Lehr v. Robertson
463 U.S. 248(1983)



Procedure: On writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of New York, appellant putative father sought review of an order affirming the dismissal of the father's paternity petition and entering an order of adoption in favor of appellees, mother and stepfather. The putative father claimed a right to notice and an opportunity to be heard pursuant to the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Facts: Jessica M. was bom out of wedlock in 1976. Her mother Lorraine Robertson marred Richard Robertson eight months after Jessica's birth. "When Jessica was two years old, the Robertson's (P) filed a petition of adoption in the family court in Ulster County in New York. The court heard from the Department of Social Services and entered an order of adoption. Lehr (D) who was the father ofthe child opposed the order as he being Jessica's putative father was not given advance notice ofthe adoption proceeding. The State maintained a putative register for fathers but D was not entered onto mat registry. New York law also has provisions for notice of several other classes of fathers but D was not a member of any of those classes. D had lived with the mother prior to the birth and visited her in the hospital during the birth but his name does not appear on the birth certificate. D did not live with the mother and child after the birth, has never provided mem with any financial support, and has never offered to marry the mother. One month after the adoption, D filed a visitation and paternity petition and asked for a determination of paternity, an order of support, and reasonable visitation privileges with Jessica. D men learned for the first time mat an adoption proceeding was pending and men learned mat the judge had also signed the adoption order earlier the same day. The judge stated mat he was aware ofthe pending suit filed by D but was not aware mat he had to give D any type of notice regarding the adoption proceeding. D's lawsuit was dismissed as the order of adoption severed his rights. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Issues:
1.) Is a statute that provides notice in adoption proceedings to only those putative fathers who have conformed to the statutory requirements unconstitutional because it does not adequately protect the natural relationship between parent and child?
2) Is such a statute unconstitutional because it draws a distinction between the rights of mothers and the rights of fathers?

Holding: No. No. The parent-child relationship of unwed fathers is constitutionally protected in appropriate cases if it is a developed relationship. The mere existence of a biological link does not merit equivalent constitutional protection. Thus, unwed fathers must have adequate opportunity to form such a relation-ship.

New York's statutory scheme adequately protects that opportunity. P did not comply with any of the provisions. P's constitutional rights are not offended if the family court strictly complies with the statutory scheme.

Analysis: The putative father lived with the mother before the birth of a daughter, who was born out of wedlock. The putative father failed to enter his name in the State of New York's "putative father registry," which would have triggered notice to him of pending adoption proceedings. The Supreme Court found that he never had any significant custodial, personal, or financial relationship with the child and that he waited two years to establish a legal tie. The Court held that the State of New York adequately protected the putative father's inchoate interest in establishing a relationship with his daughter through the provision of laws authorizing formal marriage, through its statutory adoption scheme, and through the putative father registry. Further, it concluded that the Equal Protection Clause did not prevent a state from according two parents different legal rights where one had a continuous custodial responsibility for the child, while the other never established a relationship. In that neither the Due Process Clause or the Equal Protection Clause was found to support the putative father's claims, the judgment of the New York Court of Appeals was affirmed.