*1 Carolyn McGough LAWTON William McGOUGH. Appeals of Alabama.

Court of Civil

July 31, 1974. Aug. 28,

Rehearing Denied Mills, Howard,

Rogers, Redden Bir- mingham, *2 Alabama, County,

were married in Walker parents in They are the mi- three boy nor girls, ages and two subjects lit- and who are the of this igation. family living Joliet,

In 1966 the was Illinois, appellee where employed. was On 3, 1966, May appellant or about consulted attorney purpose an instituting proceedings approximately divorce and at the same time she took the three children with her nearby to her brother’s home in Najjar, Vincent, Najjar Birmingham, Elgin, appellant Illinois. While was absent appellee. home, her appellee brother’s took brought Birmingham children and them to where he established a residence with his sister and her husband. 16, 1966, May On and Do- Juvenile

mestic Relations Court of Coun- Jefferson ty, upon appellant’s petition, issued or- an directing der that the children placed physical custody appellant their return to the of the Circuit County, Illinois, Will pending further orders of that girls court. The two brought were into court and turned appellant boy but the not be located. Appellant returned to with the two Illinois girls. 29, 1966, the Circuit Court of June County, Alabama, in equity, complaint appellee, rendered a granted and custody of the three

children to him. This decree was held to and Septem null void this court on ber McGough McGough, Ala.App. denied, 261 So.2d 49 [cert. 261 So.2d 53]. At some May time between and Novem- appellant ber of 1966 girls and the two visiting were parents with her in Walker when took girls two relying and on the divorce decree giving him to return them refused 16, 1966, On November Circuit WRIGHT, Judge. Presiding Illinois, of Will rendered a decree dissolving Appellant, Carolyn McGough marriage Law- of the and ton, appellee, of the three children William at the time circumstances before appellant. On the courts of such Relations Court Domestic Juvenile decree, based state which the decree County entered modify, such power de- decree, ordering that entered on the Illinois of this “Pa- is not conclusive placed cree taken children be Alabama, juris- state. courts rental of this court.” Home *3 invoked, properly diction of the children executed. order was never modify original has as much the right to 1966, appellant 16, filed a state where decree of as does the di- challenging the Alabama of Bill Review it was rendered. ruling Following an adverse vorce decree. court, appealed she to of the trial the unnecessary It is to consider is holding that divorce court and we reversed of Illinois sue of of McGough void. v. null and appellee at either or the the children Supreme supra. After the by action filing time of the the divorce of certiorari, appellant peti- Court denied appellant or of the decree. entering at the of Family tioned Court the the Illinois decree Full faith and of credit basing her claim on the required is not this case. under the facts of 27, August Illinois Divorce decree. On Halvey Halvey, supra. v. 1973, awarding a was entered final decree rights of visitation to The the trial court heard evidence appellant. Appellant appealed then to of best controlling question on the the in of Circuit Court terest of the entertain the children. We Equity, hearing held. and a de novo presumption of its the correctness de 11, 1973, a decree was ren- On December in granting cree. no error custo We find affirming Family dered in essence dy the father with whom the children to appeal Court follows. decree and this happily have lived for some securely Sparkman, Appellant assigned assignments years. Sparkman seven four v. 217 41, only assignment 580; Phillips 4 114 argued Phillips, of error but has Ala. v. So. 2, assignment contending which general is a 277 Ala. 166 So.2d entering that the erred in its court Affirmed. assignments The are other three waived.

Supreme Rule 9. Court ON REHEARING

Appellant’s primary argument is that the Appellant on that rehearing submits our refusing give erred full faith original opinion prior contrary is deci- and credit to the Illinois decree. Supreme sions of the judgment upon We affirm the below au Appellant says and should be set aside. thority People of New York ex Hal rel. Supreme that the contrary decisions of the vey Halvey, v. 330 67 U.S. S.Ct. Hajov- Hajovsky Court referred are v. 91 L.Ed. and our own recent case 194; sky, Ala. 276 159 Stallworth So.2d Wayne Department Gray Kenneth Stallworth, 867; 131 So.2d 272 Ala. Security, Pensions So.2d Sappington [1974]. parties carefully studied these We cases involved, whose custody is properly contrary prin- are be and do not them find upon fore the petition ciple pronounced original opinion. court of this state a in our custody, lip decree of state Hajovsky give sister service and Stallworth fixing judicata upon requirement is not res to the constitutional of full of custody except issue as to the facts and faith and and child custo- credit

dy remaining appellant, cases. the reference must contention of light support considered matters in issue that the evidence does not cases, change in the In both there was in- finding cases. of a af- of circumstances the almost simultaneous fecting volved decrees the welfare of children since jurisdiction. courts with These concurrent Illinois decree of No- merely ju- cases the exercise of hold that vember is not realistic. risdiction one state result- courts of Rehearing is denied. issues, ing in a final decree on the jurisdic- cludes the exercise of concurrent HOLMES, JJ., BRADLEY and concur. in an

tion another state action between the same on the merely recognition

same issues. This is principle judicata of res which *4 re-

full faith and credit is It was founded. decisions,

quired each that the de-

cree entered state within a few another days prior to the consideration Alabama 301 So.2d 191 accepted by courts as final and determinative of the issues decided. How- Percy J. HOWARD ever, recognizes new each case that should presented presented issues in the case the Alabama there be a differ- Mary Jane HOWARD. course, ent in- Such new issue of result. volves affecting matters the best interest Appeals Civil Alabama. occurring welfare of the children since decree of the other state. 2, 1974. Oct. In the by appellant latter case cited rehearing- Sappington Fort,

on supra, it — said, quoting part from Lawrence v.

Sawyer, as fol

lows :

“ ‘It long been the rule in this settled

jurisdiction that regarded a minor is as chancery, ward of a court of and the permit

court will well-being not his

jeopardized any judgment in a

vious contest concerning his

care.’ foregoing applies equal decrees, foreign

force to such as the one

here involved .... State of New

York Halvey Halvey, ex rel. 330 U.S. 67 S.Ct. 91 L.Ed. 1133.” paragraph

The last in Sappington v.

supra, authority furnishes the re-

lease of the courts of this state

obligation recognizing a prior decree of

a foreign state pertaining

children.