In the Yarborough v. Yarborough case of 1933, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a father's duty to support his minor children is not enforceable by federal courts unless it violates a specific federal law or constitutional provision. The case involved Mrs. Yarborough who had been granted custody of her three children after divorcing Mr. Yarborough in Texas and was also awarded child support payments which Mr.Yarborough failed to make consistently leading to arrears amounting up to $7,500 at one point. Mrs.Yaborough then filed suit against him in Georgia where he resided but lost as Georgia did not recognize such suits from other states under its laws at that time prompting her appeal to the Supreme Court arguing violation of Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV Section I) of the Constitution which requires each state respect public acts, records and judicial proceedings from every other state.The court however held that while divorce decrees are entitled full faith and credit across states,the enforcement thereof especially with regards child support obligations falls within purview of individual state laws hence could not be enforced federally.

In the dissenting opinion for Yarborough v. Yarborough, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision that a father had no legal obligation to support his minor children if they were not in his custody. He argued that parental duty is inherent and does not cease when physical possession of the child changes hands. The justice believed this responsibility was so fundamental it should be recognized by courts even without explicit statutory mandate. Furthermore, he contended that denying such an obligation could lead to unjust outcomes where parents might evade their responsibilities simply by surrendering custody of their children. Thus, according to him, a parent’s duty towards maintenance and education of their offspring must persist irrespective of who has actual custody.