Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Stanley v. Illinois

Supreme Court of the United States · 1972 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFamily LawParental RightsFourteenth AmendmentDue Process ClauseEqual Protection Clause

Facts

Peter Stanley lived intermittently with Joan Stanley for 18 years, and they had three children. When Joan died, Illinois treated the children of an unwed father as wards of the State upon the mother's death and, in a dependency proceeding, had Stanley's children declared wards and placed with court-appointed guardians. Illinois conceded that Stanley's own unfitness had never been established, but under state law his actual fitness was treated as irrelevant because he had not been married to the children's mother. Married fathers and unwed mothers, by contrast, could not be deprived of their children without notice, hearing, and proof of unfitness amounting to neglect.

Issue

May a State, consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment, presume all unwed fathers unfit and take their children from them in a dependency proceeding without an individualized hearing on parental fitness, while affording such hearings to other parents? More specifically, did Illinois deny Stanley due process and equal protection by removing his children based solely on his status as an unwed father?

Rule

When the State seeks to remove children from a parent's custody, due process requires a hearing on parental fitness before removal where fitness is the determinative issue. A State may not rely on a conclusive presumption that all unwed fathers are unfit when some are fit, and denying unwed fathers the hearing afforded to other parents violates equal protection.

🔒

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, Maya Ortiz dies suddenly, leaving behind her eight-year-old son, Leo. Leo has lived for years with Maya and Devin Cole, his biological father, but a state statute provides that when an unmarried mother dies, the child is automatically placed in state custody unless the father had been married to the mother, and no hearing on the father's fitness is held before removal.

If Devin challenges the removal, what is the strongest constitutional argument under the controlling rule?

Explanation. The controlling rule is that when the State seeks to remove children from a parent and parental fitness is the determinative issue, due process requires a hearing on fitness before removal. A father's interest in the companionship, care, custody, and management of his child is a substantial liberty interest. The State may not bypass that inquiry by treating the father's actual fitness as irrelevant. (Derived from Stanley v. Illinois (n.d.).)