Santosky v. Kramer

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Family Law

455 U.S. 745 (1982)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawtermination of parental rightsDue Process ClauseFourteenth Amendmentparental rightsterminationclear and convincing evidencepreponderance of the evidence

Facts

Under New York law, the State could terminate parental rights upon a finding of "permanent neglect" proved by a fair preponderance of the evidence. Respondent social services officials petitioned to terminate the Santoskys' rights in their three children, and the Family Court found permanent neglect under that standard after concluding the agency had made diligent efforts and the parents had failed adequately to plan for the children's future. The court then terminated parental rights at a dispositional hearing. Petitioners challenged only the constitutionality of the preponderance standard.

Issue

Does the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit a State to terminate the rights of parents in their natural child upon proof of permanent neglect by only a fair preponderance of the evidence? Or must the State satisfy a higher burden of proof before severing the parent-child relationship?

Rule

Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires the State to support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. The constitutionality of a burden of proof in such proceedings is determined by balancing the private interests affected, the risk of error under the challenged procedure and the value of a higher standard, and the governmental interests involved.

🔒

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 county family services agency petitions to terminate Lena Ortiz's parental rights to her son after he has been in agency custody for 18 months. State law permits termination at the factfinding hearing if the judge finds neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, followed by a separate best-interests hearing.

If Lena challenges the evidentiary standard on due process grounds, which result is most likely?

Explanation. At the factfinding stage of a state-initiated parental-rights termination proceeding, due process does not permit the State to rely on a mere preponderance standard. Because the parent's liberty interest in the care, custody, and management of the child is commanding, termination is final and irrevocable, and the risk of error is substantial, the State must prove its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence.