Yarborough v. Yarborough - 290 U.S. 202, 54 S. Ct. 181 (1933)

Rule:

The mere loss of custody by the father does not relieve him of his obligation to provide for maintenance and education, even where the custody passes to the mother pursuant to a decree of divorce. If the father fails to make such provision, any person (including a divorced wife) who furnishes necessaries of life to his minor child, may recover from him therefor, unless precluded by the terms of the decree in the divorce suit or otherwise. In case of total divorce, the court is authorized to make, by its decree, final or permanent provision for the maintenance and education of children during minority, and thus fix the extent of the father's obligation. But even if the decree for total divorce fails to include a provision for the support of minor children, they cannot maintain in their own names, or by guardian ad litem, or by next friend, an independent suit for an allowance for education and maintenance.

Facts:

Plaintiff Sadie Yarborough brought suit against her father, W.A. Yarborough, a resident of Atlanta, Georgia, seeking payments for maintenance and education. The father contended that his obligation to support plaintiff had already been completed because he had complied with a court support order for the daughter when he divorced the daughter's mother. The lower court rejected the father’s contention and ordered the father to pay support. The father challenged the decision. 

Issue:

Did the father already complete his obligation to support the daughter when he complied with a court support order issued in a previous divorce proceeding? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed the decision, finding that it was clear that the support provisions in the divorce decree were intended to absolve the father from further obligation to support her. The Court held that the term "permanent alimony" as used in the decree of the Georgia court meant a final provision for the minor child was shown. The Court ruled that the father had fulfilled the duty that he owed the daughter by the law of his domicile and the judgment of its court. The Court also held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause applied to an unalterable decree of alimony for a minor child. The Court also found that Georgia law did not permit the daughter to bring her own action because she did not have a vested property interest even though she was not served or involved in the divorce support decree.