## Facts

- Marjorie Lehman, facing difficulties caring for her three sons, voluntarily placed them in the legal custody of Lycoming County Children’s Services Agency, which placed them in foster homes.
- Lehman visited the children regularly but did not seek their return for several years.
- Pennsylvania courts later terminated Lehman’s parental rights for parental incapacity; the termination was affirmed on appeal, and further direct review was denied.
- Lehman then filed a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) on the children’s behalf, seeking to invalidate the termination statute and obtain an order transferring the children from foster care to her custody.
- The district court dismissed for lack of § 2254 “custody,” and the Third Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether children placed in foster care pursuant to a state judgment terminating parental rights are “in custody” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a).
2. Whether § 2254 authorizes federal habeas jurisdiction to collaterally attack state-court judgments involuntarily terminating parental rights.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed.
- The Court held that § 2254(a) does not confer jurisdiction to entertain habeas petitions collaterally challenging state judgments terminating parental rights.
- The children’s foster placement did not constitute “custody” for federal habeas purposes because it lacked the type of state-imposed restraint associated with habeas relief.
- The Court emphasized the need for finality and stability in child custody and adoption matters and rejected expanding habeas into routine review of state civil judgments.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a) is available only on behalf of a person “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” in violation of federal law.
- “Custody” extends beyond physical confinement, but it requires substantial restraints on liberty not shared by the public generally.
- Foster care placement and family-like custody arrangements, even when ordered or supervised by the state, do not by themselves constitute habeas “custody” under § 2254.
- Collateral federal habeas review is not a general mechanism for revisiting state civil judgments; direct appellate routes provide the ordinary means to challenge constitutional defects in such proceedings.
- Finality interests are especially weighty in child welfare decisions because ongoing collateral attacks can destabilize placements and delay permanency.

## Conclusion

The Court held that federal courts lack § 2254 habeas jurisdiction to collaterally challenge state judgments terminating parental rights because children placed in foster care under those judgments are not “in custody” for habeas purposes, and finality concerns in child welfare matters counsel against extending habeas to such cases.


Lehman v. Lycoming County Children’s Servs. Agency, 458 U.S. 502 (1982)