Stanley v. Illinois,
405 U.S. 645 (1972).

Facts: Joan Stanley lived with Peter Stanley (P) for some 18 years, during which time they had three children. Under Illinois law, the children of unwed fathers become wards of the state upon the death of the mother. Joan Stanley died. P's children were declared wards of the state of Illinois (D). The Illinois courts rejected P's equal protection claim. P appeals.

Issue: Is an irrebuttable statutory presumption that all unwed fathers are unfit to have custody of their children violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Rule: Unwed fathers cannot be presumed unfit to raise their children A putative father with an established relationship with his children has a liberty interest in the 'companionship, care, custody, and management of his children' and that this interest warrants protection absent a 'powerful countervailing interest' Under due process of the fourteenth amendment, a statutory scheme to determine unfitness may not 'foreclose the determinative issues of competence and care


Holding: Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.

a) It is immaterial that P might be able to regain custody of his children through guardianship or adoption proceedings. Both of these avenues, while apparently open to P, would seriously prejudice him because of his status. A wrong is not excused simply because it can be un¬done in some other way.

b) The interest of a man in the children he has sired and raised warrants great deference. The rights to conceive and raise one's children have been deemed "essential." The law has recognized these family rights even where unlegitimized by a marriage ceremony.

c) The state's interests—protection of the moral, physical, mental, and emotional welfare of the minors—are clearly legitimate concerns. But the means of effectuating them by the application of an irrebut-table presumption of unfitness on the part of unwed fathers is not constitutionally proper. Even though procedure by presumption is cheaper and administratively more convenient, it cannot stand when it rides roughshod over the important interests of parent and child. Here, the procedure operates to "dismember" P's family.

ANALYSIS: A parent is defined under that statute as a father and mother of a legitimate child Under the statute, an unwed father's claim of parental qualification is irrelevant Under our prior case law and determinations, P's interest in retaining custody of his children is cognizable and substantial Under this issue, we must determine if D's means used are constitutionally defensible Under State goals, there is no interest in separating a fit parent from his children and this is precisely what this statute does for illegitimate children We must hold that unmarried parents are entitled to a hearing before their parental rights may be terminated P was denied such a hearing and as such, the judgment ofthe Illinois Supreme Court must be overruled Reversed and remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion