Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

Enterprise and Leadership

Domicil as a result of actual residence is much more persuasive as a basis for jurisdiction than domicil which, because of the method emdomicil of the child. In the course of the opinion it was stated that the status of a child is ordinarily determined by the law of the father’s domicil. On the matter of full faith and credit to be given judgments and decrees which are not final, see Rest., Conflict of Laws § 435 (1934). As to custody decrees see ibid., at § 147. 48 See note 20 supra. THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO LAW REVIEW ployed in determining its location for minors, may be at a place with which the minor has no factual connection whatever. In addition, the considerations of convenience and expediency which are involved in marking the lines of permitted jurisdiction to divorce are not the same as those where the right to control children is in issue.49 Judicial reaction to the problem of the proper law to control legitimacy also affords but scant analogy to draw upon when adoption and custody are involved. Assignment to a person of legitimate character, like divorce, is not a matter for the exercise of judicial discretion. The happening of some particular event or events which are prescribed by law and the occurrence of which is within the control of the parent automatically confers legitimate standing. The cases have involved the ability of a child to succeed as legitimate heir, and it seems natural enough for his legitimate character with respect to the parent through whom he claims as heir to be controlled by the law of the place where the parent lived when the acts conferring legitimacy took place5s The position might be taken that the underlying reason for the judicial practice of giving controlling effect to the law of the parent’s domicil in the legitimacy cases lies in the fact that the parent’s act or acts makes the child a legal member of his family. Whether the parent should be permitted to bring his natural child into his legal family, so the argument might run, is a matter of concern to the state of the parent’s domicil because that is where his family normally resides. Since adoption brings a stranger in blood into the family, the position could also be taken, by way of analogy to the legitimacy cases, that the legal effect of the acts of the adoptive parent should be subject to the control of the state where the parent is domiciled. It might even be contended that because control and care of children involve family relations, power over custody belongs to the state with which these matters are the most closely identified.