvander

v. New England Home for Little Wanderers, 584

F.2d 1103 (CA 1 1978), the court concluded that

the custody maintained by the Respondent over

the three Lehman children is not that type of cus-

tody to which the federal habeas corpus remedy

**3235 may be addressed. Lehman v. Lycoming

County Children's Services Agency, Civ. No. 79-65

(MD Pa.1979), reprinted in App. to Pet. for Cert.135a, 147a.

Sitting en banc, the Court of Appeals for the

Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's order of

dismissal by a divided vote of six to four. 648 F.2d

135 (1981). No majority opinion was written. A

plurality of four, in an opinion written by Judge

Garth, concluded that disputes of the nature ad-

dressed here and which essentially involve no more

than the question of who shall raise a child to ma-

turity, do not implicate the federal interest in per-

sonal liberty sufficiently to warrant the extension offederal habeas corpus. Id., at 146. In support of

this conclusion, Judge Garth reasoned that [i]t is

not the liberty interest of the children that is sought

to be protected in such a case, but only the right of

the particular parent to raise them. Id., a t 140

(footnote omitted).

A second plurality of four, in an opinion writ-

ten by Judge Adams wrote that it would appear to

be both unwise and impolitic for the federal courts

to uncover a whole new font of jurisdiction.... Id.,

at 151. He would have disposed of the case on theground that Ms. Lehman did not have standing*507

to assert a habeas corpus action on behalf of her

children. See id., at 151-155. This view was based

on the conclusion that once a parent's rights have

been terminated in a state proceeding, a parent is no

longer presumed to represent the interest of the

102 S.Ct. 3231 Page 5

458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928

(Cite as: 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978100656&ReferencePosition=1232http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978100656&ReferencePosition=1232http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978100656&ReferencePosition=1232http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978227570http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978100656&ReferencePosition=1232http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978100656&ReferencePosition=1232http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=162&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1978100656&ReferencePosition=1232


7/19

child. See id., at 153-154.FN6

FN6. Chief Judge Seitz filed a separate

concurring opinion. He found the case

most difficult, noting that the literal

statutory requirements for exercise of sec-

tion 2254 federal habeas corpus jurisdic-

tion can be said to be satisfied. 648 F.2d,

at 155. But he nevertheless concurred in

the result because habeas corpus has never

been used to challenge state child-custody

decisions, and such a major departure

from traditional uses of federal habeas cor-

pus to challenge state-court judgments

should await a congressional directive on

the matter. Id., at 156.

Judge Rosenn, joined by two other

judges, dissented. He stressed that [t]he

total extinction of a familial relationship

between children and their biological

parents is the most drastic measure that a

state can impose, short of criminal sanc-

tions. Id., at 163. Judge Gibbons also

filed a dissenting opinion, arguing that

there was federal subject-matter jurisdic-

tion and that habeas corpus should be an

available remedy because a decision ter-minating parental rights has on-going ef-

fects. Id., at 177.

The question presented to this Court can be

stated more fully as whether federal habeas corpus

jurisdiction, under 2254, may be invoked to chal-

lenge the constitutionality of a state statute under

which a State has obtained custody of children and

has terminated involuntarily the parental rights of

their natural parent. As this is a question of import-

ance not heretofore considered by this Court, and

one over which the Circuits are divided,FN7 wegranted certiorari. 454 U.S. 813, 102 S.Ct. 89, 70

L.Ed.2d 82 (1981). We now affirm.

FN7. The federal courts have split on this

issue. Only one court other than the Court

of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ad-

dressed the question in a full opinion; in

Sylvander v. New England Home for Little

Wanderers, 584 F.2d 1103 (1978), the

Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held

that habeas corpus could not be used to

avoid the finality of prior state-court child-

custody proceedings, with a rationale much

like Judge Garth's in the instant case. Other

federal courts have assumed-without full

analysis-that habeas jurisdiction lies. See

Davis v. Page, 640 F.2d 599, 602 (CA5

1981) (en banc); Rowell v. Oesterle, 626

F.2d 437 (CA5 1980).

*508 II

APetitioner seeks habeas corpus collateral re-

view by a federal court of the Pennsylvania de-

cision. Her application was filed under 28 U.S.C.

2254(a):

The Supreme Court, a Justice thereof, a circuit

judge, or a district court shall entertain an applic-

ation for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a

person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a

State court only on the ground that he is in cus-

tody in violation of the Constitution or laws or

treaties of the United States.

