LEHR V. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S.248 (1983)

LEHR v. ROBERTSON ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK NO.81-1756.Argued December 7, 1982 Decided June 27, 1983

THE INTANGIBLE FIBERS THAT CONNECT PARENT AND CHILD HAVE INFINITE VARIETY. THEY ARE WOVEN THROUGHTOUT THE FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY, PROVIDING IT WITH STRENGHT BEAUTY, AND FLEXIBILITY. IT IS SELF-EVIDENT THAT THEY ARE SUFFICIENTLY VITAL TO MERIT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION IN APPROPRIATE CASES. WE MUST CONSIDER THE BROAD FRAMEWORK THAT HAS TRADITIONALLY BEEN USED TO RESOLVED THE LEGAL PROBLEMS ARISING FROM THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP.

IN SOME CASES, HOWEVER,THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION SUPERSEDES STATE LAW AND PROVIDES EVEN GREATER PROTECTION FOR CERTAIN FORMAL FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS. IN THOSE CASES, AS IN THE STATES CASES, THE COURT HAS EMPHASIZED THE PARAMOUNT INTEREST IN THE WELFARE OF CHILDREN AND HAS NOTED THAT THE THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENTS ARE A COUNTERPART OF THE REPOSNSIBILITIES THE HAVE ASSUMED. THUS, THE "LIBERTY" OF PARENTS TO CONTROL THE EDUCATION OF THEIR CHILDREN THAT WAS VINDICATED IN MEYER V. NEBRASKA, 262 U.S. 390 (1923), AND PIERCE V. SOCIETY OF SISTERS, 268 U.S. 510 (1925), WAS DESCRIBED AS A "RIGHT, COUPLED WITH THE HIGH DUTY IN A RECOGNIZED AND PREPARE {THE CHILD} FOR ADDITIONAL OBLIGAITON. "Id., at 353. THE LINKAGE BETWEEN PARENTAL DUTY AND PARENTAL RIGHT WAS STRESSED AGAIN IN PRINCE V. MASSACHUSETTS, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944), WHEN THE COURT DECLARED IT A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE "THAT THE CUSTODY, CARE AND MUTURE OF THE CHILD RESIDE. {463 U.S. 248, 258} FIRST IN THE PARENTS, WHOSE PRIMARY FUNCITION AND FREEDOM INCLUDE PREPARATION FOR OBLIGATIONS THE STATE CAN NEITHER SUPPLY NOR HINDER." Ibid. IN THESE CASES THE COURT HAS FOUND THAT THE RELATIONSHIP OF LOVE AND DUTY IN A RECOGNIZED FAMILY UNIT IS AN INTEREST IN LIBERTY ENTITLED TO CONSTITUTION PROTECTION. SEE ALSO MOORE V. CITY OF EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S.(PLURALITY OPINION). "{S}TATE INTERVENTION TO TERMINATE {SUCH A} RELATIONSHIP...MUST BE ACCOMPLISHED BY PROCEDURES MEETING THE REQUISTITES OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE "SANTOSKY V. KRAMER, 455 U.S. 745,753 (1982)

JUSTICE STEWART CORRECTLY OBSERVE:

"EVEN IF IT BE ASSUMED THAT EACH MARRIED PARENT AFTER DIVORCE HAS SOME SUBSTANIVE DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO MAINTAIN HIS OR HER PARENTAL RELATIONSHIP, cf. SMITH v. ORGANIZATION OF FOSTER FAMILIES 431 U.S. 816,862-863 (opinion concuring in judgement), it by no means follows that each unwed parent has any such right. PARENTAL RIGHTS DO NOT SPRING FULL-BLOWN FROM THE BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD. THEY REQUIRE RELATIONSHIPS MORE ENDURING" 441 U.S. at 397 (emphasis added). 16

"BUT THE MERE EXISTENCE OF A BIOLOGICAL LINK DOES NOT MERIT EQUIVALENT CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION. THE ACTIONS OF JUDGES NEITHER CREATE NOR SEVER GENETIC BONDS. "{T}HE IMPORTANCE OF THE FAMILIAL RELATIONSHIP, TO THE INDIVIDUALS INVOLVED AND TO THE SOCIETY, STEMS FROM THE EMOTIONAL ATTACHMENTS THAT DERIVE FROM THE INTIMACY OF DAILY ASSOCIATION, AND FROM THE ROLE IT PLAYS IN PROMOT{ING} A WAY OF LIFE' THROUGH THE INSTRUCTION OF CHILDREN...AS WELL AS FROM THE FACT OF BLOOD RELATIONSHIP "SMITH v. ORGANIZATION OF FOSTOR FAMILIES FOR EQUALITY AND REFORM 431 U.S. 816, 844 (1977)(quoting Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 231-233 (1972) 17 {463 U.S. 248,262}

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE BIOLOGICAL CONNECTION IS THAT IT OFFERS THE NATURAL FATHER (parent)AN OPPPORTUNITY THAT NO OTHER MALE (person)POSSESSES TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH HIS OFFSPRING. IF HE GRASPS THAT OPORTUNITY AND ACCEPTS SOME MEASURE OF RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHILD'S FUTURE, HE MAY ENJOY THE BLESSINGS OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP AND MAKE UNIQUELY VALUABLE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE CHILD'S DEVELOPMENT.18 IF HE (she) FAILS TO DO SO, THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION WILL NOT AUTOMATICALLY COMPEL A STATE TO LISTEN TO HIS OPINION OF WHERE THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS LIE. "AS WE HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, THE EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE OF A SUBSTANTIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PARENT AND CHILD IS A RELEVANT CRITERION IN EVALUATION BOTH THE RIGHTS OF THE {463,U.S.248,267} PARENT AND THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD."

We have held that these statutes may not constitutionally be applied in that class of case where the mother and father are in fact similarly situated with regard to thir relationship with the child. In Caban v. Mohammed, 441 U.S. 380 (1979), the Court held that it violated the Equal Protection Clause to grant the mother a veto over the adoption of a 4-year-old girl and a 6-year-old boy, but not to grant a veto to their father, who had admitted paternity and had participated in the rearing of the children. The Court made it clear, however, that if the father had not "come forward to participate in the rearing of his child, nothing in the Equal Protection Clause (would) preclud{e} the State from withholding him the privilege of vetoing the adopting of that child." Id, at 392.

MOORE v. EAST CLEVELAND, 431 U.S. 494 (1977)

Ours is by no means a tradition limited to respect for the bonds uniting the members of the nuclear family. The tradition of uncles, aunts, cousins, and especially grandparents sharing a household along with parents and children has roots equally venerable and equally deserving of constitutional recognition.14 Over the years millions [431 U.S. 494, 505] of our citizens have grown up in just such an environment, and most, surely, have profited from it. Even if conditions of modern society have brought about a decline in extended family households, they have not erased the accumulated wisdom of civilization, gained over the centuries and honored throughout our history, that supports a larger conception of the family. Out of choice, necessity, or a sense of family responsibility, it has been common for close relatives to draw together and participate in the duties and the satisfactions of a common home. Decisions concerning child rearing, which Yoder, Meyer, Pierce and other cases have recognized as entitled to constitutional protection, long have been shared with grandparents or other relatives who occupy the same household - indeed who may take on major responsibility for the rearing of the children.15 Especially in times of adversity, such as the death of a spouse or economic need, the broader family has tended to come together for mutual sustenance and to maintain or rebuild a secure home life. This is apparently what happened here.16

Although any of the forms of child maltreatment may be found separately, they often occur in combination. Emotional abuse is almost always present when other forms are identified.