Supplemental Brief — Webb v. Webb

IN ‘CHC

an

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER ‘E24, 1980

LEAL LYNN PARI si WLOB,

Petitioner,

V

JAMES ‘THOMAS WEBS,

Respondent.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

SUPREME COU 1 I) GEORGIA

SUPPLEMENTAL BIER OF RESPONDENT -

MANLEY |. BROWN

Counsel of Record

O'Neal, Stone, Brown & Sizemore, P.A.

L901 American Federal Building

Macon, Georgia 31201

(912) 742-8981

Court-Av pointed Counsel for Kespondent

Of Counsel:

LARTHA CURRIE CHRISTIAN

Maetl, Stone, Krown & Sizemore, f’.A.

Moerican Feder.s! Buildina

licon, Georgia $1201

(9 ) 742-896]

is O; COLL

salter VF. George Sehool of La

“Ne wr University

10. Georgia Avenue

1 nh, Georgia 3120)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

BASIS FOR SUPPLEMEN’'AJ, BRIEF

EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT

APPLICABILITY OF ACT TO THIS CASI

m BASIS FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF

During oral argument the Chief Justice requested

counsel for the Respondent to submit a supplemental brief

incorporating the authorities called to the Court's attention

eviccrning the newly enacted federal "Parental Kidnaping

Prevention Act of 1980". The legislative history and eutherie

ties requested are set out below.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACT

The new Act! (sponsored by Senator Malcolm Wallop

of wyoming? and hereinafter referred to as the Wallop measure)

was signed into law by the President on December 28, 1980,

and was only a portion of a sore comprehensive Act “to amend

title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for medicare

coverage of pneumococcal vaccine and its administration.” The

layed effective dace of July 1, 1981, suggested to the Court

by petitioner is found in Section Two of the Act and provides

that "the amendment made by this Act shall take effect on, and

apply to services furnished on or after, July 1, 1981."

(urmphasis added)

The legislative history of the pneumococcal vaccine

bill, WM. R. 8406,? which became the vehicle for enactment of

the Wallop measure 145 a part of Public Law 96-611, shows that the

delayed effective date provided in Section Two of Public Law

9o-511 was the final section of H. BR. 8406, applicable only to

mm re

lnct of Dec. 28, 1980, Pub. L. 96-611, §§ 6-10.

2 S00 Pare’ :’ Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1979, S. 105:

o ot Neartng Before the Subcomm. on Criminal Justice of the

Senate Comm. on the Judiciary and the Subcomm. on Child and Human

Development of the Senate Comm. on Labor and Human Resources,

96th Cong., 2d Sess. 133 (1980) (Testimony of Professor Russell

M. Coombs) (hereinafter cited as Senate Joint Hearing).

3n. R. 8406, 96th Cono., 24 Sessa. (1980).

‘Section One, until che Wallo{ measure and various ot ver pro-

visions, none o* them dealing with pneumococca] vaccine, were

added to the bill on the Senate floor, as new Sections Three

th -ough Eleven. 4 Tiey were added without discussion of

the applicability of Section Two to the new sections.> The

legislative intent that Section Two would Gelay the effectiveness

of Section One but rot of Sections Three through Eleven is shown

also by the fact that Sections 5ic) and ll(a) of Public Law

96-611 specify effective dates for various provisions of

Sections Five and Eleven, yet Section Two provides no exceptions

for them. °

The legislative history of the other bills in which

the Wallop measure was processed points to the same conclusion.

Each time that a bill containing the Wallop »easure also

contained a generally delayed effective date, the legislative

history of the bill suggests either inattention to the specific

question of whether the effectiveness of the Wallop measure

siiould be delayed or an intent to exempt the Wallop reassure

trom the general delay. The first such occasion was January

25 and 30, 1978, when the Wallop measure vas added to the

criminal code bill on the Senate floor without discussion of

whether the delayed effective date of that bill would be appli-

cable to the portions of tne Wallop measure that would create

no new crime,’ The se.viid time was on January 17, 1980, when

the Senate Judiciary Committee renorted another criminal code

bill, specifically excepted the pertinent sections of the Wallop

measure from the general provision delaying the effective date

126 Cong. Rec. S. 16498, 16504-0868 (daily ec. Sec. 23,

1980).

Act of Dec. 28, 1990, Pub. L. 96-611, §§ 2. Sic). Abfei.

"24 Cong. Rec. S. 860 (daily ed. Jan. 30, 1978):

124 Cong. Rec. S. 498-503 (daily ed. Jan. 25, 1978).

of the Act, and provided instead that they would take effect

on October 1, 1980, or at enactment (which was not expected to

occur for at least several months), whichever occurred later.®

The third time was on September 25, 1980, when the House

Judiciary Committee reported a criminal code bill with a delayed

effective date and without any discussion of the applicability

of the delay to the Wallop measure.”

Those three criminal code bills were extremely long

an! complex, and in such contexts inattention to the applicabi-

‘ity of delayed ette: tive dates to the Wallop measure is not

surprising. There is a marked contrast between those bills

and the occasions on which the Wallop measure was processed

as an individual bill or as part of another vehicle shorter

and more manageable than the criminal code tills.

