Summary
A. Family and Parental Rights The Court has long recognized the importance of family and the robust nature of parental rights.2 The Court explained in Meyer v. Nebraska that the Constitution protects the right of the individual to marry, establish a home and bring up children,3 and in Prince v. Massachusetts that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents. At issue in Rivera v. Minnich was the standard of proof required to establish paternity.11 Pennsylvania had imposed a preponderance of the evidence standard in paternity cases.12 The law was challenged on the ground that a clear and convincing standard should instead have been used.13 The Court rejected the challenge, denying an equivalence between the State's imposition of the legal obligations accompanying a biological relationship between parent and child and the State's termination of a fully existing parent-child relationship.
See the full content of this document
Extract
The Often Illusory Protections of 'Biology Plus:' On the Supreme Court's Parental Rights Jurisprudence
Over the past several decades, state supreme courts have been forced to analyze the degree to which the United States Constitution protects the parental rights of unwed fathers. Two very different interpretations of the relevant jurisprudence have been offered. One suggests that an unwed father will retain his parental rights as long as he does not culpably act or fail to act in a way which deprives him of his rights, while the other suggests that an unwed father will acquire parental rights only if he affirmatively avails himself of the opportunity to establish a relationship with his child. The difference between these two interpretations has sometimes determined whether an individual could block the adoption of his child. Regrettably, the United States Supreme Court has not clearly articulated the conditions under which an unwed father's parental rights are protected, which at least partially explains why the state supreme courts have offered such widely varying interpretations of the relevant jurisprudence.
Part I of this article discusses the United States Supreme Court jurisprudence in this area, arguing that although the Court has left many questions unanswered, the prevailing interpretation of that jurisprudence neither captures what the Court has said nor what it has implied. Part II of this article discusses several state court cases in which unwed fathers attempted to block adoptions of their non-marital children. While some of the protections for non-marital fathers created by the state courts are wise and likely to prevent unfairness and injustice, these protections are not demanded by the Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. The article concludes that the best understanding of the current jurisprudence is that the constitutional protections are much less robust than currently thought, and offers some modest suggestions about the protections of the rights of unwed fathers that might be created by statute.I. THE PARENTAL RIGHTS OF UNWED FATHERSThe United States Supreme Court has long recognized that parental rights involve very important interests that are afforded constitutional protection. However, the Court's jurisprudence with respect to the rights of non-marital fathers has been inconsistent. Thus, while the Court has recognized that unwed fathers wishing to maintain relationships with their children are afforded some constitutional protection, the Court has offered seemingly contradictory analyses of when that protection will be offered and what will suffice to overcome it. By offering these inconsistent analyses, the Court provides too little guidance1 and virtually guarantees that relevantly similar cases will receive inconsistent treatment in lower courts.A. Family and Parental RightsThe Court has long recognized the importance of family and the robust nature of parental rights.2 The Court explained in Meyer v. Nebraska that the Constitution protects the right of the individual to "marry, establish a home and bring up children,"3 and in Prince v. Massachusetts that "the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the parents."4 Within broad constraints, parents have the right and duty to raise their children in the way they believe proper, since the "child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations."5In Santosky v. Kramer, the Court explained that the "fundamental liberty interest of natural parents in the care, custody, and management of their child does not evaporate simply because they have not been model parents or have lost temporary custody of their child to the State," and that "parents retain a vital interest in preventing the irretrievable destruction of their family life."6 Due to the great stakes involved,7 safeguards against the state are necessary in parental rights terminations. For example, parental rights cannot be terminated absent "clear and convincing evidence" that the state's allegations of improper care are true.8In Troxel v. Granville, the Court reaffirmed the importance of parental rights and that "the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected."9 The Court noted that "a parent's interests in the nurture, upbringing, companionship, care, and custody of children are generally protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."10B. The Differing Standards of Proof for Establishing PaternityWhile the Court has recognized that established parental rights can only be terminated upon a significant showing by the state, the Court has not required the same sort of showing to establish parentage. At issue in Rivera v. Minnich was the standard of proof required to establish paternity.11 Pennsylvania had imposed a preponderance of the evidence standard in paternity cases.12 The law was challenged on the...See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
