Carol Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend and Mother of L. R. and S. R. v. Jon A. Richards and Debra Kesler
The Court held that, notwithstanding the traditional exception to diversity jurisdiction prohibiting federal courts from hearing domestic relations cases, federal courts may hear money damages suits between former spouses.
504 U.S. 689 · No. 91-367 · 1991 term · Rehnquist Court
Decided Jun 15, 1992 · argued Mar 31, 1992
Civil rights · Juveniles
Majority opinion: Byron White
The voteMajority
9–09 in the majority, 0 in dissent
No dissent (9–0)
Reversed and remanded. Carol Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend and Mother of L. R. and S. R. won.
What this ruling means
Reversed and remanded: the Supreme Court overturned the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit and sent the case back to that court for further proceedings that follow the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Carol Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend and Mother of L. R. and S. R. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Won” means the Court gave that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689 (1992), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, notwithstanding the traditional exception to diversity jurisdiction prohibiting federal courts from hearing domestic relations cases, federal courts may hear money damages suits between former spouses. In Ankenbrandt, a woman, as next friend of her two daughters, sued her ex-husband and his “female companion” for abusing the children of the marriage. The mother filed suit in federal court, requesting money damages.
In the proceedings below, both the federal district court and the federal appellate court held that federal courts did not have jurisdiction to hear domestic relations cases, and that therefore, the case had to be dismissed. The Supreme Court, however, reversed. The Supreme Court held long-established precedent makes clear that federal courts do not have jurisdiction to hear domestic relations cases. However, the Supreme Court held that a civil tort suit filed by a mother against her former husband and his female companion was not a domestic relations case, and therefore, federal courts had jurisdiction to hear the case.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1991 term. Filled: the 9 in the majority. Hollow: the 0 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(9)
Byron WhiteWrote the majority opinion
John StevensWrote a concurrence
Harry BlackmunWrote a concurrence
David SouterJoined the majority
Sandra O'ConnorJoined the majority
Anthony KennedyJoined the majority
William RehnquistJoined the majority
Antonin ScaliaJoined the majority
Clarence ThomasJoined the majority
Dissent(0)
- None.
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Carol Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend and Mother of L. R. and S. R.Mother
- Respondent
- Jon A. Richards and Debra KeslerFather
- Reached the Court by
- Certiorari (the Court chose to hear it)
- Why it was taken
- Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- 28 U.S.C. § 1332
- Kind of law
- Infrequently litigated statutes
- Decided by
- Statutory construction; Federal common law
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 15, 1992DecidedDecided · Decided 9–0: reversed and remanded. Carol Ankenbrandt, As Next Friend and Mother of L. R. and S. R. won.
- Mar 31, 1992ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (certiorari). Federal appeals courts had ruled differently on the question.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the Louisiana Eastern U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
25 other argued cases since 1946 on juveniles, newest first.
- Golan v. Saada142 S. Ct. 1880Jun 15, 2022 · 142 S. Ct. 1880Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Monasky v. Taglieri140 S. Ct. 719Feb 25, 2020 · 140 S. Ct. 719Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Lozano v. Montoya Alvarez572 U.S. 1Mar 5, 2014 · 572 U.S. 1Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Jeffrey Lee Chafin, Petitioner v. Lynne Hales Chafin568 U.S. 165Feb 19, 2013 · 568 U.S. 165Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner of Social Security, Petitioner v. Karen K. Capato, on Behalf of B. N. C., et al.566 U.S. 541May 21, 2012 · 566 U.S. 541Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Timothy Mark Cameron Abbott v. Jacquelyn Vaye Abbott560 U.S. 1May 17, 2010 · 560 U.S. 1Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Jacob Winkelman, a Minor, by and Through His Parents and Legal Guardians, Jeff and Sandee Winkelman, et al. v. Parma City School District550 U.S. 516May 21, 2007 · 550 U.S. 516Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, et al. v. Guardianship Estate of Danny Keffeler et al.537 U.S. 371Feb 25, 2003 · 537 U.S. 371Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- United States v. R. L. C.503 U.S. 291Mar 24, 1992 · 503 U.S. 291Civil rights7–27–2 band
- Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, et al. v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services et al.489 U.S. 189Feb 22, 1989 · 489 U.S. 189Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Schall, Commissioner of New York City Department of Juvenile Justice v. Martin et al.467 U.S. 253Jun 4, 1984 · 467 U.S. 253Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Tuten v. United States460 U.S. 660Mar 30, 1983 · 460 U.S. 660Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Santosky et al. v. Kramer, Commissioner, Ulster County Department of Social Services, et al.455 U.S. 745Mar 24, 1982 · 455 U.S. 745Civil rights5–45–4 band
- Ralston, Warden v. Robinson454 U.S. 201Dec 2, 1981 · 454 U.S. 201Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Secretary of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania et al. v. Institutionalized Juveniles et al.442 U.S. 640Jun 20, 1979 · 442 U.S. 640Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Parham, Commissioner, Department of Human Resources of Georgia, et al. v. J.R. et al.442 U.S. 584Jun 20, 1979 · 442 U.S. 584Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Swisher, State's Attorney for Baltimore City, et al. v. Brady et al.438 U.S. 204Jun 26, 1978 · 438 U.S. 204Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Durst et al. v. United States434 U.S. 542Feb 22, 1978 · 434 U.S. 542Civil rights8–0Unanimous band
- Breed, Director, California Youth Authority v. Jones421 U.S. 519May 27, 1975 · 421 U.S. 519Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- Dorszynski v. United States418 U.S. 424Jun 26, 1974 · 418 U.S. 424Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
- McKeiver et al. v. Pennsylvania403 U.S. 528Jun 21, 1971 · 403 U.S. 528Civil rights6–36–3 band
- In re Winship397 U.S. 358Mar 31, 1970 · 397 U.S. 358Civil rights5–36–3 band
- In re Whittington391 U.S. 341May 20, 1968 · 391 U.S. 341Civil rights7–27–2 band
- In re Gault et al.Landmark · Right to counsel387 U.S. 1May 15, 1967 · 387 U.S. 1Civil rightsLandmark · Right to counsel8–18–1 band
- Kent v. United States383 U.S. 541Mar 21, 1966 · 383 U.S. 541Civil rights5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.