Full case name Stanley v. Illinois End date April 3, 1972 | Citations 405 U.S. 645 (more) Location United States of America | |
Majority White, joined by Brennan, Stewart, Marshall; Douglas (parts I, II) Dissent Burger, joined by Blackmun Similar Miller v. Jenkins, Baby Richard case, Mortara case | ||
Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the fathers of children born out of wedlock had a fundamental right to their children. Up until this ruling, when the mother of a child born out of wedlock was unable to care for the child, either through death or other circumstances, the child was made a ward of the state and placed in either an orphanage, foster care, or given up for adoption.
Contents
Background information
Joan & Peter Stanley had lived together off and on for 18 years, having three children together. When Joan Stanley died, the state held a dependency proceeding and declared the three minor children to be wards of the state, placing them with court appointed guardians. Peter Stanley appealed this decision, as the state had never provided him a hearing to determine whether he was a fit parent, as would have happened for a married father under similar circumstances. Mr. Stanley claimed that this violated his Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection.
The Case at the Illinois Supreme Court
The case made it to the Illinois Supreme Court, who ruled that while there had been no determination of his fitness as a parent, the state was nonetheless justified in depriving him of parental rights based on the sole fact that he had not been married to the mother. Whether or not Mr. Stanley was a fit parent was irrelevant. In filings with the United States Supreme Court, the State of Illinois argued that all unwed fathers are unfit parents, making it unnecessary to provide each unwed father a hearing.
U.S. Supreme Court
The United States Supreme Court found in favor of Mr. Stanley, arguing that, as a matter of due process, unwed fathers are guaranteed the same rights as married or divorced fathers. The State assumes custody of children involving these other categories of parents only after a hearing is held to determine their parental fitness, requiring proof of negligence to deem them unable to provide primary care, thus the same process must be applied in the case of children born to parents outside of wedlock.
In the dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Burger & Justice Blackmun hold that it was within the States right to draw an arbitrary distinction between wed unwed fathers, in their scheme to protect the welfare of the child. They argued that in this case, Mr. Stanley had 18 years to assume this burden.
Further, the Chief Justice argued that
"...I believe that a State is fully justified in concluding, on the basis of common human experience, that the biological role of the mother in carrying and nursing an infant creates stronger bonds between her and the child than the bonds resulting from the male’s often casual encounter."
essentially arguing in favor of the 'tender years' doctrine, which had already begun being eliminated from state statutes for determining custody after divorce.
Implications
This case was an important step for the rights of fathers and children. Until this point, most states held a similar position to Illinois, that unwed fathers were de facto unfit to care for their children, and that the children should instead be made wards of the state. While this time frame is often associated with the movement for female gender equality, the struggle of fathers to gain equal protection is far less publicized. This was the first U.S. Supreme Court case that declared fathers were guaranteed equal protection. Perhaps the most important implication was for custody law regarding divorce, as most states previously held to the 'tender years' doctrine that mothers were biologically better suited as primary caregivers than were fathers. The few states who had yet to change these laws were in effect put on notice that, if the SCOTUS was supporting equal protection for unwed fathers, they surely would for divorcing fathers as well.