No delay in the effectiveness of the Wallop measure

was provided when it was introduced by Senator Wallop as an

individual bill (s. 105),29 when very similar individual bills

L< , 13

‘m. Rs 129911 3654 and 729} ) were introduced in the House,

S. 1722, 96th Cong., ist Sess. 107-08, 335, 340-42,

355-56 (Jan. 17, 1980); S$. Rep. No. 96-553, 96th Cong., lst

Sess. 583-87, 1217, 1253-55, 1260-61, 1263, 1269 (Jan. 17, 1980).

-hat exception was created by the Senate committee at the sug-

yestion of Professor Russel] M. Coombs. Parental Kidnaping

Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Crime of the House Ccmm. on the

Judiciary, 96th Conj. 2d Sess., Serial No. 73, at 132 ot sea:

ry

and n. (1980) (statement of Professor Russell M. Coomb

(hereinafter cited as House Parental Kidnaping Hearing).

9

H. R. 6915, 96th Cong., 2d Sesw. 460-63 (Sep. 25, 1980);

H. R. Rep. No. 96-1396, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 638-40 (Sep. 25,°

1980).

105 105, 96th Cong., Ist Sess. (1979); 125 Cong. Rec.

S. 372-95 (daily ed. 22" 23, 1979).

Als. R. 1290, 96th Cong., lst Sess., 125 Cong. kec.

H227 (daily ed. Jan. 23, 1979).

124, R. 3654, 96th Cona., Ist Sess., 125 Conq. Pec.

H2264 (daily ed. Apr. 23, 1979).

My. R. 7291, 96th Cong., 2d Sess., 126 Cong. Rec. H3386

(daily ed. May 7, 1930).

_when the Wallop measure was added to the domestic vivlence bill

(H. R. 2977) on the Senate floor on August 25, 1980, /4 when

H. R. 2977 passed the Senate on September 4, 1980,/° when the

S ‘ill was apr cred by the conference committee on September

25, i980, +® or when the House approved the conference report?’

on October l, 1980.29

S$. 3259, a bankruptcy bill containing the Wallop

measure, as introduced on December 9, 1980, and passed by the

Senate the same day, specified a delayed effective date for

certain sections on other subjects but provided for no delay

in the effectiveness of the Wallop measure.-°

In the five sets of Senate and House hearings held

in 1977, 1978, 1979, and 1980 when testimony concerning the

Wallop measure was received, not once did any witness, or any

of the various Senators and Representatives who expressed

opinions concerning the measure, suggest a delay in the effec-

tiveness of the previsions that created no new federal crime. 2°

a -_—_———- a

14) 36 Cong. Rec. $11455, 11465-69, 11475, 11483-99

(daily ed. Aug. 25, 1980).

15

126 Cong. Rec. $12051-52, 12055-56, 12061, 12066

(daily ed. Sep. 4, i180).

16), R. Rep. No. 96-1491, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. (1980).

AT 96 Cong. Rec. H9763-75 (daily ed. Sep. 25, 1980).

18126 Cong. Rec. H10400-08 (daily ed. Oct. 1, 1980).

19

S. 3259, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 118-31, 156 (1980);

126 Cong. Rec. $15943-45, 15960 (daily ed. Dec. 9, 1980).

*fouse Parental Kidnaping licaring; Senate Joint Hearing;

Addendum, Farental Kidnaping Prevention on age of of sett S. 105:

Joint Hearing Before the Sybcomm. on » Criminal | Justice ce of the

Senate Comm. on the _udictary and the por and fysan “on Child ld and n@d Human

estion 0

Development of the Sen nate Comm. on “Labo n Resources,

96th Cong., 2d Sess. 1-72 (1980) (qu Hg rles

Mec. Mathias, Jr., and reply of Professor Russell M. Coombs);

Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws: Hearings Before the seaeee,

Corm, on the Judiciary, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., Part XIV, at

10626-37, 10640, 10669-74 (1979); Parental Kidnaping 1979: :

Hearings Before the Sube . on Child and Human Development

tae Tabor and fst

the censte Comm. and Labor and Human Resources, 96th Cong.,

e:s. (Apr. 17, 1979); Legi islation to Revise and Recodify Federal

Criminal Laws: Hesrings on i. H.R. “6869 Before the Subcoma. on

Cr? minal Justice on the House Comm. on the ne Judiciary, 95th Cong.,

Te and 24 Sess. Corial NO. 52, Parts 1-3, at “at 195-99, 399-409,

720-35, 1002-31, "1314-15, 2561-63, 2729-30, 2807-10, 2816- 2c,

2848-50, 2871-75 (1977-78).

