Caban v. Mohammed

Supreme Court of the United States · 1979 · Family Law

441 U.S. 380 (1979)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawunwed fathersadoptionequal protectionEqual Protection Clausegender classificationunwed mothersadoption consent

Facts

Abdiel Caban and Maria Mohammed lived together for several years and had two children, whose birth certificates identified Caban as the father. Caban lived with the children as their father and contributed to their care and support. After Mohammed left with the children and later married Kazin Mohammed, she and her husband petitioned to adopt the children, while Caban cross-petitioned. Under New York Domestic Relations Law § 111, the mother's consent was required for adoption of a child born out of wedlock, but the unwed father's consent was not, so the stepfather adoption was granted over Caban's objection.

Issue

Whether New York Domestic Relations Law § 111 violates the Equal Protection Clause by requiring the consent of an unwed mother, but not an unwed father, before adoption of their child born out of wedlock. More specifically, the question was whether that sex-based distinction was substantially related to an important state interest when the father had established a substantial relationship with the children.

Rule

Under the Equal Protection Clause, gender-based classifications must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. A state may not make an undifferentiated distinction between unwed mothers and unwed fathers in adoption consent when the father has established a substantial relationship with the child and admitted paternity, absent a showing that the sex-based distinction substantially furthers the state's asserted interests.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, a statute requires the consent of an unmarried mother before her 9-year-old child may be adopted, but never requires the consent of an unmarried father. Jordan Pike admitted paternity at birth, appears on the birth certificate, and lived with his daughter in Cleveland for six years while helping raise and support her. After the mother marries someone else, she and her spouse seek adoption over Jordan's objection.

Jordan challenges the statute under the Equal Protection Clause. What is the strongest argument that the statute is unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority held that gender-based distinctions must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to those objectives. A blanket rule giving only unwed mothers consent power is unconstitutional as applied where the father has admitted paternity and established a substantial relationship with an older child. The Court rejected an inflexible assumption that maternal and paternal roles are always different in importance.