Although the language of 2254(a), especially

in light of 2241, suggests that habeas corpus is

available only to challenge **3236 the convictions

of prisoners actually in the physical custody of the

State,FN8

three modern cases have extended it to

other situations involving challenges to state-court

decisions.FN9

*509 The first of these cases is Jones

v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 83 S.Ct. 373, 9

L.Ed.2d 285 (1963), in which the Court allowed a

parolee to challenge his conviction by a habeas pe-

tition. The Court considered the parolee incustody for purposes of 2254(b) because the

custody and control of the Parole Board involve

significant restraints on petitioner's liberty ... which

are in addition to those imposed by the State upon

the public generally. 371 U.S., at 242, 83 S.Ct., at

377. And in Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 88

102 S.Ct. 3231 Page 6

458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928

(Cite as: 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981114038&ReferencePosition=155http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981114038&ReferencePosition=155http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981240293http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981240293http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981109698&ReferencePosition=602http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981109698&ReferencePosition=602http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981109698&ReferencePosition=602http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1980136793http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1980136793http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1980136793http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=377http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1963102698http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_8b3b0000958a4http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1980136793http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1980136793http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1980136793http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981109698&ReferencePosition=602http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981109698&ReferencePosition=602http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981109698&ReferencePosition=602http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1978120552http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981240293http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981240293http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981114038&ReferencePosition=155http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981114038&ReferencePosition=155http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1981114038


8/19

S.Ct. 1556, 20 L.Ed.2d 554 (1968), the Court al-

lowed the writ in a challenge to a state-court judg-

ment even though the prisoner, incarcerated at the

time the writ was filed, had finished serving his

sentence during the proceedings. The custody re-

quirement had, of course, been met at the time the

writ was filed, and the case was not moot because

Carafas was subject to collateral consequences'

as a result of his conviction, id., at 237, 88 S.Ct., at

1559, and is suffering, and will continue to suffer,

serious disabilities .... Id., at 239, 88 S.Ct., at

1560. Most recently, in Hensley v. Municipal Court

, 411 U.S. 345, 93 S.Ct. 1571, 36 L.Ed.2d 294

(1973), the Court allowed the writ to be used to

challenge a state-court conviction even though the

defendant had been released on his own recogni-zance after sentencing but prior to the commence-

ment of his incarceration. The Court held that the

defendant was in the custody of the State for pur-

poses of 2254(b) because he was subject to re-

straints not shared by the public generally, 411

U.S., at 351, 93 S.Ct., at 1575 (citation omit-

ted)-indeed, his arrest was imminent.FN10

FN8. See 28 U.S.C. 2241 (empowering

federal judges to grant such writs; subsec-

tion (c) provides that [t]he writ of habeas

corpus shall not extend to a prisoner un-less...) (emphasis added); see also 28

U.S.C. 2254(b) (An application for a

writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person

in custody pursuant to the judgment of a

State court shall ... be granted unless [state

remedies have not been exhausted or are

not available, or there are] circumstances

rendering such process ineffective to pro-

tect the rights of the prisoner) (emphasis

added).

FN9. When habeas corpus is made avail-

able by a federal court to challenge cus-

tody by federal entities, federalism con-

cerns are not implicated. The only relevant

question then is what federal remedy may

be available. The grant of habeas relief in

such instances-e.g., Strait v. Laird, 406

U.S. 341, 92 S.Ct. 1693, 32 L.Ed.2d 141

(1972) (inactive Army Reserve member al-

lowed to bring habeas petition to challenge

his military obligation); Brownell v. Tom

We Shung, 352 U.S. 180, 182-184, 77 S.Ct.

252, 254-255, 1 L.Ed.2d 225 (1956) (alien

allowed to use habeas to challenge his ex-

clusion from the United States)-is not pre-

cedent for the use of federal habeas to

challenge judgments of state courts. As

Judge Garth noted in his decision below:

[T]he writ assumes even more profound

implications when its operation cuts across

the federal and state judicial systems. In

this latter context, the writ empowers asingle federal judge to overrule determina-

tions of federal issues which have been ad-

judicated by the highest court of a state.

648 F.2d, at 139.

Jurisdiction to challenge both state and

federal judgments is conferred by 2241

. But 2254, conferring general jurisdic-

tion to consider collateral attacks on

state judgments, has no relevance to fed-

eral habeas proceedings challenging fed-

eral custody of nonprisoners. Thus, fed-eral decisions made pursuant to 2241

constitute no authority for the claim of

jurisdiction under 2254 in this case.

