Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lehr v. Robertson

Supreme Court of the United States · 1983 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionParental RightsAdoptionputative father registryunwed fatherinchoate relationship

Facts

Jessica was born out of wedlock, and over two years later her mother and stepfather filed a petition to adopt her. New York had a putative father registry and also required notice to several specified categories of putative fathers, but appellant had not registered and did not fall within any statutory category entitled to notice. Although appellant later filed a paternity and visitation petition in another court, he learned of the adoption proceeding only after it was already pending, and the adoption order was entered without prior notice to him. The majority assumed for purposes of analysis that appellant was the biological father, but noted that he had never lived with the child after birth, had never supported her, and had never established a significant custodial, personal, or financial relationship with her.

Issue

Whether New York's adoption-notice scheme violated the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses by allowing the adoption of a child born out of wedlock without prior notice to a biological father who had never supported the child, rarely saw her, and had not registered or otherwise qualified for statutory notice.

Rule

The mere existence of a biological link does not by itself entitle an unwed father to the same constitutional protection as a developed parent-child relationship. When an unwed father demonstrates a full commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by coming forward to participate in the rearing of the child, his interest acquires substantial due process protection; but if he has not done so, a State may protect only his opportunity to form such a relationship through reasonable procedures such as a putative father registry. Equal protection is not violated by giving the mother greater adoption rights than a father who has never established a substantial relationship with the child, because the parents are not similarly situated.

🔒

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 Cleveland, Maya Flores gave birth to a child outside marriage. The biological father, Evan Pike, knew of the birth but for three years never lived with the child, never paid support, and never sought visitation; when Maya's husband later petitioned to adopt, Evan argued that biology alone gave him a constitutional right to prior notice.

How should a court rule on Evan's due process claim?

Explanation. The majority distinguished a mere biological connection from a developed parent-child relationship. An unwed father receives substantial due process protection when he has grasped the opportunity to develop the relationship by accepting responsibility for the child's rearing. If he has not, the State need protect only his opportunity to form such a relationship through reasonable procedures. (Derived from Lehr v. Robertson (n.d.).)