Santosky v. Kramer
- Decided
- February 22, 1982
- Docket
- 80-5889
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 9,761 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that due process requires finding of permanent neglect under New York law be supported by clear and convincing evidence — In Re DT (2004)
- holding that the constitution requires the State to prove the necessary factual elements by clear and convincing evidence — In Re Welfare of CB (2006)
- holding that parents have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the "care, custody and management" of their children — Florida Dept. of Children and Fam. v. Fl (2004)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under New York law, the State may terminate, over parental objection, the rights of parents in their natural child upon a finding that the child is “permanently neglected.” N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§384 — b.4.(d), 384-b.7.(a) (McKinney Supp. 1981-1982) (Soc. Serv. Law). The New York Family Court Act § 622 (McKinney 1975 and Supp. 1981-1982) (Fam. Ct. Act) requires that only a “fair preponderance of the evidence” support that finding. Thus, in New York, the factual certainty required to extinguish the parent-child relationship is no greater than that necessary to award money damages in an ordinary civil action.
Today we hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment demands more than this. Before a State may sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in [*748] their natural child, due process requires that the State support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence.
Statutes cited
Cite this
Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.