FN10. In Hensley, the State would have

placed the petitioner behind bars, but was

prevented by a stay entered by the state tri-

al court that subsequently was extended by

two Justices of this Court. 411 U.S., at

351, 93 S.Ct., at 1575. Thus, although

Hensley held the writ to be available in a

case in which there was no actual custody

in a state penal institution at the time the

writ was filed, the extension was in the

context of a person who had a strong claim

to be treated as a prisoner for jurisdictional

purposes.

102 S.Ct. 3231 Page 7

458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928

(Cite as: 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1560http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1560http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1560http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1575http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1575http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1956130990&ReferencePosition=254http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1956130990&ReferencePosition=254http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1956130990&ReferencePosition=254http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1956130990&ReferencePosition=254http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981114038&ReferencePosition=139http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1575http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1575http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1575http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1575http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=350&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1981114038&ReferencePosition=139http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1956130990&ReferencePosition=254http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1956130990&ReferencePosition=254http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1956130990&ReferencePosition=254http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1956130990&ReferencePosition=254http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1972127127http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2241&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1575http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1575http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L&ReferencePositionType=T&ReferencePosition=SP_a83b000018c76http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1973126370http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1560http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1560http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1560http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1968131188


9/19

*510 Thus, although the scope of the writ of

habeas corpus has been extended beyond that which

the most literal reading of the statute might require,

the Court has never considered it a generally avail-

able federal remedy for every violation of federal

rights. Instead, past decisions have limited the

writ's availability to challenges to state-court judg-

ments in situations where-as a result of a state-court

criminal conviction-a petitioner has suffered sub-

stantial**3237 restraints not shared by the public

generally. In addition, in each of these cases the

Court considered whether the habeas petitioner was

in custody within the meaning of 2254.FN11

FN11. See Hensley, 411 U.S., at 345, 93

S.Ct., at 1571 (This case requires us todetermine whether a person released on his

own recognizance is in custody within

the meaning of the federal habeas corpus

statute...); Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S.,

at 238, 88 S.Ct., at 1559 (similar); Jones v.

Cunningham, 371 U.S., at 236, 83 S.Ct., at

373 (similar).

[1][2] Ms. Lehman argues that her sons are in-

voluntarily in the custody of the State for purposes

of 2254 because they are in foster homes pursuant

to an order issued by a state court. Her sons, ofcourse, are not prisoners. Nor do they suffer any re-

strictions imposed by a state criminal justice sys-

tem. These factors alone distinguish this case from

all other cases in which this Court has sustained

habeas challenges to state-court judgments.

Moreover, although the children have been placed

in foster homes pursuant to an order of a

Pennsylvania court, they are not in the custody of

the State in the sense in which that term has been

used by this Court in determining the availability of

the writ of habeas corpus. They are in the custody

of their foster parents in essentially the same way,

and to the same extent, other children are in the

custody of their natural or adoptive parents. Their

situation in this respect differs little from the situ-

ation*511 of other children in the public generally;

they suffer no unusual restraints not imposed on

other children. They certainly suffer no restraint on

liberty as that term is used in Hensley and Jones,

and they suffer no collateral consequences-like

those in Carafas-sufficient to outweigh the need for

finality. The custody of foster or adoptive parents

over a child is not the type of custody that tradition-

ally has been challenged through federal habeas.FN12

Ms. Lehman simply seeks to relitigate,

through federal habeas, not any liberty interest of

her sons, but the interest in her own parental rights.FN13

FN12. We express no view as to the avail-

ability of federal habeas when a child is

actually confined in a state institution

rather than being at liberty in the custodyof a foster parent pursuant to a court order.

FN13. At the hearing before the

Pennsylvania trial court, petitioner's law-

yer actually stated [t]his is not a custody

proceeding .... Tr. 67.

