31:
216:
decision, as the state had never provided him a hearing to determine whether he was a fit parent, which would have occurred for a married father under similar circumstances. Mr. Stanley claimed that his lack of hearing violated (1) his
Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection and (2) Due Process.
259:
Perhaps the most important implication of the case was for custody law regarding divorce, as most states had held to the tender years doctrine, which held that mothers were better suited biologically as primary caregivers than were fathers. The few states who had yet to change the laws were in effect
219:
The case made it to the
Illinois Supreme Court, which 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
206:
case in which the Court held that the fathers of children born out of wedlock had a fundamental right to their children. Until the ruling, when the mother of a child born out of wedlock was unable to care for the child, through death or other circumstances, the child was made a ward of the state and
215:
Joan and Peter
Stanley had lived together off and on for 18 years; they had three children together. When Joan Stanley died, the state held a dependency proceeding, declared the three minor children to be wards of the state, and placed them with court appointed guardians. Peter Stanley appealed the
228:
The US Supreme Court found in favor of Mr. Stanley by 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 other categories of parents only after a hearing is held to determine their
240:
They also argued, "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
236:
In a dissenting opinion, Chief
Justice Burger and Justice Blackmun held that states had the right to draw an arbitrary distinction between wed and unwed fathers to protect the welfare of the child. They argued that Mr. Stanley had 18 years to assume the burden.
93:
The State cannot, consistently with due process requirements, merely presume that unmarried fathers in general, and petitioner, in particular, are unsuitable and neglectful parents. Parental unfitness must be established on the basis of individualized
232:
The Court also held that
Illinois' denial of unwed fathers a hearing and extending it to all other parents (wed fathers, both wed and unwed mothers) violated the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.
220:
a fit parent was irrelevant. In filings with the US Supreme Court, the State of
Illinois argued that all unwed fathers are unfit parents, making it unnecessary to provide each unwed father a hearing.
366:
229:
parental fitness, and it requires proof of negligence to deem them unable to provide primary care. Thus, the same process must be applied for children born to parents outside of wedlock.
279:
72:
371:
244:
He essentially argued in favor of the tender years doctrine, which had already begun being eliminated from state statutes that determined custody after divorce.
361:
346:
336:
252:
The case was an important step for the rights of fathers and children. Until then, most states held a similar position to
Illinois: unwed fathers were
316:
341:
356:
260:
put on notice that if the
Supreme Court was supporting equal protection for unwed fathers, it would do so for divorcing fathers as well.
203:
35:
351:
317:
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/family-law/family-law-keyed-to-weisberg/alternative-families/stanley-v-illinois/
125:
283:
64:
290:
153:
117:
256:
unfit to care for their children, and their children should instead be made wards of the state.
321:
161:
141:
109:
299:
149:
129:
330:
67:
137:
191:
Powell and
Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
79:
308:
178:
White, joined by
Brennan, Stewart, Marshall; Douglas (parts I, II)
30:
207:
either placed in an orphanage or foster care or for adoption.
322:
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~adoption/archive/StanleyvIL.htm
367:
United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court
182:
174:
169:
98:
87:
59:
49:
42:
23:
8:
20:
202:, 405 U.S. 645 (1972), was a landmark
18:1972 United States Supreme Court case
7:
362:Trials regarding custody of children
372:United States men's rights case law
347:United States due process case law
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
337:United States Supreme Court cases
286:645 (1972) is available from:
29:
342:1972 in United States case law
1:
357:United States family case law
204:United States Supreme Court
388:
309:Oyez (oral argument audio)
186:Burger, joined by Blackmun
190:
103:
92:
28:
43:Argued October 19, 1971
126:William J. Brennan Jr.
45:Decided April 3, 1972
352:Legitimacy case law
276:Stanley v. Illinois
199:Stanley v. Illinois
154:Lewis F. Powell Jr.
78:92 S. Ct. 1208; 31
54:Stanley v. Illinois
24:Stanley v. Illinois
118:William O. Douglas
114:Associate Justices
195:
194:
162:William Rehnquist
142:Thurgood Marshall
379:
313:
307:
304:
298:
295:
289:
110:Warren E. Burger
99:Court membership
33:
32:
21:
387:
386:
382:
381:
380:
378:
377:
376:
327:
326:
311:
305:
302:
296:
293:
287:
271:
266:
250:
226:
213:
152:
140:
128:
83:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
385:
383:
375:
374:
369:
364:
359:
354:
349:
344:
339:
329:
328:
325:
324:
319:
314:
270:
269:External links
267:
265:
262:
249:
246:
225:
222:
212:
209:
193:
192:
188:
187:
184:
180:
179:
176:
172:
171:
167:
166:
165:
164:
150:Harry Blackmun
130:Potter Stewart
115:
112:
107:
101:
100:
96:
95:
90:
89:
85:
84:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
384:
373:
370:
368:
365:
363:
360:
358:
355:
353:
350:
348:
345:
343:
340:
338:
335:
334:
332:
323:
320:
318:
315:
310:
301:
292:
291:CourtListener
285:
281:
277:
273:
272:
268:
263:
261:
257:
255:
247:
245:
242:
238:
234:
230:
223:
221:
217:
210:
208:
205:
201:
200:
189:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:Case opinions
168:
163:
159:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
135:
131:
127:
123:
119:
116:
113:
111:
108:
106:Chief Justice
105:
104:
102:
97:
91:
86:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
275:
258:
253:
251:
243:
241:encounter."
239:
235:
231:
227:
218:
214:
198:
197:
196:
157:
145:
133:
121:
71:
53:
15:
138:Byron White
331:Categories
264:References
211:Background
248:Aftermath
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
274:Text of
254:de facto
224:Decision
175:Majority
183:Dissent
88:Holding
312:
306:
303:
300:Justia
297:
294:
288:
160:
158:·
156:
148:
146:·
144:
136:
134:·
132:
124:
122:·
120:
94:proof.
282:
284:U.S.
73:more
65:U.S.
63:405
280:405
82:551
68:645
333::
278:,
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.