## Facts

- Tammy L. Lemley, an Ohio resident, gave birth to a son in January 1981; the child’s father sought to place the child for adoption.
- In early May 1981, Lemley (then a minor) and the father met with Ohio attorneys about relinquishment and adoption paperwork; Lemley initially refused to sign but returned the next day and executed papers relinquishing the child to the attorneys.
- The same day, the child was delivered to Gene and Anna Barr in Huntington, West Virginia.
- After Lemley turned eighteen, the attorneys obtained additional signatures from her in West Virginia in exchange for $400.
- Lemley’s parents promptly demanded the child’s return, asserting Lemley’s minority and defects in the consent process; the attorneys declined to assist and refused to identify the child’s custodians.
- Lemley and her parents filed an Ohio habeas corpus action; the Ohio court ruled the placement illegal under Ohio law and ordered the child returned, and that result was later affirmed on appeal.
- While the Ohio litigation was pending and with knowledge of it, the Barrs obtained a West Virginia adoption decree in November 1981.
- After learning the Barrs’ identity, Lemley filed a West Virginia habeas corpus action seeking return of the child in accordance with the Ohio judgment; the West Virginia circuit court denied relief and refused to vacate the adoption.

## Issues

1. Whether West Virginia was required by full faith and credit or comity to enforce the Ohio habeas corpus judgment ordering the child’s return, despite an intervening West Virginia adoption decree.
2. Whether principles reflected in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act required a West Virginia best-interests hearing before changing custody and disrupting an established adoptive placement.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia reversed the circuit court.
- The court held that the Ohio judgment could not be applied mechanically to compel immediate transfer of custody where a West Virginia adoption decree and an established custodial home existed.
- The court required further proceedings that include a best-interests determination before deciding whether the child should be removed from the Barrs and returned to Lemley.

## Legal Principles

- In interstate custody/adoption conflicts, full faith and credit and comity considerations are tempered by the child’s welfare.
- A foreign judgment ordering a child’s return must be given substantial weight, but it does not eliminate the forum court’s responsibility to assess the child’s best interests when an in-state adoption decree and current custodial placement are present.
- Consistent with UCCJA-oriented custody policy, a court should conduct a best-interests hearing before depriving adoptive parents of custody in favor of enforcing an out-of-state order.

## Conclusion

The court required that enforcement of an out-of-state return order be reconciled with an existing West Virginia adoption and the child’s current circumstances by conducting a best-interests hearing before any custody transfer.


Lemley v. Barr, 343 S.E.2d 101 (W. Va. 1986)