[3] Although a federal habeas corpus statute

has existed ever since 1867, federal habeas has nev-

er been available to challenge parental rights or

child custody.FN14

Indeed, in two cases, the Court

refused to allow the writ in such instances. Mattersv. Ryan, 249 U.S. 375, 39 S.Ct. 315, 63 L.Ed. 6 54

(1919); In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 10 S.Ct. 850,

34 L.Ed. 1500 (1890). These decisions rest on the

absence of a federal question, but the opinions sug-

gest that federal habeas corpus is not available to

challenge child custody. Moreover, *512 federal

courts consistently have shown special solicitude

for state interests in the field of family and family-

property arrangements. United States v. Yazell,

382 U.S. 341, 352, 86 S.Ct. 500, 5 07, 16 L.Ed.2d

404 (1966). Under these circumstances, extending

the federal writ to challenges to state child-custodydecisions-challenges based on alleged constitution-

al defects collateral to **3238 the actual custody

decision-would be an unprecedented expansion of

the jurisdiction of the lower federal courts.FN15

FN14. The Court has considered constitu-

102 S.Ct. 3231 Page 8

458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231, 73 L.Ed.2d 928

(Cite as: 458 U.S. 502, 102 S.Ct. 3231)

http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1571http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1571http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1571http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=373http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=373http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=373http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=373http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1919100369http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1919100369http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1919100369http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1919100369http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1890180190http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1890180190http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966106380&ReferencePosition=507http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966106380&ReferencePosition=507http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966106380&ReferencePosition=507http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966106380&ReferencePosition=507http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966106380&ReferencePosition=507http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1966106380&ReferencePosition=507http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1890180190http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1890180190http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1919100369http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1919100369http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1919100369http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&SerialNum=1919100369http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=Lhttp://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=373http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=373http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=373http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1963102698&ReferencePosition=373http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1968131188&ReferencePosition=1559http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1571http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1571http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=708&FindType=Y&ReferencePositionType=S&SerialNum=1973126370&ReferencePosition=1571http://www.westlaw.com/Find/Default.wl?rs=dfa1.0&vr=2.0&DB=1000546&DocName=28USCAS2254&FindType=L


10/19

tional challenges to custody or parental-

rights proceedings, but these cases have

reached the Court on direct review of the

final state-court decision, not on federal

habeas. See, e.g., Santosky v. Kramer, 455

U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599

(1982).

Justice BLACKMUN's dissenting opin-

ion states that the legislative history,

though admittedly sparse, supports its in-

terpretation of the scope of 2254 be-

cause [t]he codification of the writ into

federal law indicates no congressional

intent to contract its common-law

scope. See post, at 3241. But the dis-senting opinion cites no legislative his-

tory relevant to state-court custody de-

cisions. Moreover, for at least 100 years

after passage of the statute in 1867, the

writ was not used in child-custody cases.

This history strongly suggests that the

extension of federal habeas corpus to

state custody cases was never contem-

plated by Congress, nor understood by

the Bar to have been an available rem-

edy.

FN15. Petitioner maintains that the approv-

al of habeas jurisdiction in this case may

be limited. She suggests that it could be

available only when the State takes the

child away from its natural parents, but not

when the State simply determines custody

in a routine intrafamily dispute. It is not

apparent that such distinctions are pos-

sible, either in legal theory or as a practical

matter. The circumstances of custody vary

widely, though in each disputed case the

child is in the custody of one person-over

the objections of someone else-by order of

a state court. We see no principled basis

for distinguishing between the claim of a

natural parent and the claim of grandpar-

ents or even the claim of an unrelated per-

son who has been given legal custody that

is challenged by a third party. Moreover,

the arguments of res judicata and federal-

ism apply with equal force in every collat-

eral attack on a state custody decision in a

federal court.

B

[4][5] Federalism concerns and the exceptional

need for finality in child-custody disputes argue

strongly against the grant of Ms. Lehman's petition.FN16

The writ of habeas corpus is a major excep-

tion to the doctrine of res judicata, as it allows relit-

igation of a final state-court judgment disposing of

precisely the same claims. Because of this tension

between the State's interest in finality and the asser-ted federal interest, federal courts properly have

been reluctant to extend the *513 writ beyond its

historic purpose. As Judge Campbell noted in

Sylvander v. New England Home for Little Wander-

ers:

FN16. The dissent suggests that comity

and federalism concerns cannot inform a

court's construction of a statute in determ-

ining a question of jurisdiction over certain

kinds of cases. Post, at 3243. But in Fair

Assessment in Real Estate Assn. v. McNary, 454 U.S. 100, 102 S.Ct. 177, 70 L.Ed.2d

271 (1981), precisely those concerns lead

this Court to conclude that 42 U.S.C.

1983 does not confer jurisdiction on the

federal courts to hear suits for tax refunds

when state law provides an adequate rem-

edy.

Federal habeas involves a substantial thrust by

the federal system into the sphere n

Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency 458 U.S. 502

Documents

Transcript of Lehman v. Lycoming County Children's Services Agency 458 U.S. 502