o4<

On the only occasion during the hearings when the effective date

of those provisions was specifically discussed, Professor

Russell M. Coombs informed the House Subcommittee on Crime that

the Senate Judiciary Committee had at his suggestion excepted

the civil provisiors of the Wallop measure from the general

delay of the effective date of the then-pending Senate criminal

code bill, and described that treatment of the matter as “a

major improvement” over pro.‘sions substantially delaying their

effectiveness. “2

It is especially significant that the report of the

domestic violence conference conmittee approved a version of the

Wallop measure that would have taken effect immediately upon

wieccteene. The conference committee made substantive and

unique changes in certain aspects of the Wallop measure as a

result of negotiation and compro ise between Senate and House

members of the com ittee.*? The actions of the Senate and

House in incorporating in Public Law 96-611 precisely the

language of the corference committee product, rather than any

of the other versicns of the Wallop measure, make it clear

that the intention was to enact the Wallop measure in the form

that had been agreed on by representatives of the two Houses

in the conference committee ani had been later approved by

the whole House. Indeed, when Hl. ®. 8406 was being considered

o: the House floor, ferresentative Ullman, who was managing the

bill, relied upon the identity of the version of the Wallop

measure in the bill with the iaiil Len that had been adopted by

the conference committee and later approved by the House as

‘House Parental Kidnaping Hearing at 132 et seq. and

n. 14 (Statement of Professor wussell M. Coombs).

2

See note 16 supra.

— ae

23 com are H: &. Rep. No. 96-1401, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.

(1980), with 126 Cenq. Rec. $11455, 11465-69, 11475, 11483-99

(daily ed. Sep. 25, 1980), and H. R. 6915, 96th Cong., 2d Sess.

460-63 (Sep. 25, 1980).

the reason for finding the inclusion of the Wallop measure

in H. R. 8406 to be "non-controversial in any sense.**'

The inference is very strong that both Houses intended thé

Wallop measure to ke immediately effective when enacted as part

of Public Law 96-611, just as it would have been if the

conference report had been approved by the Senate and signed

by the President.

APPLICABILITY OF ACT TO THIS CASE

Since the Act became effective subsequent to the deci-

sion of the Georgiu S"nreme Court, its applicability to this

specific case shouid not, in the first instance, be considered

25

by this Court.

Even if yplicable to this specifie case, the

impact of the Act upon the question raised in the certiorari

pecition is so greut as to render the present case of only

ae 26

isvlated significance.

The appropriate disposition for this Court to make is

to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted

and to leave the parties free to seek any further relief needed

, 7

at such time as this Act applies to them or the appropriate

provisions of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act are

utilized.

—— — a ee ee

4

126 Cong. Rec. H12500 (daily ed. Dec. 13, 1980).

“Cf. Bradley v. School Board of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696,

gu utd. 2d W76, SAS. Cee 2000 (1974).

*see Rice v. Sioux City Memorial Park Cemete. y, 349 U.S.

1u, 99 L.Ed. 897, 75 S.Cer 614 (Lost

eT earine Oral argument, Respondent called Sections 19(b)

and 20(c) (F.S.A. §61.134(2), Ga. Code Ann, §74-520(b) and

P.S.A. §61.1342(3), Ga. Code Ann. §74-521(c)) to the Court's

attention as setting forth a procedure under the Uniform Act

for acquiring personal jurisdiction over @ non-resident. This

procedure is somewhat like that found in the Uniform Reciprocal

Enforcement of Support Act of 1968, which was tacitly approved

by this Court in Kulko v. Calitornia, 436 U.S. 84, $6 L.Ed.2d

132, 98 S. Ct. 1690 (T9TBJ, “Seo especially footnotes 13 and 14.

As suggested by Justice Brennan Juring oral argument, Sections

19(b) and 20(c) would be availible to petitioner in connection

with any future litigation should she choose to use then.

RESPECTPULLY SUBMITTED,

MANLEY F. BROWN

Counsel of Record (Appointed)

O'Neal, Stone, Brown 6 Sizemore, P.A.

1001 American Federal Building

Macon, Seorgia 31201

(912) 742-898)

/ hare he 5 Ae rena. nr

aR CURRIE CHRISTIAN

O'Neal, Stone, Brown 6 Sizemore, P.A.

1001 American Federal Building

Macon, Georgia 3120]

(912) 742-8991

A b.

HN O. COLE”

Walter F. George School of Law

Mercer University

1021 Georyia Avenue

Macon, Georgia 31201

(912) 745-6811

CERTIFICATE

OF SERVICE

This is to certify that I have this day served a copy

of the foregoing Supplemental Brief of Respondent upon

Petitioner and

of same in the

vaid addressed as follows:

Edward R, fZacker

Counsel of Record

P. O. Bax

Brunswick. Georgia 2

Mary R. Carden

P. 0. Bok i337

Gainesville, Georgia 3

John M. McCabe

Legal Counsel, National

31521

Conterence

rin State

of Commissioners On Unit

645 North Michigan Avenue

Chicago, Li Jinois 6061

Harry "|. Fain

L21 South Beverly Dri

Beverly Hills, Califo:

Phyllis Gelman

National Cerne on Wo

and Family Law, Inc

799 Broadw

New York, York \OU3

Tae aft: r of Mar

seuete ,

whe

“OUNSEL OF RI

Laws

ORD FOR

attorneys for Amici Curiae by depositing a copy

United States mail with first-class postage

RESPONDENT